Produced by Jon Ingram, Richard Hulse and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │                                                                │
   │                      Transcriber’s Notes                       │
   │                                                                │
   │                                                                │
   │  Punctuation has been standardized.                            │
   │                                                                │
   │  The Table of Contents has been updated to agree with the      │
   │  headings and subheadings of the text.                         │
   │                                                                │
   │  The † symbol next to a date was not defined in the text. It   │
   │  appears to mean approximate year of death.                    │
   │                                                                │
   │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.      │
   │                                                                │
   │  Non-printable characteristics have been given the following   │
   │  transliteration:                                              │
   │      Italic text: --> _text_                                   │
   │        bold text: --> =text=.                                  │
   │                                                                │
   │  Italics have been dropped on leading alpha characters (a. b.  │
   │  c.) to improved readability.                                  │
   │                                                                │
   │  This book was written in a period when many words had         │
   │  not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have     │
   │  multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in   │
   │  the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated     │
   │  with a Transcriber’s Note.                                    │
   │                                                                │
   │  Many names appear with multiple spelling variations. The      │
   │  most common form used has been added in brackets following    │
   │  alternate forms to facilitate document searching.             │
   │                                                                │
   │  Latin words and quotations are regularly italicized in the    │
   │  text. Italics have been added to words missed by the printer. │
   │                                                                │
   │  Additions noted in the appendix of Volume 2 have been         │
   │  incorporated into its main text.                              │
   │                                                                │
   │  Footnotes are numbered consecutively through the 3 volumes    │
   │  and are identified in the text with a number in brackets [2]  │
   │  and have been accumulated in a single section at the end of   │
   │  the text.                                                     │
   │                                                                │
   │  Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the   │
   │  text or to provide additional information for the modern      │
   │  reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have  │
   │  been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book.  │
   │                                                                │
   └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘




                            CHURCH HISTORY.

                                   BY
                            PROFESSOR KURTZ.


      _AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION FROM LATEST REVISED EDITION BY THE_
                       REV. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.


                       IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. II.


                           _SECOND EDITION._


                                London:
                         HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

                               MDCCCXCII.




                            BUTLER & TANNER,
                      THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS,
                           FROME, AND LONDON.




                               CONTENTS.

                            SECOND DIVISION.
                              (Continued.)

                            SECOND SECTION.

                 HISTORY OF THE GERMANO-ROMANIC CHURCH,
                   FROM THE 10TH TO THE 13TH CENTURY.
                             A.D. 911-1294.


                     I. The Spread of Christianity.

   § 93. MISSIONARY ENTERPRISES.
          (1) The Scandinavian Mission Field.
          (2) Denmark.
          (3) Sweden.
          (4) The Norwegians.
          (5) In the North-Western Group of Islands.
          (6) The Slavo-Magyar Mission-field.
          (7) The Poles.
          (8) Hungary.
          (9) The Wendish Races.
         (10) Pomerania.
         (11) Mission Work among the Finns and Lithuanians.
         (12) Esthonia, Livonia, and Courland.
         (13) The Prussians.
         (14) Lithuania.
         (15) The Mongolian Mission Field.
         (16) The Mission Field of Islam.

   § 94. THE CRUSADES.
          (1) The First Crusade, A.D. 1096.
          (2) The Second Crusade, A.D. 1147.
          (3) The Third Crusade, A.D. 1189.
          (4) The Fourth Crusade, A.D. 1217.
          (5) The Fifth Crusade, A.D. 1228.
          (6) The Sixth, A.D. 1248, and Seventh, A.D. 1270, Crusades.

   § 95. ISLAM AND THE JEWS IN EUROPE.
          (1) Islam in Sicily.
          (2) Islam in Spain.
          (3) The Jews in Europe.


             II.--The Hierarchy, the Clergy, and the Monks.

   § 96. THE PAPACY AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE GERMAN
         NATIONALITIES.
          (1) The Romish Pornocracy and the Emperor Otto I.,
              † A.D. 973.
          (2) The Times of Otto II., III., A.D. 973-1002.
          (3) Otto III.; Pope Sylvester II.
          (4) From Henry II. to the Synod at Sutri, A.D. 1002-1046.
          (5) Henry III. and his German Popes, A.D. 1046-1057.
          (6) The Papacy under the Control of Hildebrand,
              A.D. 1057-1078.
          (7) Gregory VII., A.D. 1073-1085.
          (8) Gregory’s Contention with Henry IV.
          (9) The Central Idea in Gregory’s Policy.
         (10) Victor III. and Urban II., A.D. 1086-1099.
         (11) Paschalis II., Gelasius II., and Calixtus II.,
              A.D. 1099-1124.
         (12) English Investiture Controversy.
         (13) The Times of Lothair III. and Conrad III.,
              A.D. 1125-1152.
         (14) The Times of Frederick I. and Henry VI.,
              A.D. 1152-1190.
         (15) Alexander III., A.D. 1159-1181.
         (16) The Times of King Henry II. and Cœlestine III.,
              A.D. 1154-1198.
         (17) Innocent III., A.D. 1198-1216.
         (18) ---- Fourth Lateran Council of A.D. 1215.
         (19) The Times of Frederick II. and his Successors,
              A.D. 1215-1268.
         (20) Innocent IV. and his Successors, A.D. 1243-1268.
         (21) The Times of the House of Anjou down to Boniface VIII.,
              A.D. 1288-1294.
         (22) Nicholas III. to Cœlestine V., A.D. 1277-1294.
         (23) Temporal Power of the Popes.

   § 97. THE CLERGY.
          (1) The Roman College of Cardinals.
          (2) The Political Importance of the Superior Clergy.
          (3) The Bishops and the Cathedral Chapter.
          (4) Endeavours to Reform the Clergy.
          (5) The Pataria of Milan.

   § 98. MONASTIC ORDERS AND INSTITUTIONS.
          (1) Offshoots of the Benedictines.
                1. The Brethren of Clugny.
                2. The Congregation of the Camaldolites.
                3. The Order of Vallombrosa.
                4. The Cistercians.
                5. The Congregation of Scottish Monasteries.
          (2) New Monkish Orders.
                1. The Order of Grammont.
                2. The Order of St. Anthony.
                3. The Order of Fontevraux.
                4. The Order of the Gilbertines.
                5. The Carthusian Order.
                6. The Premonstratensian Order.
                7. The Trinitarian Order.
                8. The Cœlestine Order.
          (3) The Beginnings of the Franciscan Order down to A.D. 1219.
          (4) The Franciscans from A.D. 1219 to A.D. 1223.
          (5) The Franciscans from A.D. 1223.
          (6) Party Divisions within the Franciscan Order.
          (7) The Dominican or Preaching Order.
          (8) The Dominican Constitutional Rules.
          (9) The Female Orders.
                1. Dominican Nuns.
                2. Nuns of St. Clara.
         (10) The other Mendicant Orders.
         (11) Penitential Brotherhoods and Tertiaries of the
              Mendicant Orders.
         (12) Working Guilds of a Monkish Order.
         (13) The Spiritual Order of Knights.
                1. The Templars.
                2. The Knights of St. John.
                3. The Order of Teutonic Knights.
                4. The Knights of the Cross.
         (14) Bridge-Brothers and Mercedarians.


            III. Theological Science and its Controversies.

   § 99. SCHOLASTICISM IN GENERAL.
          (1) Dialectic and Mysticism.
          (2) The Philosophical Basis of Dialectic Scholasticism.
          (3) The Nurseries of Scholasticism.
          (4) The Epochs of Scholasticism.
          (5) The Canon Law.
          (6) Historical Literature.

  § 100. THE _SÆCULUM OBSCURUM_: THE 10TH CENTURY.
          (1) Classical Studies--Germany; England.
          (2) ---- Italy; France.

  § 101. THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.
          (1) The Most Celebrated Schoolmen of this Century.
                1. Fulbert.
                2. Berengar of Tours.
                3. Lanfranc.
                4. Hildebert of Tours.
                5. Anselm of Canterbury.
                6. Anselm of Laon.
                7. William of Champeaux.
                8. Guibert of Nogent.
          (2) Berengar’s Eucharist Controversy, A.D. 1050-1079.
          (3) Anselm’s Controversies.

  § 102. THE TWELFTH CENTURY.
          (1) The Contest on French Soil.
                I. The Dialectic Side of the Gulf--Peter Abælard.
          (2)      ---- Abælard’s Teachings.
          (3)  II. The Mystic Side of the Gulf--St. Bernard
                   of Clairvaux.
          (4) III. Bridging the Gulf from the Side of Mysticism.
          (5)  IV. Bridging the Gulf from the Side of Dialectics.
          (6) The Controversy on German Soil.
          (7) Theologians of a Pre-eminently Biblical and
              Ecclesiastico-Practical Tendency.
                1. Alger of Liège.
                2. Rupert of Deutz.
                3. Hervæus.
          (8)   4. John of Salisbury.
                5. Walter of St. Victor.
                6. Innocent III.
          (9) Humanist Philosophers.

  § 103. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
          (1) The Writings of Aristotle and his Arabic Interpreters.
          (2) Theory of a twofold Truth.
          (3) The Appearance of the Mendicant Orders.
          (4) Distinguished Franciscan Schoolmen.
          (5) Distinguished Dominican Schoolmen--Albert the Great.
          (6) ---- Thomas Aquinas.
          (7) Reformers of the Scholastic Method--Raimund Lull.
          (8) ---- Roger Bacon.
          (9) Theologians of a Biblical and Practical Tendency.
                1. Cæsarius of Heisterbach.
                2. William Peraldus.
                3. Hugo of St. Caro.
                4. Robert of Sorbon.
                5. Raimund Martini.
         (10) Precursors of the German Speculative Mystics.


                     IV. The Church and the People.

  § 104. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.
          (1) The Liturgy and the Sermon.
          (2) Definition and Number of the Sacraments.
          (3) The Sacrament of the Altar.
          (4) Penance.
          (5) Extreme Unction.
          (6) The Sacrament of Marriage.
          (7) New Festivals.
          (8) The Veneration of Saints.
          (9) St. Ursula and her 11,000 Virgins.
         (10) Hymnology.
         (11) Church Music.
         (12) Ecclesiastical Architecture.
         (13) Free Mason Lodges.
         (14) Statuary and Painting.

  § 105. NATIONAL CUSTOMS AND THE NATIONAL LITERATURE.
          (1) Knighthood and the Peace of God.
          (2) Popular Customs.
          (3) Two Royal Saints.
          (4) Evidences of Sainthood.
                1. Stigmatization.
                2. Bilocation.
          (5) Religious Culture of the People.
          (6) The National Literature.

  § 106. CHURCH DISCIPLINE, INDULGENCES, AND ASCETICISM.
          (1) Ban and Interdict.
          (2) Indulgences.
          (3) The Church Doctrine of the Hereafter.
          (4) Flagellation.

  § 107. FEMALE MYSTICS.
          (1) Two Rhenish Prophetesses of the 12th Century.
          (2) Three Thuringian Prophetesses of the 13th Century.


          V. Heretical Opposition to Ecclesiastical Authority.

  § 108. THE PROTESTERS AGAINST THE CHURCH.
          (1) The Cathari.
          (2) ---- Their Theological Systems.
          (3) The Pasagians.
          (4) Pantheistic Heretics.
                1. Amalrich of Bena.
                2. David of Dinant.
                3. The Ortlibarians.
          (5) Apocalyptic Heretics.
          (6) Ghibelline Joachites.
          (7) Revolutionary Reformers.
                1. The Petrobrusians.
                2. Arnold of Brescia.
          (8)   3. The Pastorelles.
                4. The Apostolic Brothers.
          (9) Reforming Enthusiasts.
                1. Tanchelm.
                2. Eon de Stella.
         (10) The Waldensians.
                1. Their Origin.
         (11)   2. Their Divisions.
         (12)   3. Attempts at Catholicizing.
         (13)   4. The French Societies.
         (14)      ---- An Alternate Origin.
         (15)   5. The Lombard-German Branch.
         (16)   6. Relations between the Waldensians and Older
                   and Contemporary Sects.

  § 109. THE CHURCH AGAINST THE PROTESTERS.
          (1) The Albigensian Crusade, A.D. 1209-1229.
          (2) The Inquisition.
          (3) Conrad of Marburg and the Stedingers.


                            THIRD SECTION.

              HISTORY OF THE GERMANO-ROMANIC CHURCH IN THE
               14TH AND 15TH CENTURIES (A.D. 1294-1517).


                  I. The Hierarchy, Clergy, and Monks.

  § 110. THE PAPACY.
          (1) Boniface VIII. and Benedict XI., A.D. 1294-1304.
          (2) The Papacy during the Babylonian Exile, A.D. 1305-1377.
          (3) John XXII., A.D. 1316-1334.
          (4) Benedict XII., A.D. 1334-1342.
          (5) Innocent VI. to Gregory XI., A.D. 1352-1378.
          (6) The Papal Schism and the Council of Pisa, A.D. 1378-1410.
          (7) The Council of Constance and Martin V., A.D. 1410-1431.
          (8) Eugenius IV. and the Council of Basel, A.D. 1431-1449.
          (9) Pragmatic Sanction, A.D. 1438.
         (10) Nicholas V. to Pius II., A.D. 1447-1464.
         (11) Paul II., Sixtus IV. and Innocent VII., A.D. 1464-1492.
         (12) Alexander VI., A.D. 1492-1503.
         (13) Julius II., A.D. 1503-1513.
         (14) Leo X., A.D. 1513-1521.
         (15) Papal Claims to Sovereignty.
         (16) The Papal Curia.

  § 111. THE CLERGY.
          (1) The Moral Condition of the Clergy.
          (2) Commendator Abbots.

  § 112. MONASTIC ORDERS AND SOCIETIES.
          (1) The Benedictine Orders.
          (2) The Franciscans.
          (3) The Observants and Conventuals.
          (4) The Dominicans.
          (5) The Augustinians.
          (6) John von Staupitz.
          (7) Overthrow of the Templars.
          (8) New Orders.
                1. Hieronymites.
                2. Jesuates.
                3. Minimi.
                4. Nuns of St. Bridget.
                5. Annunciate Order.
          (9) The Brothers of the Common Life.


                        II. Theological Science.

  § 113. SCHOLASTICISM AND ITS REFORMERS.
          (1) John Duns Scotus.
          (2) Thomists and Scotists.
          (3) Nominalists and Realists.
          (4) Casuistry.
          (5) The Founder of Natural Theology--Raimund of Sabunde.
          (6) Nicholas of Cusa.
          (7) Biblical and Practical Theologians.
                1. Nicholas of Lyra.
                2. Antonine of Florence.
                3. John Trithemius.

  § 114. THE GERMAN MYSTICS.
          (1) Meister Eckhart.
          (2) Mystics of Upper Germany after Eckhart.
          (3) The Friend of God in the Uplands.
          (4) Nicholas of Basel.
          (5) Henry Suso.
          (6) Henry of Nördlingen.
          (7) Mystics of the Netherlands.
                1. John of Ruysbroek.
                2. Hendrik Mande.
                3. Gerlach Peters.
                4. Thomas à Kempis.


                    III. The Church and the People.

  § 115A. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE.
          (1) Fasts and Festivals.
          (2) Preaching.
          (3) The _Biblia Pauperum_.
          (4) The Bible in the Vernacular.
          (5) Catechisms and Prayer Books.
          (6) The Dance of Death.
          (7) Hymnology.
          (8) Church Music.
          (9) Legendary Relics.

  § 115B. NATIONAL LITERATURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL ART.
         (10) The Italian National Literature.
         (11) The German National Literature.
         (12) The Sacred Drama.
         (13) Architecture and Painting.

  § 116. POPULAR MOVEMENTS.
          (1) Two National Saints.
          (2) The Maid of Orleans, A.D. 1428-1431.
          (3) Lollards, Flagellants, and Dancers.
          (4) The Friends of God.
          (5) Pantheistic Libertine Societies.

  § 117. CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
          (1) Indulgences.
          (2) The Inquisition.
          (3) The Bull “_In Cœna Domini_.”
          (4) Prosecution of Witches.


                      IV. Attempts at Reformation.

  § 118. ATTEMPTED REFORMS IN CHURCH POLITY.
          (1) The Literary War between Imperialists and Curialists
              in the 14th Century.
          (2) ---- Continued.
          (3) Reforming Councils of the 15th Century.
          (4) Friends of Reform in France during the 15th Century.
                1. Peter d’Ailly.
                2. Jean Charlier (Gerson).
                3. Nicholas of Clemanges.
                4. Louis d’Aleman.
          (5) Friends of Reform in Germany.
                1. Henry of Langenstein.
                2. Theodorich or Dietrich of Niem.
                3. Gregory of Heimburg.
                4. Jacob of Jüterboyk [Jüterbock].
                5. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.
                6. Felix Hemmerlin.
                7. The Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund.
          (6) An Italian Apostate from the Basel Liberal
              Party--Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini.
          (7) Reforms in Church Policy in Spain.

  § 119. EVANGELICAL EFFORTS AT REFORM.
          (1) Wiclif and the Wiclifites.
          (2) Precursors of the Hussite Movement.
                1. Conrad of Waldhausen.
                2. John Milicz of Cremsier.
                3. Matthias of Janow.
          (3) John Huss of Hussinecz.
          (4) ---- Rector of the University of Prague.
          (5) ---- Council of Constance; Trial; Execution.
          (6) ---- His Teachings.
          (7) Calixtines and Taborites.
          (8) The Bohemian and Moravian Brethren.
          (9) The Waldensians.
                1. Lombard-German Waldensians.
         (9A)   2. French Waldensians.
         (10) The Dutch Reformers.
                1. John Pupper of Goch.
                2. John Ruchrath of Wesel.
                3. John Wessel.
                4. Nicholas Russ.
         (11) An Italian Reformer--Jerome Savonarola.

  § 120. THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING.
          (1) Italian Humanists.
          (2) German Humanism--University of Erfurt.
          (3) ---- Other Schools.
          (4) John Reuchlin.
          (5) _Epistolæ obscurorum virorum._
          (6) Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.
          (7) Humanism in England.
          (8) Humanism in France and Spain.
          (9) Humanism and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.




                            THIRD DIVISION.

             History of the Development of the Church under
                 Modern European Forms of Civilization.

  § 121. CHARACTER AND DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN CHURCH HISTORY.


                             FIRST SECTION.

                CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.


                          I. The Reformation.

  § 122. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE WITTENBERG REFORMATION.
          (1) Luther’s Years of Preparation.
          (2) Luther’s Theses of A.D. 1517.
          (3) Prierias, Cajetan, and Miltitz, A.D. 1518, 1519.
          (4) The Leipzig Disputation, A.D. 1519.
          (5) Philip Melanchthon.
          (6) George Spalatin.

  § 123. LUTHER’S PERIOD OF CONFLICT, A.D. 1520, 1521.
          (1) Luther’s Three Chief Reformation Writings, A.D. 1520.
          (2) The Papal Bull of Excommunication, A.D. 1520.
          (3) Erasmus, A.D. 1520.
          (4) Luther’s Controversy with Emser, A.D. 1519-1521.
          (5) The Emperor Charles V.
          (6) The Diet at Worms, A.D. 1521.
          (7) Luther at Wittenberg after the Diet.
          (8) The Wartburg Exile, A.D. 1521, 1522.
          (9) The Attitude of Frederick the Wise to the Reformation.

  § 124. DETERIORATION AND PURIFICATION OF THE WITTENBERG
         REFORMATION, A.D. 1522-1525.
          (1) The Wittenberg Fanaticism, A.D. 1521, 1522.
          (2) Franz von Sickingen, A.D. 1522, 1523.
          (3) Andrew Bodenstein of Carlstadt, A.D. 1524, 1525.
          (4) Thomas Münzer, A.D. 1523, 1524.
          (5) The Peasant War, A.D. 1524, 1525.

  § 125. FRIENDS AND FOES OF LUTHER’S DOCTRINE, A.D. 1522-1526.
          (1) Spread of Evangelical Views.
          (2) “The Sum of Holy Scripture” and its Author.
          (3) Henry VIII. and Erasmus.
          (4) Thomas Murner.
          (5) “_Onus ecclesiæ._”

  § 126. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMATION IN THE EMPIRE, A.D. 1522-1526.
          (1) The Diet at Nuremberg, A.D. 1522, 1523.
          (2) The Diet at Nuremberg, A.D. 1524.
          (3) The Convention at Regensburg, A.D. 1524.
          (4) The Evangelical Nobles, A.D. 1524.
          (5) The Torgau League, A.D. 1526.
          (6) The Diet of Spires, A.D. 1526.

  § 127. ORGANIZATION OF THE EVANGELICAL PROVINCIAL CHURCHES,
         A.D. 1526-1529.
          (1) The Organization of the Church of the Saxon
              Electorate, A.D. 1527-1529.
          (2) The Organization of the Hessian Churches,
              A.D. 1526-1528.
          (3) Organization of other German Provincial Churches,
              A.D. 1528-1530.
          (4) The Reformation in the Cities of Northern Germany,
              A.D. 1524-1531.

  § 128. MARTYRS FOR EVANGELICAL TRUTH, A.D. 1521-1529.

  § 129. LUTHER’S PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LIFE, A.D. 1523-1529.
          (1) Luther’s Literary Works.
          (2) Döllinger’s View of Luther.

  § 130. THE REFORMATION IN GERMAN SWITZERLAND, A.D. 1519-1531.
          (1) Ulrich Zwingli.
          (2) The Reformation in Zürich, A.D. 1519-1525.
          (3) Reformation in Basel, A.D. 1520-1525.
          (4) The Reformation in the other Cantons, A.D. 1520-1525.
          (5) Anabaptist Outbreak, A.D. 1525.
          (6) Disputation at Baden, A.D. 1526.
          (7) Disputation at Bern, A.D. 1528.
          (8) Complete Victory of the Reformation at Basel,
              St. Gall, and Schaffhausen, A.D. 1529.
          (9) The first Treaty of Cappel, A.D. 1529.
         (10) The Second Treaty of Cappel, A.D. 1531.

  § 131. THE SACRAMENTARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 1525-1529.

  § 132. THE PROTEST AND CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL NOBLES,
         A.D. 1527-1530.
          (1) The Pack Incident, A.D. 1527, 1528.
          (2) The Emperor’s Attitude, A.D. 1527-1529.
          (3) The Diet at Spires, A.D. 1529.
          (4) The Marburg Conference, A.D. 1529.
          (5) The Convention of Schwabach and the Landgrave Philip.
          (6) The Diet of Augsburg, A.D. 1530.
          (7) The Augsburg Confession, 25th June, A.D. 1530.
          (8) The Conclusions of the Diet of Augsburg.

  § 133. INCIDENTS OF THE YEARS A.D. 1531-1536.
          (1) The Founding of the Schmalcald League,
              A.D. 1530, 1531.
          (2) The Peace of Nuremberg, A.D. 1532.
          (3) The Evangelization of Württemberg,
              A.D. 1534, 1535.
          (4) The Reformation in Anhalt and Pomerania,
              A.D. 1532-1534.
          (5) The Reformation in Westphalia, A.D. 1532-1534.
          (6) Disturbances at Münster, A.D. 1534, 1535.
          (7) Extension of the Schmalcald league, A.D. 1536.
          (8) The Wittenberg Concordat of A.D. 1536.

  § 134. INCIDENTS OF THE YEARS A.D. 1537-1539.
          (1) The Schmalcald Articles, A.D. 1537.
          (2) The League of Nuremberg, A.D. 1538.
          (3) The Frankfort Interim, A.D. 1539.
          (4) The Reformation in Albertine Saxony, A.D. 1539.
          (5) The Reformation in Brandenburg and Neighbouring
              States, A.D. 1539.

  § 135. UNION ATTEMPTS OF A.D. 1540-1546.
          (1) The Double Marriage of the Landgrave, A.D. 1540.
          (2) The Religious Conference at Worms, A.D. 1540.
          (3) The Religious Conference at Regensburg, A.D. 1541.
          (4) The Regensburg Declaration, A.D. 1541.
          (5) The Naumburg Bishopric, A.D. 1541, 1542.
          (6) The Reformation in Brunswick and the Palatinate,
              A.D. 1542-1546.
          (7) The Reformation in the Electorate of Cologne,
              A.D. 1542-1544.
          (8) The Emperor’s Difficulties, A.D. 1543, 1544.
          (9) Diet at Spires, A.D. 1544.
         (10) Differences between the Emperor and the Protestant
              Nobles, A.D. 1545, 1546.
         (11) Luther’s Death, A.D. 1546.

  § 136. THE SCHMALCALD WAR, THE INTERIM, AND THE COUNCIL,
         A.D. 1546-1551.
          (1) Preparations for the Schmalcald War, A.D. 1546.
          (2) The Campaign on the Danube, A.D. 1546.
          (3) The Campaign on the Elbe, A.D. 1547.
          (4) The Council of Trent, A.D. 1545-1547.
          (5) The Augsburg Interim, A.D. 1548.
          (6) The Execution of the Interim.
          (7) The Leipzig or Little Interim, A.D. 1549.
          (8) The Council again at Trent, A.D. 1551.

  § 137A. MAURICE AND THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG A.D. 1550-1555.
          (1) The State of Matters in A.D. 1550.
          (2) The Elector Maurice, A.D. 1551.
          (3) The Compact of Passau, A.D. 1552.
          (4) Death of Maurice, A.D. 1553.
          (5) The Religious Peace of Augsburg, A.D. 1555.

  § 137B. GERMANY AFTER THE RELIGIOUS PEACE.
          (6) The Worms Consultation, A.D. 1557.
          (7) Second Attempt at Reformation in the Electorate
              of Cologne, A.D. 1582.
          (8) The German Emperors, A.D. 1556-1612.

  § 138. THE REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND.
          (1) Calvin’s Predecessors, A.D. 1526-1535.
          (2) Calvin before his Genevan Ministry.
          (3) Calvin’s First Ministry in Geneva, A.D. 1536-1538.
          (4) Calvin’s Second Ministry in Geneva, A.D. 1541-1564.
          (5) Calvin’s Writings.
          (6) Calvin’s Doctrine.
          (7) The Victory of Calvinism over Zwinglianism.
          (8) Calvin’s Successor in Geneva.

  § 139. THE REFORMATION IN OTHER LANDS.
          (1) Sweden.
          (2) Denmark and Norway.
          (3) Courland, Livonia, and Esthonia.
          (4) England--Henry VIII.
          (5) ---- Edward VI.
          (6) ---- Elizabeth.
          (7) Ireland.
          (8) Scotland.
          (9) ---- John Knox.
         (10) ---- Queen Mary Stuart.
         (11) ---- John Knox and Queen Mary Stuart.
         (12) The Netherlands.
         (13) France.
              ---- Francis I.
              ---- Henry II.
         (14) ---- Huguenots.
              ---- Francis II.
              ---- Charles IX.
         (15) ---- Persecution of the Huguenots.
         (16) ---- The Bloody Marriage--Massacre of St. Bartholomew.
         (17) ---- Henry III.
              ---- Henry IV.
              ---- Edict of Nantes.
         (18) Poland.
         (19) Bohemia and Moravia.
         (20) Hungary and Transylvania.
         (21) Spain.
         (22) Italy.
         (23) ---- Aonio Paleario.
         (24)   1. Bernardino Ochino.
                2. Peter Martyr Vermilius.
                3. Peter Paul Vergerius.
                4. Cœlius Secundus Curio.
                5. Galeazzo Carraccioli.
                6. Fulvia Olympia Morata.
         (25) The Protestantizing of the Waldensians.
         (26) Attempt at Protestantizing the Eastern Church.


                  II. The Churches of the Reformation.

  § 140. THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

  § 141. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
          (1) The Antinomian Controversy, A.D. 1537-1541.
          (2) The Osiander Controversy, A.D. 1549-1556.
          (3) Æpinus Controversy; Kargian Controversy.
          (4) The Philippists and their Opponents.
          (5) The Adiaphorist Controversy, A.D. 1548-1555.
          (6) The Majorist Controversy, A.D. 1551-1562.
          (7) The Synergistic Controversy, A.D. 1555-1567.
          (8) The Flacian Controversy about Original Sin,
              A.D. 1560-1575.
          (9) The Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
         (10) Cryptocalvinism in its First Stage, A.D. 1552-1574.
         (11) The Frankfort Compact, A.D. 1558, and the Naumburg
              Assembly of Princes, A.D. 1561.
         (12) The Formula of Concord, A.D. 1577.
         (13) Second Stage of Cryptocalvinism, A.D. 1586-1592.
         (14) The Huber Controversy, A.D. 1588-1595.
         (15) The Hofmann Controversy in Helmstadt, A.D. 1598.

  § 142. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE, AND SCIENCE IN THE
         LUTHERAN CHURCH.
          (1) The Ecclesiastical Constitution.
          (2) Public Worship and Art.
          (3) Church Song--Luther and early Authors.
          (4) ---- Later Authors.
          (5) Chorale Singing.
          (6) Theological Science.
          (7) German National Literature.
          (8) Missions to the Heathen.

  § 143. THE INNER DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMED CHURCH.
          (1) The Ecclesiastical Constitution.
          (2) Public Worship.
          (3) The English Puritans.
          (4) ---- The Brownists.
          (5) Theological Science.
          (6) Philosophy.
          (7) A Missionary Enterprise.

  § 144. CALVINIZING OF GERMAN LUTHERAN NATIONAL CHURCHES.
          (1) The Palatinate, A.D. 1560.
          (2) Bremen, A.D. 1562.
          (3) Anhalt, A.D. 1597.


                         III. THE DEFORMATION.

  § 145. CHARACTER OF THE DEFORMATION.

  § 146. MYSTICISM AND PANTHEISM.
          (1) Schwenkfeld and his Followers.
          (2) Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Weigel.
          (3) Franck, Thamer, and Bruno.
          (4) The Pantheistic Libertine Sects of the Spirituals.
          (5) The Familists.

  § 147. ANABAPTISM.
          (1) The Anabaptist Movement in General.
          (2) Keller’s View of Anabaptist History.
          (3) The Swiss Anabaptists.
          (4) The South German Anabaptists.
          (5) The Moravian Anabaptists.
          (6) The Venetian Anabaptists.
          (7) The older Apostles of Anabaptism in the North-West
              of Germany.
                1. Melchior Hoffmann.
                2. Melchior Ring.
          (8) Jan Matthys of Haarlem.
          (9) The Münster Catastrophe, A.D. 1534, 1535.
         (10) Menno Simons and the Mennonites.

  § 148. ANTITRINITARIANS AND UNITARIANS.
          (1) Anabaptist Antitrinitarians in Germany.
          (2) Michael Servetus.
          (3) Italian and other Antitrinitarians before Socinus.
          (4) The Two Socini and the Socinians.


                      IV. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION.

  § 149. THE INTERNAL STRENGTHENING AND REVIVAL OF THE
         CATHOLIC CHURCH.
          (1) The Popes before the Council.
          (2) The Popes of the Time of the Council.
          (3) The Popes after the Council.
          (4) Papal Infallibility.
          (5) The Prophecy of St. Malachi.
          (6) Reformation of Old Monkish Orders.
          (7) New Orders for Home Missions.
          (8) The Society of Jesus--Founding of the Order.
          (9) ---- Constitution.
         (10) ---- The Doctrinal and Moral System.
         (11) Jesuit Influence upon Worship and Superstition.
         (12) Educational Methods and Institutions of the Jesuits.
         (13) Theological Controversies.
         (14) Theological Literature.
         (15) Art and Poetry.
         (16) The Spanish Mystics.
         (17) Practical Christian life.

  § 150. FOREIGN MISSIONS.
          (1) Missions to the Heathen--East Indies and China.
          (2) ---- Japan.
          (3) ---- America.
          (4) Schismatical Churches of the East.

  § 151. ATTEMPTED REGENERATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
          (1) Attempts at Regeneration in Germany.
          (2) Throughout Europe.
          (3) Russia and the United Greeks.




                          NOTE BY TRANSLATOR.


  While the translator was working from the ninth edition of 1885,
a tenth edition had appeared during 1887, to which unfortunately his
attention was not called until quite recently. The principal additions
and alterations affecting Vol. II. occur in §§ 98, 108, 119, and 147.
On the section dealing with Anabaptism, the important changes have been
made in the text, so that § 147 precisely corresponds to its latest
and most perfect form in the original. As the printing of the volume
was then far advanced, it was impossible thus to deal with the earlier
sections, but students will find references in the Table of Contents to
the full translation in the Appendix of those passages where material
alterations have been introduced.

                                                    JOHN MACPHERSON.

  FINDHORN, _March, 1889_.




                            SECOND DIVISION.
                              (Continued.)




                            SECOND SECTION.

                 HISTORY OF THE GERMANO-ROMANIC CHURCH,
                   FROM THE 10TH TO THE 13TH CENTURY.
                             A.D. 911-1294.




                     I. The Spread of Christianity.


                     § 93. MISSIONARY ENTERPRISES.

  During this period the Christianizing of Europe was well nigh
finished. Only Lapland and Lithuania were reserved for the following
period. The method used in conversion was still the same. Besides
missionaries, warriors also extended the faith. Monasteries and
castles were the centres of the newly founded Christianity. Political
considerations and Christian princesses converted pagan princes;
their subjects followed either under violent pressure or with quiet
resignation, carrying with them, however, under the cover of a
Christian profession, much of their old heathen superstition. It
was the policy of the German emperors to make every effort to unite
the converted races under the German metropolitans, and to establish
this union. Thus the metropolitanate of Hamburg-Bremen was founded for
the Scandinavians and those of the Baltic provinces, that of Magdeburg
for the Poles and the Northern Slavs, that of Mainz for the Bohemians,
that of Passau and Salzburg for the Hungarians. But it was Rome’s
desire to emancipate them from the German clergy and the German state,
and to set them up as independent metropolitanates of a great family
of Christian nationalities recognising the pope as their spiritual
father (§ 82, 9). The Western church did now indeed make a beginning
of missionary enterprise, which extended in its range beyond Europe
to the Mongols of Asia and the Saracens of Africa, but throughout
this period it remained without any, or at least without any important,
result.

  § 93.1. =The Scandinavian Mission Field.=--The work of Ansgar
  and Rimbert (§ 80) had extended only to the frontier provinces
  of Jutland and to the trading ports of Sweden, and even the
  churches founded there had in the meantime become almost extinct.
  A renewal of the mission could not be thought of, owing to the
  robber raids of =Normans= or =Vikings=, who during the ninth
  and tenth centuries had devastated all the coasts. But it was
  just those Viking raids that in another way opened a door again
  for the entrance of missionaries into those lands. Many of the
  home-going Vikings, who had been resident for a while abroad,
  had there been converted to the Christian faith, and carried
  back the knowledge of it to their homes. In France the Norwegians
  under Rollo founded Normandy in A.D. 912. In the tenth century
  the entire northern half of England fell into the hands of the
  Danes, and finally, in A.D. 1013, the Danish King Sweyn conquered
  the whole country. Both in France and in England the incomers
  adopted the profession of Christianity, and this, owing to the
  close connection maintained with their earlier homes, led to the
  conversion of Norway and Denmark.

  § 93.2. In =Denmark=, Gorm the Old, the founder of the regular
  Danish monarchy, makes his appearance toward the end of the
  ninth century as the bitter foe of Christianity. He destroyed
  all Christian institutions, drove away all the priests, and
  ravaged the neighbouring German coasts. Then, in A.D. 934, the
  German king Henry I. undertook a war against Denmark, and obliged
  Gorm to pay tribute and to grant toleration to the Christian
  faith. Archbishop Unni of Bremen then immediately began again
  the mission work. With a great part of his clergy he entered
  Danish territory, restored the churches of Jutland, and died in
  Sweden in A.D. 936. Gorm’s son, Harald Blaatand, being defeated
  in battle by Otto I. in A.D. 965, submitted to baptism. But his
  son Sweyn Gabelbart, although he too had been baptized, headed
  the reactionary heathen party. Harald fell in battle against
  him in A.D. 986, and Sweyn now began his career as a bitter
  persecutor of the Christians. Eric of Sweden, however, formerly
  a heathen and an enemy of Christianity, drove him out in A.D. 980,
  and at the entreaty of a German embassage tolerated the Christian
  religion. After Eric’s death in A.D. 998, Sweyn returned. In
  exile his opinions had changed, and now he as actively befriended
  the Christians as before he had persecuted them. In A.D. 1013
  he conquered all England, and died there in A.D. 1014. His son
  Canute the Great, who died in A.D. 1036, united both kingdoms
  under his sceptre, and made every effort to find in the profession
  of a common Christian faith a bond of union between the two
  countries over which he ruled. In place of the German mission
  issuing from Bremen, he set on foot an English mission that had
  great success. In A.D. 1026 by means of a pilgrimage to Rome,
  prompted also by far-reaching political views, he joined the
  Danish church in the closest bonds with the ecclesiastical centre
  of Western Christendom. Denmark from this time onwards ranks as
  a thoroughly Christianized land.

  § 93.3. In =Sweden=, too, Archbishop Unni of Bremen resumed
  mission work and died there in A.D. 936. From this time the
  German mission was prosecuted uninterruptedly. It was, however,
  only in the beginning of the eleventh century, when English
  missionaries came to Sweden from Norway with Sigurd at their
  head, that real progress was made. By them the king Olaf
  Skötkonung, who died in A.D. 1024, was baptized. Olaf and
  his successor used every effort to further the interests of
  the mission, which had made considerable progress in Gothland,
  while in Swealand, with its national pagan sanctuary of Upsala,
  heathenism still continued dominant. King Inge, when he refused
  in A.D. 1080 to renounce Christianity, was pursued with stones
  by a crowd of people at Upsala. His son-in-law Blot-Sweyn led
  the pagan reaction, and sorely persecuted those who professed
  the Christian faith. After reigning for three years, he was
  slain, and Inge restored Christianity in all parts. It was,
  however, only under St. Eric, who died in A.D. 1160, that the
  Christian faith became dominant in Upper Sweden.[263]

  § 93.4. =The Norwegians= had, at a very early period, by means
  of the adventurous raids of their seafaring youth, by means of
  Christian prisoners, and also by means of intercourse with the
  Norse colonies in England and Normandy, gained some knowledge
  of Christianity. The first Christian king of Norway was Haco
  the Good (A.D. 934-961), who had received a Christian education
  at the English court. Only after he had won the fervent love
  of his people by his able government, did he venture to ask for
  the legal establishment of the Christian religion. The people,
  however, compelled him to take part in heathen sacrifices;
  and when he made the sign of the cross over the sacrificial
  cup before he drank of it, they were appeased only by his
  associating the action with Thor’s hammer. Haco could never
  forgive himself this weakness and died broken-hearted, regarding
  himself as unworthy even of Christian burial. Olaf Trygvesen
  (A.D. 995-1000), at first the ideal of a Norse Viking, then
  of a Norse king, was baptized during his last visit to England,
  and used all the powerful influences at his command, the charm
  and fascination of his personality, flattery, favour, craft,
  intimidation and cruelty, to secure the forcible introduction
  of Christianity. No foreigner was ever allowed to quit Norway
  without being persuaded or compelled by him to receive baptism.
  Those who refused, whether natives or foreigners, suffered
  severe imprisonment and in many cases were put to death. He fell
  in battle with the Danes. Olaf Haraldson the Fat, subsequently
  known as St. Olaf (A.D. 1014-1030), followed in Trygvesen’s steps.
  Without his predecessor’s fascinating manners and magnanimity,
  but prosecuting his ecclesiastical and political ends with
  greater recklessness, severity, and cruelty, he soon forfeited
  the love of his subjects. The alienated chiefs conspired with
  the Danish Canute; the whole country rose against him; he himself
  fell in battle, and Norway became a Danish province. The crushing
  yoke of the Danes, however, caused a sudden rebound of public
  feeling in regard to Olaf. The king, who was before universally
  hated, was now looked on as the martyr of national liberty and
  independence. Innumerable miracles were wrought by his bones,
  and even so early as A.D. 1031 the country unanimously proclaimed
  him a national saint. The enthusiasm over the veneration of the
  new saint increased from day to day, and with it the enthusiasm
  for the emancipation of their native country. Borne along by
  the mighty agitation, Olaf’s son, Magnus the Good, drove out the
  Danes in A.D. 1035. Olaf’s canonization, though originating in
  purely political schemes, had put the final stamp of Christianity
  upon the land. The German national privileges, however, were
  insisted upon in Norway over against the canon law down to the
  13th century.[264]

  § 93.5. =In the North-Western Group of Islands=, the Hebrides,
  the Orkneys, Shetlands, and Faröe Isles, the sparse Celtic
  population professing Christianity was, during the ninth century,
  expelled by the pagan Norse Vikings, and among these Christianity
  was first introduced by the two Norwegian Olafs. The first
  missionary attempt in =Iceland= was made in A.D. 981 by the
  Icelander Thorwald, who having been baptized in Saxony by a
  Bishop (?) Frederick, persuaded this ecclesiastic to accompany
  him to Iceland, that they might there work together for the
  conversion of his heathen fellow countrymen. During a five years’
  ministry several individuals were won, but by a decision of the
  National Council the missionaries were forced to leave the island
  in A.D. 958. Olaf Trygvesen did not readily allow an Icelander
  visiting Norway to return without having been baptized, and twice
  he sent formal expeditions for the conversion of Iceland. The
  first, sent out in A.D. 996, with Stefnin, a native of Iceland,
  at its head, had little success. The second, A.D. 997-999, was
  led by Olaf’s court chaplain Dankbrand, a Saxon. This man, at
  once warrior and priest, who when his sermons failed shrank not
  from buckling on the sword, converted many of the most powerful
  chiefs. In A.D. 1000 the Icelandic State was saved at the
  last hour from a civil war between pagans and Christians which
  threatened its very existence, by the adoption of a compromise,
  according to which all Icelanders were baptized and only
  Christian worship was publicly recognised, but idol worship
  in the homes, exposure of children, and eating of horses’ flesh
  was tolerated. But in A.D. 1016, as the result of an embassage
  of the Norwegian king Olaf Haraldson, even these last vestiges
  of paganism were wiped out.--=Greenland=, too, which had been
  discovered by a distinguished Icelander, Eric the Red, and had
  then been colonized in A.D. 985, owed its Christianity to Olaf
  Trygvesen, who in A.D. 1000 sent the son of the discoverer,
  Leif the Fortunate, with an expedition for its conversion. The
  inhabitants accepted baptism without resistance. The church
  continued to flourish there uninterruptedly for 400 years, and
  the coast districts became rich through agriculture and trade.
  But when in A.D. 1408 the newly elected bishop Andrew wished
  to take possession of his see, he found the country surrounded
  by enormous masses of ice, and could not effect a landing.
  This catastrophe, and the subsequent incursions of the Eskimos,
  seem to have led to the overthrow of the colony.--Continuation,
  § 167, 9.--Leif discovered on his expeditions a rich fertile
  land in the West, which on account of the vines growing wild
  there he called =Vineland=, and this region was subsequently
  colonized from Iceland. In the twelfth century, in order to
  confirm the colonists in the faith, a Greenland bishop Eric
  undertook a journey to that country. It lay on the east coast
  of North America, and is probably to be identified with the
  present Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

  § 93.6. =The Slavo-Magyar Mission-field.=--Even in the previous
  period a beginning had been made of the Christianizing of
  =Bohemia= (§ 79, 3). After Wratislaw’s death his heathen widow
  Drahomira administered the government in the name of her younger
  son Boleslaw. Ludmilla, with the help of the clergy and the
  Germans, wished to promote St. Wenzeslaw, the elder son, educated
  by her, but she was strangled by order of Drahomira in A.D. 927.
  Wenzeslaw, too, fell by the hand of his brother. Boleslaw now
  thought completely to root out Christianity, but was obliged,
  in consequence of the victory of Otho [Otto] I. in A.D. 950,
  to agree to the restoration of the church. His son Boleslas
  [Boleslaw] II., A.D. 967-999, contributed to its establishment
  by founding the bishopric of Prague. The pope seized the
  opportunity on the occasion of this founding of the bishopric
  to introduce the Roman ritual (A.D. 973).[265]

  § 93.7. From Bohemia the Christian faith was carried to the
  =Poles=. In A.D. 966 the Duke Micislas was persuaded by his
  wife Dubrawka, a Bohemian princess, daughter of Boleslaw I.,
  to receive baptism. His subjects were induced to follow his
  example, and the bishopric of Posen was founded. The church
  obtained a firm footing under his son, the powerful Boleslaw
  Chrobry, A.D. 992-1025, who with the consent of Otto III. freed
  the Polish church from the metropolitanate of Magdeburg, and
  gave it an archiepiscopal see of its own at Gnesen (A.D. 1000).
  He also separated the Poles from German imperial federation and
  had himself crowned king shortly before his death in A.D. 1025.
  A state of anarchy, which lasted for a year and threatened the
  overthrow of Christianity in the land, was put an end to by his
  grandson Casimir in A.D. 1039. Casimir’s grandson Boleslaw II.
  gave to the Poles a national saint by the murder in A.D. 1079
  of Bishop Stanislas [Stanislaus] of Cracow, which led to his
  excommunication and exile.

  § 93.8. Christianity was introduced into =Hungary= from
  Constantinople. A Hungarian prince Gylas received baptism
  there about A.D. 950, and returned home with a monk Hierotheus,
  consecrated bishop of the Hungarians. Connection with the Eastern
  church, however, was soon broken off, and an alliance formed
  with the Western church. After Henry I. in A.D. 933 defeated the
  Hungarians at Keuschberg, and still more decidedly after Otto I.
  in A.D. 955 had completely humbled them by the terrible slaughter
  at Lechfelde, German influence won the upper hand. The missionary
  labours of Bishop Piligrim of Passau, as well as the introduction
  of Christian foreigners, especially Germans, soon gave to
  Christianity a preponderance throughout the country over paganism.
  The mission was directly favoured by the Duke Geysa, A.D. 972-997,
  and his vigorous wife Sarolta, a daughter of the above-named
  Gylas. The Christianizing of Hungary was completed by Geysa’s
  son St. Stephen, A.D. 997-1038, who upon his marriage with
  Gisela, the sister of the Emperor Henry II., was baptized,
  a pagan reaction was put down, a constitution and laws were
  given to the country, an archbishopric was founded at Gran
  with ten suffragan bishops, the crown was put upon his head
  in A.D. 1000 by Pope Sylvester II., and Hungary was enrolled
  as an important member of the federation of European Christian
  States. Under his successors indeed paganism once more rose in
  a formidable revolt, but was finally stamped out. St. Ladislaw
  [Ladislaus], A.D. 1077-1095, rooted out its last vestiges.

  § 93.9. Among the numerous =Wendish Races= in Northern and
  North-Eastern Germany the chief tribes were the Obotrites in
  what is now Holstein and Mecklenburg, the Lutitians or Wilzians,
  between the Elbe and the Oder, the Pomeranians, from the Oder to
  the Vistula, and the Sorbi, farther south in Saxony and Lusatia.
  Henry I., A.D. 919-936, and his son Otto I., A.D. 936-973, in
  several campaigns subjected them to the German yoke, and the
  latter founded among them in A.D. 968 the archbishopric of
  Magdeburg besides several bishoprics. The passion for national
  freedom, as well as the proud contempt, illtreatment, and
  oppression of the German margraves, rendered Christianity
  peculiarly hateful to the Wends, and it was only after their
  freedom and nationality had been completely destroyed and the
  Slavic population had been outnumbered by German or Germanized
  colonists, that the Church obtained a firm footing in their
  land. A revolt of the =Obotrites= under Mistewoi in A.D. 983,
  who with the German yoke abjured also the Christian faith, led
  to the destruction of all Christian institutions. His grandson
  Gottschalk, educated as a Christian in a German monastery, but
  roused to fury by the murder of his father Udo, escaped from
  the monastery in A.D. 1032, renounced Christianity, and set on
  foot a terrible persecution of Christians and Germans. But he
  soon bitterly repented this outburst of senseless rage. Taken
  prisoner by the Germans, he escaped and took refuge in Denmark,
  but subsequently he returned and founded in A.D. 1045 a great
  Wendish empire which extended from the North Sea to the Oder. He
  now enthusiastically applied all his energy to the establishment
  of the church in his land upon a national basis, for which
  purpose Adalbert of Bremen sent him missionaries. He was himself
  frequently their interpreter and expositor. He was eminently
  successful, but the national party hated him as the friend of
  the Saxons and the church. He fell by the sword of the assassin
  in A.D. 1066, and thereupon began a terrible persecution of the
  Christians. His son Henry having been set aside, the powerful
  Ranian chief Cruco from the island of Rügen, a fanatical enemy
  of Christianity, was chosen ruler. At the instigation of Henry
  he was murdered in his own house in A.D. 1115. Henry died in
  A.D. 1127. A Danish prince Canute bought the Wendish crown from
  Lothair duke of Saxony, but was murdered in A.D. 1131. This
  brought the Wendish empire to an end. The Obotrite chief Niklot,
  who died in A.D. 1161, held his ground only in the territory of
  the Obotrites. His son Pribizlaw, the ancestor of the present
  ruling family of Mecklenburg, by adopting Christianity in
  A.D. 1164, saved to himself a part of the inheritance of his
  fathers as a vassal under the Saxon princes. All the rest
  of the land was divided by Henry the Lion among his German
  warriors, and the depopulated districts were peopled with
  German colonists.--In A.D. 1157 Albert the Bear, the founder
  of the Margravate of Brandenburg, overthrew the dominion of
  the =Lutitians= after protracted struggles and endless revolts.
  He, too, drafted numerous German colonists into the devastated
  regions.--The Christianizing of the =Sorbi= was an easier task.
  After their first defeat by Henry I. in A.D. 922 and 927, they
  were never again able to regain their old freedom. Alongside
  of the mission of the sword among the Wends there was always
  carried on, more or less vigorously, the mission of the Cross.
  Among the Sorbi bishop Benno of Meissen, who died in A.D. 1107,
  wrought with special vigour, and among the Obotrites the greatest
  zeal was displayed by St. Vicelinus. He died bishop of Oldenburg
  in A.D. 1154.

  § 93.10. =Pomerania= submitted in A.D. 1121 to the duke of
  Poland, Boleslaw III., and he compelled them solemnly to promise
  that they would adopt the Christian faith. The work of conversion,
  however, appeared to be so unpromising that Boleslaw found none
  among all his clergy willing to undertake the task. At last
  in A.D. 1122, a Spanish monk Bernard offered himself. But the
  Pomeranians drove him away as a beggar who looked only to his
  own gain, for they thought, if the Christians’ God be really the
  Lord of heaven and earth He would have sent them a servant in
  keeping with His glorious majesty. Boleslaw was then convinced
  that only a man who had strong faith and a martyr’s spirit,
  united with an imposing figure, rank, and wealth, was fit for
  the work, and these qualifications he found in bishop Otto
  of Bamberg. Otto accepted the call, and during two missionary
  journeys in A.D. 1124-1128 founded the Pomeranian church.
  Following Bernard’s advice, he went through Pomerania on both
  occasions with all the pomp of episcopal dignity, with a great
  retinue and abundant stores of provisions, money, ecclesiastical
  ornaments, and presents of all kinds. He had unparalleled success,
  yet he was repeatedly well nigh obtaining the crown of martyrdom
  which he longed for. The whole Middle Ages furnishes scarcely
  an equally noble, pure, and successful example of missionary
  enterprise. None of all the missionaries of that age presents so
  harmonious a picture of firmness without obstinacy, earnestness
  without harshness, gentleness without weakness, enthusiasm
  without fanaticism. And never have the German and Slavic
  nationalities so nobly, successfully, and faithfully practised
  mutual forbearance as did the Pomeranians and their apostle.--The
  last stronghold of Wendish paganism was the island of =Rügen=.
  It fell when in A.D. 1168 the Danish king Waldemar I. with the
  Christian Pomeranian and Obotrite chiefs conquered the island
  and destroyed its heathen sanctuaries.

  § 93.11. =Mission Work among the Finns and Lithuanians.=--St. Eric
  of Sweden in A.D. 1157 introduced Christianity into Finland by
  conquest and compulsion. Bishop Henry of Upsala, the apostle of
  the Finns, who accompanied him, suffered a martyr’s death in the
  following year. The Finns detested Christianity as heartily as
  they did the rule of the conquering Swedes, who introduced it,
  and it was only after the third campaign which Thorkel Canutson
  undertook in A.D. 1293 against Finland, that the Swedish rule
  and the Christian faith were established, and under a vigorous
  yet moderate and wise government the Finns were reconciled to
  both.--=Lapland= came under the rule of Sweden in A.D. 1279, and
  thereafter Christianity gradually found entrance. In A.D. 1335
  bishop Hemming of Upsala consecrated the first church at Tornea.

  § 93.12. =Esthonia, Livonia, and Courland= were inhabited by
  peoples belonging to the Finnic stem. Yet even in early times
  people from the south and east belonging to the Lithuanian stem
  had settled in Livonia and Courland, Letts and Lettgalls in
  Livonia, and Semgalls and Wends in Courland. The first attempts
  to introduce Christianity into these regions were made by Swedes
  and Danes, and even under the Danish king Sweyn III., Eric’s son,
  about A.D. 1048 a church was erected in Courland by Christian
  merchants, and in Esthonia the Danes not long after built the
  fortress of Lindanissa. The elevation of the bishopric of Lund
  into a metropolitanate in A.D. 1098 was projected with a regard
  to these lands. In A.D. 1171 Pope Alexander III. sent a monk,
  Fulco, to Lund to convert the heathen and to be bishop of Finland
  and Esthonia, but he seems never to have entered on his duties or
  his dignity. Abiding results were first won by German preaching
  and the German sword. In the middle of the 12th century merchants
  of Bremen and Lübeck carried on traffic with towns on the banks
  of the Dwina. A pious priest from the monastery of Segeberg in
  Holstein, called Meinhart, undertook in their company under the
  auspices of the archbishop of Bremen, Hartwig II., a missionary
  journey to those regions in A.D. 1184. He built a church at
  Üxküll on the Dwina, was recognised as bishop of the place
  in A.D. 1186, but died in A.D. 1196. His assistant Dietrich
  carried on the work of the mission in the district from Freiden
  down to Esthonia. Meinhart’s successor in the bishopric was the
  Cistercian abbot, Berthold of Loccum in Hanover. Having been
  driven away soon after his arrival, he returned with an army
  of German crusaders, and was killed in battle in A.D. 1198.
  His successor was a canon of Bremen, Albert of Buxhöwden. He
  transferred the bishop’s seat to Riga, which was built by him
  in A.D. 1201, founded in A.D. 1202, for the protection of the
  mission, the Order of the Brethren of the Sword (§ 98, 13),
  amid constant battles with Russians, Esthonians, Courlanders
  and Lithuanians erected new bishoprics in Esthonia (Dorpat),
  Oesel, and Semgallen, and effected the Christianization of
  nearly all these lands. He died in A.D. 1229. After A.D. 1219
  the Danes, whom Albert had called in to his aid, vied with him
  in the conquest and conversion of the Esthonians. Waldemar II.
  founded Revel in A.D. 1219, made it an episcopal see, and did
  all in his power to restrict the advances of the Germans. In
  this he did not succeed. The Danes, indeed, were obliged to
  quit Esthonia in A.D. 1257. After Albert’s death, however, the
  difficulties of the situation became so great that Volquin, the
  Master of the Order of the Sword, could see no hope of success
  save in the union of his order with that of the Teutonic Knights,
  shortly before established in Prussia. The union, retarded
  by Danish intrigues, was not effected until A.D. 1237, when
  a fearful slaughter of Germans by the Lithuanians had endangered
  not only the existence of the Order of the Sword but even the
  church of Livonia. Then, too, for the first time was Courland
  finally subdued and converted. It had, indeed, nominally adopted
  Christianity in A.D. 1230, but had soon after relapsed into
  paganism. Finally in A.D. 1255 Riga was raised to the rank of
  a metropolitanate, and Suerbeer, formerly archbishop of Armagh
  in Ireland, was appointed by Innocent IV. archbishop of Prussia,
  Livonia, and Esthonia, with his residence at Riga.

  § 93.13. The Old Prussians and Lithuanians also belonged to
  the Lettish stem. Adalbert, bishop of Prague, first brought the
  message of salvation to the =Prussians= between the Vistula and
  Memel, but on the very first entrance into Sameland [Samland]
  in A.D. 997 he won the martyr’s crown. This, too, was the fate
  twelve years later of the zealous Saxon monk Bruno and eighteen
  companions on the Lithuanian coast. Two hundred years passed
  before another missionary was seen in Prussia. The first was
  the Abbot Gothfried from the Polish monastery of Lukina; but in
  his case also an end was soon put to his hopefully begun work, as
  well as to that of his companion Philip, both suffering martyrdom
  in A.D. 1207. More successful and enduring was the mission work
  three years later of the Cistercian monk Christian from the
  Pomeranian monastery of Oliva, in A.D. 1209, the real apostle of
  the Prussians. He was raised to the rank of bishop in A.D. 1215,
  and died in A.D. 1245. On the model of the Livonian Order of
  the Brethren of the Sword he founded in A.D. 1225 the Order of
  the Knights of Dobrin (_Milites Christi_). In the very first
  year of their existence, however, they were reduced to the number
  of five men. In union with Conrad, Duke of Moravia, whose land
  had suffered fearfully from the inroads of the pagan Prussians,
  Christian then called in the aid of the Teutonic Knights, whose
  order had won great renown in Germany. A branch of this order
  had settled in A.D. 1228 in Culm, and so laid the foundation of
  the establishment of the order in Prussia. With the appearance
  of this order began a sixty years’ bloody conflict directed to
  the overthrow of Prussian paganism, which can be said to have
  been effected only in A.D. 1283, when the greater part of the
  Prussians had been slain after innumerable conflicts with the
  order and with crusaders from Germany, Poland, Bohemia, etc.
  Among the crowds of preachers of the gospel, mostly Dominicans,
  besides Bishop Christian and the noble papal legate William,
  bishop of Modena, the Polish Dominican Hyacinth, who died
  in A.D. 1257, a vigorous preacher of faith and repentance,
  deserves special mention. So early as A.D. 1243, William of
  Modena had sketched an ecclesiastical organization for the
  country, which divided Prussia into four dioceses, which were
  placed in A.D. 1255 under the metropolitanate of Riga.

  § 93.14. The introduction of Christianity into =Lithuania= was
  longest delayed. After Ringold had founded in A.D. 1230 a Grand
  Duchy of Lithuania, his son Mindowe endeavoured to enlarge his
  dominions by conquest. The army of the Prussian-Livonian Order,
  however, so humbled him that he sued for peace and was compelled
  to receive baptism in A.D. 1252. But no sooner had he in some
  measure regained strength than he threw off the hypocritical
  mask, and in A.D. 1260 appeared as the foe of his Christian
  neighbours. His son Wolstinik, who had remained true to the
  Christian faith, dying in A.D. 1266, reigned too short a time
  to secure an influence over his people. With him every trace
  of Christianity disappeared from Lithuania. Christians were
  again tolerated in his territories by the Grand Duke Gedimin
  (A.D. 1315-1340). Romish Dominicans and Russian priests vied
  with one another under his successor Olgerd in endeavours to
  convert the inhabitants. Olgerd himself was baptized according
  to the Greek rite, but apostatised. His son Jagello, born
  of a Christian mother, and married to the young Polish queen
  Hedwig, whose hand and crown seemed not too dearly purchased by
  submitting to baptism and undertaking to introduce Christianity
  among his people, made at last an end to heathenism in Lithuania
  in A.D. 1386. His subjects, each of whom received a woollen coat
  as a christening gift, flocked in crowds to receive baptism. The
  bishop’s residence was fixed at Wilna.

  § 93.15. =The Mongolian Mission Field.=--From the time of
  Genghis Khan, who died in A.D. 1227, the princes of the =Mongols=,
  in consistency with their principles as deists with little trace
  of religion, showed themselves equally tolerant and favourable
  to Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. The Nestorians were very
  numerous in this empire, but also very much deteriorated. In
  A.D. 1240-1241 the Mongols, pressing westward with irresistible
  force, threatened to overflow and devastate all Europe. Russia
  and Poland, Silesia, Moravia, and Hungary had been already
  dreadfully wasted by them, when suddenly and unexpectedly
  the savage hordes withdrew. Innocent IV. sent an embassage of
  Dominicans under Nicolas Ascelinus to the Commander Batschu
  in Persia, and an embassage of Franciscans under John of
  Piano-Carpini to the Grand Khan Oktaï, Genghis Khan’s successor,
  to his capital Karakorum, with a view to their conversion and
  to dissuade them from repeating their inroads. Both missions
  were unsuccessful. Certain adventurers pretending to be bearers
  of a message from Mongolia, told Louis IX. of France fabulous
  stories of the readiness of the Grand Khan Gajuk and his princes
  to receive Christianity, and their intention to conquer the Holy
  Land for the Christians. He accordingly sent out two missions to
  the Mongols. The first, in A.D. 1249 was utterly unsuccessful,
  for the Mongols regarded the presents given as a regular tribute
  and as a symbol of voluntary submission. The second mission in
  A.D. 1253, to the Grand Khan Mangu, although under a brave and
  accomplished leader, William of Ruysbroek, yielded no fruit;
  for Mangu, instead of allowing free entrance into the land for
  the preaching of the gospel, at the close of a disputation with
  Mohammedans and Buddhists sent the missionaries back to Louis
  with the threatening demand to tender his submission. After
  Mangu’s death in A.D. 1257, the Mongolian empire was divided
  into Eastern and Western, corresponding to China and Persia.
  The former was governed by Kublai Khan, the latter by Hulagu
  Khan.--Kublai Khan, the Emperor of =China=, a genuine type of
  the religious mongrelism of the Mongolians, showed himself very
  favourable to Christians, but also patronised the Mohammedans,
  and in A.D. 1260 gave a hierarchical constitution and consolidated
  form to Buddhism by the establishment of the first Dalai Lama. The
  travels of two Venetians of the family of Polo led to the founding
  of a Latin Christian mission in China. They returned from their
  Mongolian travels in A.D. 1269. Gregory X. in A.D. 1272 sent
  two Dominicans to Mongolia along with the two brothers, and the
  son of one of them, Marco Polo, then seventeen years old. The
  latter won the unreserved confidence of the Grand Khan, and was
  entrusted by him with an honourable post in the government. On
  his return in A.D. 1295 he published an account of his travels,
  which made an enormous sensation, and afforded for the first time
  to Western Europe a proper conception of the condition of Eastern
  Asia.[266] A regular Christian missionary enterprise, however,
  was first undertaken by the Franciscan Joh. de Monte-Corvino,
  A.D. 1291-1328, one of the noblest, most intelligent, and most
  faithful of the missionaries of the Middle Ages. After he had
  succeeded in overcoming the intrigues of the numerous Nestorians,
  he won the high esteem of the Grand Khan. In the royal city of
  Cembalu or Pekin he built two churches, baptized about 6,000
  Mongols, and translated the Psalter and the New Testament
  into Mongolian. He wrought absolutely alone till A.D. 1303.
  Afterwards, however, other brethren of his order came repeatedly
  to his aid. Clement V. appointed him archbishop of Cembalu in
  A.D. 1307. Every year saw new churches established. But internal
  disturbances, under Kublai’s successor, weakened the power of
  the Mongolian dynasty, so that in A.D. 1370 it was overthrown
  by the national Ming dynasty. By the new rulers the Christian
  missionaries were driven out along with the Mongols, and thus
  all that they had done was utterly destroyed.--The ruler of
  =Persia=, Hulagu Khan, son of a Christian mother and married
  to a Christian wife, put an end in A.D. 1258 to the khalifate
  of Bagdad, but was so pressed by the sultan of Egypt, that
  he entered on a long series of negotiations with the popes
  and the kings of France and England, who gave him the most
  encouraging promises of joining their forces with his against
  the Saracens. His successors, of whom several even formally
  embraced Christianity, continued these negotiations, but obtained
  nothing more than empty promises and protestations of friendship.
  The time of the crusades was over, and the popes, even the most
  powerful of them, were not able to reawaken the crusading spirit.
  The Persian khans, vacillating between Christianity and Islam,
  became more and more powerless, until at last, in A.D. 1387,
  Tamerlane (Timur) undertook to found on the ruins of the old
  government a new universal Mongolian empire under the standard
  of the Crescent. But with his death in A.D. 1405 the dominion
  of the Mongols in Persia was overthrown, and fell into the hands
  of the Turkomans. Henceforth amid all changes of dynasties Islam
  continued the dominant religion.

  § 93.16. =The Mission Field of Islam.=--The crusader princes
  and soldiers wished only to wrest the Holy Land from the infidels,
  but, with the exception perhaps of Louis IX., had no idea of
  bringing to them the blessings of the gospel. And most of the
  crusaders, by their licentiousness, covetousness, cruelty,
  faithlessness, and dissensions among themselves, did much to
  cause the Saracens to scorn the Christian faith as represented
  by their lives and example. It was not until the 13th century
  that the two newly founded mendicant orders of Franciscans
  and Dominicans began an energetic but fruitless mission among
  the Moslems of Africa, Sicily, and Spain. St. Francis himself
  started this work in A.D. 1219, when during the siege of Damietta
  by the crusaders he entered the camp of the Sultan Camel and
  bade him kindle a fire and cause that he himself with one of
  the Moslem priests should be cast into it. When the imam present
  shrank away at these words, Francis offered to go alone into
  the fire if the sultan would promise to accept Christianity
  along with his people should he pass out of the fire uninjured.
  The sultan refused to promise and sent the saint away unhurt
  with presents, which, however, he returned. Afterwards several
  Franciscan missions were sent to the Moslems, but resulted
  only in giving a crowd of martyrs to the order. The Dominicans,
  too, at a very early period took part in the mission to the
  Mohammedans, but were also unsuccessful. The Dominican general
  Raimund de Pennaforti [Pennaforte], who died in A.D. 1273,
  devoted himself with special zeal to this task. For the training
  of the brethren of his order in the oriental languages he founded
  institutions at Tunis and Murcia. The most important of all these
  missionary enterprises was that of the talented Raimund Lullus
  of Majorca, who after his own conversion from a worldly life and
  after careful study of the language, made three voyages to North
  Africa and sought in disputations with the Saracen scholars to
  convince them of the truth of Christianity. But his _Ars Magna_
  (§ 103, 7), which with great ingenuity and enormous labour he had
  wrought out mainly for this purpose, had no effect. Imprisonment
  and ill-treatment were on all occasions his only reward. He died
  in A.D. 1315 in consequence of the ill-usage which he had been
  subjected.


                        § 94. THE CRUSADES.[267]

  The Arabian rulers had for their own interest protected the Christian
pilgrims to the Holy Sepulchre. But even under the rule of the Fatimide
dynasty, early in the 10th century, the oppression of pilgrims began.
Khalif Hakim, in order that he might blot out the disgrace of being
born of a Christian mother, committed ruthless cruelties upon resident
Christians as well as upon the pilgrims, and prohibited under severe
penalties all meetings for Christian worship. Under the barbarous
Seljuk dynasty, which held sway in Palestine from about A.D. 1070,
the oppression reached its height. The West became all the more
concerned about this, since during the 10th century the idea that
the end of the world was approaching had given a new impulse to
pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Pope Sylvester II. had in A.D. 999
_ex persona devastatæ Hierosolymæ_ summoned Christendom to help in
this emergency. Gregory VII. seized anew upon the idea of wresting
the Holy Land from the infidels. He had even resolved himself to
lead a Christian army, but the outbreak of contentions with Henry IV.
hindered the execution of this plan. Meanwhile complaints by returning
pilgrims of intolerable ill-usage increased. An urgent appeal from
the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus gave the spark that lit the
combustible material that had been gathered throughout the West. The
imperial ambassadors accompanied Pope Urban II. to the Council of
Clermont in A.D. 1095, where the pope himself, in a spirited speech,
called for a holy war under the standard of the cross. The shout
was raised as from one mouth, “It is God’s will.” On that very day
thousands enlisted, with Adhemar, bishop of Puy, papal legate, at
their head, and had the red cross marked on their right shoulders.
The bishops returning home preached the crusade as they went, and in
a few weeks a glowing enthusiasm had spread throughout France down
to the provinces of the Rhine. Then began a movement which, soon
extending over all the West, like a second migration of nations,
lasted for two centuries. The crusades cost Europe between five and
six millions of men, and yet in the end that which had been striven
after was not attained. Its consequences, however, to Europe itself
were all the more important. In all departments of life, ecclesiastical
and political, moral and intellectual, civil and industrial, new
views, needs, developments, and tendencies were introduced. Mediæval
culture now reached the highest point of its attainment, and its
failure to transcend the past opened the way for the conditions
of modern society. And while on the other hand they afforded new
and extravagantly abundant nourishment for clerical and popular
superstition, in all directions, but specially in giving opportunity
to roguish traffic in relics (§ 104, 8; 115, 9), on the other hand
they had no small share in producing religious indifference and
frivolous free-thinking (§ 96, 19), as well as the terribly dangerous
growth of mediæval sects, which threatened the overthrow of church
and State, religion and morality (§ 108, 1, 4; 116, 5). The former
was chiefly the result of the sad conclusion of an undertaking of
unexampled magnitude, entered upon with the most glowing enthusiasm
for Christianity and the church; the latter was in great measure
occasioned by intercourse with sectaries of a like kind in the East
(§ 71).

  § 94.1. =The First Crusade, A.D. 1096.=--In the spring of
  A.D. 1096 vast crowds of people gathered together, impatient
  of the delays of the princes, and put themselves under the
  leadership of Walter the Penniless. They were soon followed by
  Peter of Amiens with 40,000 men. A legend, unworthy of belief,
  credits him with the origin of the whole movement. According
  to this story, the hermit returning from a pilgrimage described
  to the holy father in vivid colours the sufferings of their
  Christian brethren, and related how that Christ Himself had
  appeared to him in a dream, giving him the command for the
  pope to summon all Christendom to rescue the Holy Sepulchre.
  The legend proceeds to say that, by order of the pope, Peter
  the Hermit then went through all Italy and France, arousing
  the enthusiasm of the people. The hordes led by him, however,
  after committing deeds of horrid violence on every side, while
  no farther than Bulgaria, were reduced to about one half,
  and the remnant, after Peter had already left them because of
  their insubordination, was annihilated by the Turks at Nicæa.
  Successive new crusades, the last of them an undisciplined mob
  of 200,000 men, were cut down in Hungary or on the Hungarian
  frontier. In August a regular crusading army, 80,000 strong,
  under the leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine,
  passing through Germany and Hungary, reached Constantinople.
  There several French and Norman princes joined the army, till its
  strength was increased to 600,000. After considerable squabbling
  with the Byzantine government, they passed over into Asia. With
  great labour and heavy loss Nicæa, Edessa, and Antioch were
  taken. At last, on 15th July, 1099, amid shouts of, It is God’s
  will, they stormed the walls of Jerusalem; lighted by torches
  and wading in blood, they entered with singing of psalms into
  the Church of the Resurrection. Godfrey was elected king. With
  pious humility he declined to wear a king’s crown where Christ
  had worn a crown of thorns. He died a year after, and his brother
  Baldwin was crowned at Bethlehem. By numerous impropriations
  crowds of greater and lesser vassals were gathered about the
  throne. In Jerusalem itself a Latin patriarchate was erected,
  and under it were placed four archbishoprics, with a corresponding
  number of bishoprics. The story of these proceedings enkindled
  new enthusiasm in the West. In A.D. 1101 three new crusades
  of 260,000 men were fitted out in Germany, under Welf, duke
  of Bavaria, and in Italy and in France. They marched against
  Bagdad, in order to strike terror into the hearts of Moslems by
  the terrible onslaught; the undisciplined horde, however, did
  not reach its destination, but found a grave in Asia Minor.

  § 94.2. =The Second Crusade, A.D. 1147.=--The fall of Edessa in
  A.D. 1146, as the frontier fortress of the kingdom, summoned the
  West to a new effort. Pope Eugenius III. called the nations to
  arms. Bernard of Clairvaux, the prophet of the age, preached
  the crusade, and prophesied victory. =Louis VII. of France= took
  the sign of the cross, in order to atone for the crime of having
  burnt a church filled with men; and =Conrad III. of Germany=,
  moved by the preaching of Bernard, with some hesitation followed
  his example. But their stately army fell before the sword of the
  Saracens, the malice of the Greeks, and internal disorders caused
  by famine, disease, and hardships. Damascus remained unconquered,
  and the princes returned humbled with the miserable remnant of
  their army.

  § 94.3. =The Third Crusade, A.D. 1189.=--The kingdom of
  Jerusalem before a century had past was in utter decay. Greeks
  or Syrians and Latins had a deadly hatred for one another:
  the vassals intrigued against each other and against the crown.
  Licentiousness, luxury, and recklessness prevailed among the
  people; the clergy and the nobles of the kingdom, but especially
  the so called Pulleni,[268] descendants of the crusaders born in
  the Holy Land itself, were a miserable, cowardly and treacherous
  race. The pretenders to the crown also continued their intrigues
  and cabals. Such being the corrupt condition of affairs, it was
  an easy thing for the Sultan Saladin, the Moslem knight “without
  fear and without reproach,” who had overthrown the Fatimide
  dynasty in Egypt, to bring down upon the Christian rule in
  Syria, after the bloody battle of Tiberias, the same fate.
  Jerusalem fell into his hands in October, A.D. 1187. When this
  terrible piece of news reached the West, the Christian powers
  were summoned by Gregory VIII. to combine their forces in order
  to make one more vigorous effort, Philip Augustus of France and
  Henry II. of England forgot for a moment their mutual jealousies,
  and took the cross from the hands of Archbishop William of Tyre,
  the historian of the crusade. Next the =Emperor Frederick I.=
  joined them, with all the heroic valour of youth, though in
  years and experience an old man. He entered on the undertaking
  with an energy, considerateness, and circumspection which
  seemed to deserve glorious success. After piloting his way
  through Byzantine intrigues and the indescribable fatigues of
  a waterless desert, he led his soldiers against the well-equipped
  army of the sultan at Iconium, which he utterly routed, and took
  the city. But in A.D. 1190 the heroic warrior was drowned in an
  attempt to ford the river Calycadnus. A great part of his army
  was now scattered, and the remnant was led by his son Frederick
  of Swabia against Ptolemais. At that point soon after landed
  =Philip Augustus= and =Richard Cœur de Lion= of England, who
  after his father’s death put himself at the head of an English
  crusading army and had conquered Cyprus on the way. Ptolemais
  (Acre) was taken in A.D. 1191. But the jealousies of the princes
  interfered with their success. Frederick had already fallen, and
  Philip Augustus under pretence of sickness returned to France;
  Richard gained a brilliant victory over Saladin, took Joppa and
  Ascalon, and was on the eve of marching against Jerusalem when
  news reached him that his brother John had assumed the throne of
  England, and that Philip Augustus also was entertaining schemes
  of conquest. Once again Richard won a great victory before Joppa,
  and Saladin, admiring his unexampled bravery, concluded with him
  now, in A.D. 1192, a three years’ truce, giving most favourable
  terms to the pilgrims. The strip along the coast from Joppa
  to Acre continued under the rule of Richard’s nephew, Henry
  of Champagne. But Richard was seized on his return journey and
  cast into prison by Leopold of Austria, whose standard he had
  grossly insulted before Ptolemais, and for two years he remained
  a prisoner. After his release he was prevented from thinking of
  a renewal of the crusade by a war with France, in which he met
  his death in A.D. 1199.[269]

  § 94.4. =The Fourth Crusade, A.D. 1217.=--Innocent III. summoned
  Christendom anew to a holy war. The kings, engaged in their own
  affairs, gave no heed to the call. But the violent penitential
  preacher, Fulco of Neuilly, prevailed upon the French nobles to
  collect a considerable crusading army, which, however, instead
  of proceeding against the Saracens, was used by the Venetian
  Doge, Dandolo, in payment of transport, for conquering Zaras
  in Dalmatia, and then by a Byzantine prince for a campaign
  against Constantinople, where Baldwin of Flanders founded
  a =Latin Empire=, A.D. 1204-1261. The pope put the doge and
  the crusaders under excommunication on account of the taking
  of Zaras, and the campaign against Constantinople was most
  decidedly disapproved. Their unexpected success, however, turned
  away his anger. He boasted that at last Israel, after destroying
  the golden calves at Dan and Bethel, was again united to Judah,
  and in Rome bestowed the pallium upon the first Latin patriarch
  of Constantinople.--The =Children’s Crusade=, which in A.D. 1212
  snatched from their parents in France and Germany 30,000 boys
  and girls, had a most tragic end. Many died before passing
  from Europe of famine and fatigue; the rest fell into the hands
  of unprincipled men, who sold them as slaves in Egypt.--King
  =Andrew II. of Hungary=, urged by Honorius III., led a new
  crusading army to the Holy Land in A.D. 1217, and won some
  successes; but finding himself betrayed and deserted by the
  Palestinian barons, he returned home in the following year. But
  the Germans under Leopold VII. of Austria, who had accompanied
  him remained, and, supported by a Cologne and Dutch fleet,
  undertook in A.D. 1218, along with the titular king John of
  Jerusalem, a crusade =against Egypt=. Damietta was taken, but
  the overflow of the Nile reservoirs placed them in such peril
  that they owed their escape in A.D. 1221 only to the generosity
  of the Sultan Camel.

  § 94.5. =The Fifth Crusade, A.D. 1228.=--The Emperor Frederick II.
  had promised to undertake a crusade, but continued to make so many
  excuses for delay that Gregory IX. (§ 96, 19) at last thundered
  against him the long threatened excommunication. Frederick now
  brought out a comparatively small crusading force. The Sultan
  Camel of Egypt, engaged in war with his nephew, and fearing that
  Frederick might attach himself to the enemy, freely granted him
  a large tract of the Holy Land. At the Holy Sepulchre Frederick
  placed the crown of Jerusalem, the inheritance of his new wife
  Iolanthe, with his own hands on his head, since no bishop would
  perform the coronation nor even a priest read the mass service
  for the excommunicated king. He then returned home in A.D. 1229
  to arrange his differences with the pope. The crusading armies
  which Theobald, king of Navarre, in A.D. 1239, and Richard
  Earl of Cornwall, in A.D. 1240, led against Palestine, owing
  to disunion among themselves and quarrels among the Syrian
  Christians, could accomplish nothing.

  § 94.6. =The Sixth, A.D. 1248, and Seventh, A.D. 1270,
  Crusades.=--The zeal for crusading had by this time considerably
  cooled. =St. Louis of France=, however, the ninth of that name,
  had during a serious illness in A.D. 1244, taken the cross. At
  this time Jerusalem had been conquered and subjected to the most
  dreadful horrors at the hands of the Chowaresmians, driven from
  their home by the Mongols, and now in the pay of Egyptian sultan
  Ayoub. Down to A.D. 1247 the rule of the Christians in the Holy
  Land was again restricted to Acre and some coast towns. Louis
  could no longer think of delay. He started in A.D. 1248 with a
  considerable force, wintered in Cyprus, and landed in Egypt in
  A.D. 1249. He soon conquered Damietta, but, after his army had
  been in great part destroyed by famine, disease and slaughter,
  was taken prisoner at Cairo by the sultan. After the murder of
  the sultan by the Mamelukes, who overthrew Saladin’s dynasty,
  he fell into their hands. The king was obliged to deliver over
  Damietta and to purchase his own release by payment of 800,000
  byzantines. He sailed with the remnant of his army to Acre
  in A.D. 1250, whence his mother’s death called him home in
  A.D. 1254. But as his vow had not yet been fully paid, he sailed
  in A.D. 1270 with a new crusading force to Tunis in order to
  carry on operations from that centre. But the half of his army
  was cut off by a pestilence, and he himself was carried away
  in that same year. All subsequent endeavours of the popes to
  reawaken an interest in the crusades were unavailing. Acre or
  Ptolemais, the last stronghold of the Christians in the Holy
  Land, fell in A.D. 1291.


                  § 95. ISLAM AND THE JEWS IN EUROPE.

  The Saracens (§ 81, 2) were overthrown in the 11th century by
the Normans. The reign of Islam in Spain too (§ 81, 1) came to an
end. The frequent change of dynasties, as well as the splitting up
of the empire into small principalities, weakened the power of the
Moors; the growth of luxurious habits in the rich and fertile districts
robbed them of martial energy and prowess. The Christian power also
was indeed considerably split up and disturbed by many internal feuds,
but the national and religious enthusiasm with which it was every
day being more and more inspired, made it invincible. Rodrigo Diaz,
the Castilian hero, called by the Moors the Cid, _i.e._ Lord, by the
Christians Campeador, _i.e._ champion, who died in A.D. 1099, was the
most perfect representative of Spanish Christian knighthood, although
he dealt with the infidels in a manner neither Christian nor knightly.
Also the Almoravides of Morocco, whose aid was called in in A.D. 1086,
and the Almohades, who had driven out these from Barbary in A.D. 1146,
were not able to stop the progress of the Christian arms. On the
other hand, neither the unceasing persecutions of the civil power,
nor innumerable atrocities committed on Jews by infuriated mobs, nor
even Christian theologians’ zeal for the instruction and conversion
of the Israelites, succeeded in destroying Judaism in Europe.

  § 95.1. =Islam in Sicily.=--The robber raids upon Italy
  perpetrated by the Sicilian Saracens were put an end to by the
  Normans who settled there in A.D. 1017. Robert Guiscard destroyed
  the remnant of Greek rule in southern Italy, conquered the small
  Longobard duchies there, and founded a Norman duchy of Apulia and
  Calabria in A.D. 1059. His brother Roger, who died in A.D. 1101,
  after a thirty years’ struggle drove the Saracens completely
  out of Sicily, and ruled over it as a vassal of his brother
  under the title of Count of Sicily. His son Roger II., who
  died in A.D. 1154, united the government of Sicily and of
  Apulia and Calabria, had himself crowned in A.D. 1130 king
  of Sicily and Italy, and finally in A.D. 1139 conquered also
  Naples. In consequence of the marriage of his daughter Constance
  with Henry VI. the whole kingdom passed over in A.D. 1194 to
  the Hohenstaufens, from whom it passed in A.D. 1266 to Charles
  of Anjou; and from him finally, in consequence of the Sicilian
  Vespers in A.D. 1282, the island of Sicily passed to Peter
  of Arragon, the son-in-law of Manfred, the last king of the
  Hohenstaufen line. The Normans and the Hohenstaufens granted
  to the subject Saracens for the most part full religious liberty,
  the Emperor Frederick recruiting from among them his bodyguard,
  and they supplied the bravest soldiers for the Italian Ghibelline
  war. For this purpose he was constantly drafting new detachments
  from the African coast, as Manfred also had done. The endeavours
  made by monks of the mendicant orders for the conversion of the
  Saracens proved quite fruitless. It was only under the Spanish
  rule that conversions were made by force, or persecution and
  annihilation followed persistent refusal.

  § 95.2. =Islam in Spain.=--The times of Abderrhaman III.,
  A.D. 912-961, and Hacem II., A.D. 961-976, were the most
  brilliant and fortunate of the =Ommaiadean= khalifate. After
  the death of the latter the chamberlain Almansor, who died in
  A.D. 1002, reigned in the name of Khalif Hescham II., who was
  little more than a puppet of the seraglio, and his rule was
  glorious, powerful and wise. But interminable civil contentions
  were the result of this disarrangement of government, and in
  A.D. 1031, in consequence of a popular tumult, Abderrhaman IV.,
  the last of the Ommaiades, took to flight, and voluntarily
  resigned the crown. The khalifate was now broken up into as many
  little principalities or emirships as there had been governors
  before. Amid such confusions the Christian princes continued to
  develop and increase their resources. Sancho the Great, king of
  Navarre, A.D. 970-1035, by marriage and conquest united almost
  all Christian Spain under his rule, but this was split up again
  by being partitioned among his sons. Of these Ferdinand I., who
  died in A.D. 1065, inherited Castile, and in A.D. 1037 added to
  it Leon by conquest. With him begins the heroic age of Spanish
  knighthood. His son Alfonso IV., who died in A.D. 1109, succeeded
  in A.D. 1085 in taking from the Moors Toledo and a great part of
  Andalusia. The powerful leader of the =Almoravides=, Jussuf from
  Morocco, was now called to their aid by the Moors. On the plain
  of Salacca the Christians were beaten in A.D. 1086, but soon
  the victor turned his arms against his allies, and within
  six years all Moslem Spain was under his government. His son
  Ali, in a fearfully bloody battle at Ucles in A.D. 1107, cut
  down the flower of the Castilian nobility; this marked the
  summit of power reached by the Almoravides, and now their star
  began slowly to pale. Alfonso I. of Arragon, A.D. 1105-1134,
  conquered Saragossa in A.D. 1118, and other cities. Alfonso VII.
  of Castile, A.D. 1126-1157, whose power rose so high that most
  of the Christian princes in Spain acknowledged him as sovereign,
  and that he had himself formally crowned emperor of Spain in
  A.D. 1135, conducted a successful campaign against Andalusia, and
  in A.D. 1144 forced his way down to the south coast of Granada.
  Alfonso I. of Portugal, drove the Moors out of Lisbon; Raimard,
  count of Barcelona, conquered Tortosa, etc. At the same time too
  the government of the Almoravides was being undermined in Africa.
  In A.D. 1146 Morocco fell, and with it North-western Africa,
  into the hands of the =Almohades= under Abdelmoumen, while his
  lieutenant Abu Amram at the same time conquered Moslem Spain and
  Andalusia. Abdelmoumen’s son Jussuf himself crossed over into
  Spain with an enormous force in order to extinguish the Christian
  rule there, but fell in a battle at Santarem against Alfonso I.
  of Portugal. His son Jacob avenged the disaster by the bloody
  battle of Alarcos in A.D. 1195, where 30,000 Castilians were
  left upon the field. When, notwithstanding the overthrow, the
  Christians a few years later endeavoured to retrieve their loss,
  Jacob’s successor Mohammed descended upon Spain with half a
  million fanatical followers. The critical hour for Spain had
  now arrived. The Christians had won time to come to agreement
  among themselves. They fought with unexampled heroism on the
  plain of Tolosa in A.D. 1212 under Alfonso VIII. of Castile.
  The battlefield was strewn with more than 200,000 bodies of
  the African fanatics. It was the death-knell of the rule of the
  Almohad in Spain. Notwithstanding the dissensions and hostilities
  that immediately broke out among the Christian princes, they
  conquered within twenty-five years the whole of Andalusia. The
  work of conquest was carried out mostly by Ferdinand III., the
  saint of Castile, A.D. 1217-1254, and Jacob I., the conqueror
  of Arragon, A.D. 1213-1276. Only in the southernmost district
  of Spain a remnant of the Moslem rule survived in the kingdom
  of Granada, founded in A.D. 1238 by the emir Mohammed Aben Alamar.
  Here for a time the glories of Arabic culture were revived in
  such a way as seemed like a magical restoration of the day of
  the Ommaiades. In consequence of the marriage in A.D. 1469 of
  Ferdinand of Arragon, who died in A.D. 1516, with Isabella of
  Castile, these two most important Christian empires were united.
  Soon afterwards the empire of Granada came to an end. On 2nd
  January, A.D. 1492, after an ignominious capitulation, the
  last khalif, Abu Abdilehi Boabdil, was driven out of the fair
  (Granada), and a few moments later the Castilian banner waved
  from the highest tower of the proud Alhambra. The pope bestowed
  upon the royal pair the title of Catholic monarchs. The Moors who
  refused to submit to baptism were expelled, but even the baptized,
  the so-called Moriscoes, proved so dangerous an element in the
  state that Philip III., in A.D. 1609, ordered them to be all
  banished from his realm. They sought refuge mostly in Africa,
  and there went over openly again to Mohammedanism, which they
  had never at heart rejected.[270]

  § 95.3. =The Jews in Europe.=--By trade, money lending and
  usury the Jews succeeded in obtaining almost sole possession
  of ready money, which brought them often great influence with
  the needy princes and nobles, but was also often the occasion
  of sore oppression and robbery, as well as the cause of popular
  hatred and violence. Whenever a country was desolated by a plague
  the notion of well-poisoning by the Jews was renewed. It was told
  of them that they had stolen the consecrated sacramental bread in
  order to stick it through with needles, and Christian children,
  that they might slaughter them at their passover festival. From
  time to time this popular rage exploded, and then thousands of
  Jews were ruthlessly murdered. The crusaders too often began
  their feats of valour on Christian soil by the slaughter of Jews.
  From the 13th century in almost all lands they were compelled
  to wear an insulting badge, the so called Jews’ hat, a yellow,
  funnel-shaped covering of the head, and a ring of red cloth on
  the breast, etc. They were also compelled to herd together in
  the cities in the so called Jewish quarter (Italian=Ghetto),
  which was often surrounded by a special wall. St. Bernard and
  several popes, Gregory VII., Alexander III., Innocent III.,
  etc., interested themselves in them, refused to allow them to
  be violently persecuted, and pointed to their position as an
  incontrovertible proof of the truth of the gospel to all times.
  The German emperors also took the Jews under their special
  protection, for they classed them, after the example of Vespasian
  and Titus, among the special servants of the imperial chamber,
  (_Servi camera nostræ speciales_).[271] In England and France
  they were treated as the _mancipium_ of the crown. In Spain
  under the Moorish rule they had vastly increased in numbers,
  culture and wealth; also under the Christian kings they enjoyed
  for a long time special privileges, their own tribunals, freedom
  in the possession of land, etc., and obtained great influence as
  ministers of finance and administration, and also as astrologers,
  physicians, apothecaries, etc.; but by their usury and merciless
  greed drew forth more and more the bitter hatred of the people.
  Hence in the 14th century in Spain also there arose times of sore
  oppression and persecution, and attempts at conversion by force.
  And finally, in A.D. 1492, Ferdinand the Catholic drove more
  than 400,000 Jews out of Spain, and in the following year 100,000
  out of Sicily. But even the baptized Jews, the so-called “New
  Christians,” who were prohibited from removing, fell under the
  suspicion of secret attachment to the old religion, and many
  thousands of them became victims of the Inquisition.--Many
  apologetic and polemical treatises were composed for the purpose
  of discussion with the Jews and for their instruction, but
  like so many other formal disputations they did not succeed in
  securing any good result, for the Jewish teachers were superior
  in learning, acuteness, and acquaintance with the exposition
  of Old Testament Scriptures, upon which in this discussion
  everything turned. But an interesting example of a Jew earnestly
  striving after a knowledge of the truth and working himself up to
  a full conviction of the divinity of Christianity and the church
  doctrine of that age, somewhere about A.D. 1150, is presented by
  the story told by himself of the conversion of Hermann afterwards
  a Premonstratensian monk in the monastery of Kappenberg in
  Westphalia.[272] But on the other hand there are also isolated
  examples of a passing over to Judaism as the result, it would
  seem, of genuine conviction. The first known example of this
  kind appears in A.D. 839, in the case of a deacon Boso, who after
  being circumcised received the name Eleazar, married a Jewess,
  and settled in Saracen Spain, where he manifested extraordinary
  zeal in making converts to his new religion. A second case of
  this sort is met with in the times of the Emperor Henry II.,
  in the perversion of a priest Wecelinus. The narrator of this
  story gives expression to his horror in the words, _Totus
  contremisco et horrentibus pilis capitis terrore concutior_.
  Also the Judaising sects of the Pasagians in Lombardy during
  the 11th century (§ 108, 3) and the Russian Jewish sects of the
  15th century (§ 73, 5) were probably composed for the most part
  of proselytes to Judaism.[273]




             II.--The Hierarchy, the Clergy, and the Monks.


               § 96. THE PAPACY AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
                   IN THE GERMAN NATIONALITIES.[274]

  The history of the papacy during this period represents it in
its deepest shame and degradation. But after this state of matters
was put an end to by the founding of the Holy Roman Empire of German
nationalities, it sprang up again from its deep debasement, and reached
the highest point of power and influence. With the German empire,
to which it owed its salvation, it now carried on a life and death
conflict; for it seemed that it was possible to escape enslavement
under the temporal power of the emperor only by putting the emperor
under its spiritual power. In the conflict with the Hohenstaufens the
struggle reached its climax. The papacy won a complete victory, but
soon found that it could as little dispense with as endure the presence
of a powerful empire. For as the destruction of the Carolingian empire
had left it at the mercy of the factions of Italian nobles at the time
when this period opens, so its victory over the German empire brought
the papacy under the still more degrading bondage of French politics,
as is seen in the beginning of the next period. It had during this
transition time its most powerful props and advisers in the orders
of Clugny and Camaldoli (§ 98, 1). It had a standing army in the
mendicant orders, and the crusaders, besides the enthusiasm, which
greatly strengthened the papal institution, did the further service
of occupying and engrossing the attention of the princes.

  § 96.1. =The Romish Pornocracy and the Emperor Otto I.,
  † A.D. 973.=--Among the wild struggles of the Italian nobles
  which broke out after the Emperor Arnulf’s departure (§ 82, 8),
  the party of the Margrave Adalbert of Tuscany gained the
  upperhand. His mistress Theodora, a well born and beautiful,
  ambitious and voluptuous Roman, wife of a Roman senator, as
  well as her like-minded daughters Marozia and Theodora, filled
  for half a century the chair of St. Peter with their paramours,
  sons and grandsons. These constituted the base and corrupt line
  of popes known as the pornocracy. =Sergius III.=, A.D. 904-911,
  Marozia’s paramour, starts this disgraceful series. After the
  short pontificates of the two immediately following popes,
  Theodora, because Ravenna was inconveniently distant for
  the gratification of her lust, called John, the archbishop
  of that place, to the papal chair under the title of =John X.=,
  A.D. 914-928. By means of a successful crusade which he led in
  person, he destroyed the remnant of Saracen robbers in Garigliano
  (§ 81, 2), and crowned the Lombard king Bernard I., A.D. 916-924,
  as emperor. But when he attempted to break off his disgraceful
  relations with the woman who had advanced him, Marozia had him
  cast into prison and smothered with a pillow. The two following
  popes on whom she bestowed the tiara enjoyed it only a short time,
  for in A.D. 931 she raised her own son to the papal throne in
  the twentieth year of his age. His father was Pope Sergius, and
  he assumed the name of =John XI.= But her other son Alberich,
  who inherited the temporal kingdom from A.D. 932, restricted
  this pope’s jurisdiction and that of his four successors to
  the ecclesiastical domain. After Alberich’s death his son
  Octavianus, an arch-profligate and blasphemer, though only in
  his sixteenth year, united the papacy and the temporal power,
  and called himself by the name of =John XII.= A.D. 955-963--the
  first instance of a change of name on assuming the papal chair.
  He would sell anything for money. He made a boy of ten years
  a bishop; he consecrated a deacon in a stable; in hunting and
  dice playing he would invoke the favour of Jupiter and Venus;
  in his orgies he would drink the devil’s health, etc. Meantime
  things had reached a terrible pass in Germany. After the death of
  Louis the Child, the last of the German Carolingians, in A.D. 911,
  the Frankish duke =Conrad I.=, A.D. 911-918, was elected king
  of the Germans. Although vigorously supported by the superior
  clergy, the Synod of Hohenaltheim in A.D. 915 threatening the
  rebels with all the pains of hell, the struggle with the other
  dukes prevented the founding of a united German empire. His
  successor, the Saxon =Henry I.=, A.D. 919-936, was the first
  to free himself from the faction of the clergy, and to grant to
  the dukes independent administration of internal affairs within
  their own domains. His greater son, =Otto I.=, A.D. 936-973,
  by limiting the power of the dukes, by fighting and converting
  heathen Danes, Wends, Bohemians and Hungarians, by decided action
  in the French troubles, by gathering around him a virtuous German
  clergy, who proved true to him and the empire, secured after long
  continued civil wars a power and reputation such as no ruler in
  the West since Charlemagne had enjoyed. Called to the help of the
  Lombard nobles and the pope John XII. against the oppression and
  tyranny of Berengarius [Berengar] II., he conquered the kingdom
  of Italy, and was at Candlemas A.D. 962 crowned emperor by
  the pope in St. Peter’s, after having really held this rank
  for thirty years. Thus was the =Holy Roman Empire of German
  Nationalities= founded, which continued for centuries to be
  the centre around which the history of the church and the world
  revolved. The new emperor confirmed to the pope all donations
  of previous emperors with the addition of certain cities, without
  detriment, however, to the imperial suzerainty over the patrimony
  of St. Peter, and without lessening in any degree the imperial
  privileges maintained by Charlemagne. The _Privilegium Ottonis_,
  still preserved in the papal archives, and claiming to be an
  authentic document, was till quite recently kept secret from
  all impartial and capable investigators, so that the suspicion
  of its spuriousness had come to be regarded as almost a
  certainty. Under Leo XIII., however, permission was given to
  a capable Protestant scholar, Prof. Sickel of Vienna, to make
  a photographic facsimile of the document, the result of which
  was that he became convinced that the document was not the
  original but a contemporary official duplicate, a literally
  faithful transcript on purple parchment with letters of gold
  for solemn deposition in the grave of St. Peter. Its first
  part describes the donations of the emperor, the second the
  obligations of the pope in accordance with the _Constitutio
  Romana_, § 82, 4.--But scarcely had Otto left Rome than the
  pope, breaking his oath, conspired with his enemies, endeavoured
  to rouse the Byzantines and heathen Hungarians against him,
  and opened the gates of Rome to Adalbert the son of Berengarius
  [Berengar]. Otto hastened back, deposed the pope at the synod
  of Rome in A.D. 963, on charges of incest, perjury, murder,
  blasphemy, etc., and made the Romans swear by the bones of
  Peter never again to elect and consecrate a pope, without
  having the emperor’s permission and confirmation. Soon after the
  emperor’s departure, however, the newly elected pope =Leo VIII.=,
  A.D. 963-965, had to betake himself to flight. John XII. returned
  again to Rome, excommunicated his rival pope, and took cruel
  vengeance upon the partisans of the emperor. On his death soon
  afterwards, in A.D. 964, the Romans elected Benedict V. as
  his successor; but he, when the emperor conquered Rome after a
  stubborn resistance, was obliged to submit to humiliating terms.
  Leo VIII. had in =John XIII.=, A.D. 965-972, a virtuous and
  worthy successor. A new revolt of the Romans led soon after
  his election to his imprisonment; but he succeeded in making
  his escape in A.D. 966. Otto now for the third time crossed
  the Alps, passed relentlessly severe sentences upon the guilty,
  and had his son, now thirteen years of age, crowned in Rome as
  Otto II., A.D. 967.

  § 96.2. =The Times of Otto II., III., A.D. 973-1002.=--After the
  death of Otto I., since Otto II., A.D. 973-983, was restrained
  from a Roman campaign in consequence of Cisalpine troubles,
  the nobles’ faction under Crescentius, son of Pope John X.
  and the younger Theodora, again won the upperhand. This party
  had in A.D. 974 overthrown Pope =Benedict VI.=, A.D. 972-974,
  appointed by Otto I., and cast him into prison. But their own
  anti-pope Boniface VII. could not maintain his position, and
  fled with the treasures of St. Peter to Constantinople. By means
  of a compromise of parties =Benedict VII.=, A.D. 974-983, was
  now raised to the papal chair and held possession in spite of
  manifold opposition, till the arrival of the young emperor in
  Italy in A.D. 980 obtained for him greater security. Otto II.
  again restored the imperial prestige in Rome in A.D. 981, but
  in A.D. 982 he suffered a complete defeat at the hand of the
  Saracens. He died in the following year at Rome, after he had
  in =John XIV.=, A.D. 983-984, secured the appointment of a pope
  faithful to the empire. His son Otto III., three years old,
  was at the council of state, held at Verona, by the princes
  of Germany and Italy, there gathered together, elected king of
  both kingdoms. During the German civil wars under the regency
  of the Queen-mother Theophania, a Byzantine princess, and the
  able Archbishop Willigis, of Mainz, who, through his firmness
  and penetration saved the crown for the royal child Otto III.,
  A.D. 983-1002, and maintained the existence and integrity of
  the German empire, Rome and the papacy fell again under the
  domination of the nobles, at whose head now stood the younger
  Crescentius, a son of the above mentioned chief of the same
  name. In A.D. 984 the anti-pope =Boniface VII.=, who had fled
  to Constantinople, made his appearance in Rome, won a following
  by Greek gold, got possession of John XIV. and had him cast
  into prison, but was himself soon afterwards murdered. The new
  pope =John XV.=, A.D. 985-996, who was thoroughly venal, was an
  obedient tool of the tyranny of Crescentius, which, however, soon
  became so intolerable to him, that he yearned for the restoration
  of imperial rule under Otto III. At this same time great danger
  threatened the imperial authority from France. Hugh Capet had,
  after the death of the last Carolingian, Louis V., in A.D. 987,
  taken possession for himself of the French crown. He insisted
  upon John XV. deposing the archbishop Arnulf of Rheims, who had
  opened the gates of Rheims to his uncle Charles of Lorraine, the
  brother of Louis V.’s father. The pope, who was then dependent
  upon German power, hesitated. Hugh then had Arnulf deposed at
  a synod at Rheims in A.D. 921, and put in his place Gerbert,
  the greatest scholar (§ 100, 2) and statesman of that age. The
  council quite openly declared the whole French church to be free
  from Rome, whose bishops for a hundred years had been steeped
  in the most profound moral corruption, and had fallen into the
  most disgraceful servitude, and Gerbert issued a confession of
  faith in which celibacy and fasting were repudiated, and only
  the first four œcumenical councils were acknowledged. But the
  plan was shattered, not so much through the apparently fruitless
  opposition of the pope as through the reaction of the high church
  party of Clugny and the popular esteem in which that party was
  held. Gerbert could not maintain his position, and was heartily
  glad when he could shake the dust of Rheims off his feet by
  accepting an honourable call of the young emperor, Otto III.,
  who in A.D. 997 opened new paths for his ambition by inviting
  the celebrated scholar to be with him as his classical tutor.
  Hugh’s successor Robert reinstated Arnulf in the see of Rheims.
  John XV. called in Otto III. to his help against the intolerable
  oppression of the younger Crescentius, but died before his
  arrival in A.D. 996. Otto directed the choice of his cousin
  Bruno, twenty-four years of age, the first German pope, who
  assumed the name of =Gregory V.=, A.D. 996-999, and by him he
  was crowned emperor in Rome. Gregory was a man of an energetic,
  almost obstinate character, thoroughly in sympathy with the views
  of the monks of Clugny. The emperor having soon returned home,
  Crescentius violated his oath and made himself again master of
  Rome. Gregory fled to Pavia, where he held a synod in A.D. 997,
  which thundered an anathema against the disturber of the Roman
  church. Meanwhile Crescentius raised to the papal throne the
  archbishop John of Piacenza, formerly Greek tutor to Otto III.,
  under the title of John XVI. It was not till late in autumn
  of that year that the emperor could hasten to the help of his
  injured cousin. He then executed a fearfully severe sentence
  upon the tyrant and his pope. The former was beheaded, and
  his corpse dragged by the feet through the streets and then
  hung upon a gallows; the latter, whom the soldiers had cruelly
  deprived of his ears, tongue, and nose, was led through the
  streets seated backward on an ass, with the tail tied in his
  hands for reins.--From Pavia Gregory had issued a command to
  Robert, the French king, to put away his queen Bertha, who was
  related to him in the fourth degree, on pain of excommunication.
  But he died a suspiciously sudden death before he could bring
  down the pride of this king, which, however, his successor
  accomplished.

  § 96.3. =Otto III.= now raised to the papal chair his teacher
  Gerbert, whom he had previously made Archbishop of Ravenna, under
  the title of =Sylvester II.=, A.D. 999-1003. Already in Ravenna
  had Gerbert’s ecclesiastical policy been changed for the high
  church views of his former opponents, and as pope he developed
  an activity which marks him out as the worthy follower of his
  predecessor and the precursor of a yet greater Gregory (VII.).
  He energetically contended against simony, that special
  canker of the church, and by sending the ring and staff to
  his former opponent, Arnulf, made the first effort to assert
  the papal claim to the exclusive investiture of bishops. But
  he had previously, as tutor of Otto, by flattering his vanity,
  inspired the imaginative, high-spirited youth with the ideal
  of a restoration of the ancient glory of Rome and its emperors
  exercising universal sway. And just with this view had Otto
  raised him to the papal chair in order that he might have his
  help. The pope did not venture openly to withdraw from this
  understanding, for in the condition of Italy at that time in
  a struggle with the emperor, the victory would be his in the
  first instance, and that would be the destruction of the papal
  chair. So there was nothing for it but by clever tacking in
  spite of contrary winds of imperial policy, to make the ship of
  the church hold on as far as possible in the high church course
  and surround the emperor by a network of craft. The phantom
  of a _Renovatio imperii Romani_ with the mummified form of the
  Byzantine court ceremonial and the vain parade of a title was
  called into being. On a pilgrimage to the grave of his saintly
  friend Adalbert in Gnesen (§ 93, 13) the emperor emancipated
  the Polish church from the German metropolitanate by raising
  its see into an archbishopric. He also, in A.D. 1000, released
  the Polish duke Boleslaw Chrobry (§ 93, 7), the most dangerous
  enemy of Germany, who schemed the formation of a great Slavic
  empire, from his fealty as a vassal of the German empire,
  enlisting him instead as a “friend and confederate of the Roman
  people” in his new fantastic universal empire. In the same
  year, however, Sylvester, in the exercise of papal sovereignty,
  conferred the royal crown on Stephen the saint of Hungary
  (§ 93, 8), appointed the payment by him of a yearly tribute to
  the papal vicar with ecclesiastical authority over his country,
  and made that land ecclesiastically independent of Passau
  and Salzburg by founding a separate metropolitanate at Gran.
  Though Otto let himself be led in the hierarchical leading
  strings by his papal friend, he yet made it abundantly evident
  by bestowing upon his favourite pope eight counties of the States
  of the Church, that he regarded these as merely a free gift of
  imperial favour. He also lashed violently the extravagances as
  well as the greed of the popes, and declared that the donation
  of Constantine was a pure fabrication (§ 87, 4). The emperor,
  however, had meanwhile thoroughly estranged his German subjects
  and the German clergy by his un-German temperament. The German
  princes denounced him as a traitor to the German empire. Soon
  all Italy, even the much fondled Rome, rose in open revolt. Only
  an early death A.D. 1002 saved the unhappy youth of twenty-two
  years of age from the most terrible humiliation. With him, too,
  the star of the pope’s fortunes went down. He died not long after
  in A.D. 1003, and left in the popular mind the reputation of a
  dealer in the black art, who owed his learning and the success
  of his hierarchical career to a compact with the devil.

  § 96.4. =From Henry II. to the Synod at Sutri,
  A.D. 1002-1046.=--After the death of Otto III., =Henry II.=,
  A.D. 1002-1024, previously duke of Bavaria, a great-grandson of
  Henry I. and as such the last scion of the Saxon line, obtained
  the German crown--a ruler who proved one of the ablest that ever
  occupied that throne. A bigoted pietist and under the power of
  the priests, although pious-hearted according to the spirit of
  the times and strongly attached to the church, and seeking in
  the bishops supports of the empire against the relaxing influence
  of the temporal princes, yet no other German emperor ruled over
  the church to the same extent that he did, and no one ventured
  so far as he did to impress strongly upon the church, by the most
  extensive appropriation of ecclesiastical property, especially
  of rich monasteries, that this was the shortest and surest way
  of bringing about a much needed reformation. Meanwhile in Rome,
  after the death of Otto III., Joannes Crescentius, the son of
  Crescentius II., who was beheaded by order of Otto, assumed the
  government, and set upon the chair of Peter creatures of his
  own, John XVII., XVIII., and Sergius IV. But as he and his last
  elected pope died soon after one another in A.D. 1012, the long
  subjected faction of the Tusculan counts, successors of Alberich,
  came to the front again, and chose as pope a scion of one
  of their own families, =Benedict VIII.=, A.D. 1012-1024. The
  anti-pope Gregory, chosen by the Crescentians, was obliged to
  retire from the field. He sought protection from Henry II. But
  this monarch came to an understanding with the incomparably
  nobler and abler Benedict, received from him for himself and
  his Queen Cunigunda, subsequently canonized by Innocent III.,
  the imperial crown, in A.D. 1014, and continued ever after to
  maintain excellent relations with him. These two, the emperor
  and the pope, were on friendly terms with the monks of Clugny.
  They both acknowledged the need of a thorough reformation of
  the church, and both carried it out so far as this could be
  done by the influence and example of their own personal conduct,
  disposition, and character. But the pope had so much to do
  fighting the Crescentians, then the Greeks and Saracens in
  Italy, and the emperor in quelling internal troubles in his
  empire and repelling foreign invasions, that it was only toward
  the close of their lives that they could take any very decided
  action. The pope made the first move, for at the Synod of Pavia
  in A.D. 1018, he excommunicated all married priests and those
  living in concubinage, and sentenced their children to slavery.
  The emperor entertained a yet more ambitious scheme. He wished
  to summon a Western œcumenical council at Pavia, and there to
  engage upon the reformation of the whole church of the West.
  But the death of the pope in A.D. 1024, which was followed in
  a few months by the death of the emperor, prevented the carrying
  out of this plan. After the death of the childless Henry II.,
  =Conrad II.=, A.D. 1024-1039, the founder of the Franconian or
  Salic dynasty, ascended the German throne. To him the empire
  was indebted for great internal reforms and a great extension
  of power, but he gave no attention to the carrying out of his
  predecessor’s plans of ecclesiastical reformation. Still less,
  however, was anything of the kind to be looked for from the
  popes of that period. Benedict VIII. was succeeded by his brother
  Romanus, under the name of =John XIX.=, A.D. 1024-1033, as void
  of character and noble sentiments (§ 67, 2) as his predecessor
  had been distinguished. When he died, Count Alberich of Tusculum
  was able by means of presents and promises to get the Romans to
  elect his son Theophylact, who, though only twelve years old,
  was already practised in the basest vice. He took the name of
  =Benedict IX.=, A.D. 1033-1048, and disgraced the papal chair
  with the most shameless profligacy. The state of matters became
  better under Conrad’s son, =Henry III.=, A.D. 1039-1056, who
  strove after the founding of a universal monarchy in the sense
  of Charlemagne, and by a powerful and able government he came
  nearer reaching this end than any of the German emperors. He
  was at the same time inspired with a zeal for the reformation
  of the church such as none of his predecessors or successors,
  with the exception of Henry II., ever showed. Benedict IX. was,
  in A.D. 1044, for the second time driven out by the Romans. They
  now sold the tiara to Sylvester III., who three months after
  was driven out by Benedict. This pope now fell in love with his
  beautiful cousin, daughter of a Tusculan count, and formed the
  bold resolve to marry her. But the father of the lady refused
  his consent so long as he was pope. Benedict now sold the papal
  chair for a thousand pounds of silver to the archdeacon Joannes
  Gratian. This man, a pious simple individual, in order to save
  the chair of St. Peter from utter overthrow, took upon himself
  the disgrace of simony at the bidding of his friends of Clugny,
  among whom a young Roman monk called Hildebrand, son of poor
  parents of Soana, in Tuscany, was already most conspicuous. The
  new pope assumed the name of =Gregory VI.=, A.D. 1044-1046. He
  wanted the talents necessary for the hard task he had undertaken.
  Benedict having failed in carrying out his matrimonial plans,
  again claimed to be pope, as did also Sylvester. Thus Rome
  had at one and the same time, three popes, and all three were
  publicly known to be simonists. The Clugny party cast off their
  protégé Gregory, and called in the German emperor as saviour of
  the church. Henry came and had all the the three popes deposed
  at the =Synod at Sutri=, A.D. 1046. The Romans gave to him the
  right of making a new appointment. It fell upon Suidger, bishop
  of Bamberg, who took the name of =Clement II.=, and crowned
  the king emperor on Christmas, A.D. 1046. The Romans were so
  delighted at having order restored in the city, that they gave
  over to the emperor with the rank of patrician the government
  of Rome and the right of papal election for all time, and swore
  never to consecrate a pope without the emperor’s concurrence.
  Henry took the ex-pope Gregory along with him, back to Germany,
  where he died in exile, at Cologne. Hildebrand, his chaplain,
  had accompanied him thither, and after his death retired into
  the monastery of Clugny.

  § 96.5. =Henry III. and his German Popes, A.D. 1046-1057.=--With
  =Clement III.=, 1046-1047, begins a whole series of able German
  popes, who, elected by Henry III., wrought under his protection
  powerfully and successfully for the reform of the church. All
  interested in the reformation, the brethren of Clugny, as well
  as the disciples of Romuald and the settlers in Vallombrosa
  (§ 98, 1), agreed that at the root of all the corruption of the
  church of that age were _simony_, or obtaining spiritual offices
  by purchase or bribery (Acts viii. 19), and _Nicolaitanism_
  (§ 27, 8), under which name were included all fleshly lusts
  of the clergy, marriage as well as concubinage and unnatural
  vices. These two were, especially in Italy, so widely spread,
  that scarcely a priest was to be found who had not been guilty
  of both. Clement II., in the emperor’s presence, at a synod
  in Rome in A.D. 1047, began the battle against simony. But
  he died before the end of the year, probably by poison. While
  Roman envoys presented themselves at the German court about
  the election of a new pope, Benedict IX., supported by the
  Tusculan party, again laid claim to the papal chair, and the
  emperor had to utter the severest threats before the man of
  his choice, Poppo, bishop of Brixen, was allowed to occupy
  the papal chair as =Damasus II.= Twenty-three days afterwards,
  however, he was a corpse. This cooled the ardour of German
  bishops for election to so dangerous a position, and only after
  long persuasion Bishop Bruno of Toul, the emperor’s cousin
  and a zealous friend of Clugny, accepted the appointment, on
  the condition that it should have the approval of the people
  and clergy of Rome, which, as was to be expected, was given
  with acclamation. He ascended the papal throne as Leo IX.,
  A.D. 1049-1054. According to a later story conceived in the
  interests of Hildebrandism, Bruno is said not only to have made
  his definite acceptance of the imperial call dependent upon the
  supplementary free election of people and clergy of Rome, but
  also to have been prevailed upon by Hildebrand, who by his own
  request accompanied him, to lay aside his papal ornaments, to
  continue his journey in pilgrim garb, and to make his entrance
  into the eternal city barefoot, so that the necessary sanction
  of a formal canonical election might be given to the imperial
  nomination. Leo found the papal treasures emptied to the last
  coin and robbed of all its territorial revenues by the nobles.
  But Hildebrand was his minister of finance, and soon improved
  the condition of his exchequer. Leo now displayed an unexampled
  activity in church reform and the purifying of the papacy. No
  pope travelled about so much as he, none held as many synods
  in the most distant places and various lands. The uprooting of
  simony was in all cases the main point in their decrees. By bonds
  of gratitude and relationship, but above all of common interests,
  he was attached to the German emperor. He could not therefore
  think of emancipating the papacy from the imperial suzerainty.
  Practically Leo succeeded in clearing the Augean stable of the
  Roman clergy, and filled vacancies with virtuous men brought
  from far and near. In order to chastise the Normans, put by him
  under ban because of their rapacity, he himself took the field
  in A.D. 1053, when the emperor refused to do so, but was taken
  prisoner after his army had been annihilated, and only succeeded,
  after he had removed the excommunication, in getting them to kiss
  his feet with the most profound devotion. He demanded from the
  Greek emperor full restitution of the donation of Constantine,
  so far as this was still in the possession of the Byzantines,
  and his envoys at Constantinople rendered the split between the
  Eastern and Western churches irreparable (§ 67, 3). Leo died in
  A.D. 1054, the only pope for centuries whom the church honours as
  a saint. A Roman embassy called upon the emperor to nominate a
  new pope. He fixed upon Gebhardt, bishop of Eichstädt [Eichstadt],
  who now ascended the papal throne as =Victor II.=, A.D. 1055-1057.
  Here again monkish tales have transformed a single matter of fact
  into a romance in the interests of their own party. The Romans
  wished Hildebrand himself for their pope, but he was unwilling
  yet to assume such a responsibility. He put himself, however,
  at the head of an embassy which convinced the emperor of the
  sinfulness of his former interferences in the papal elections,
  and persuaded him to set aside the tyrannical power of his
  patrician’s rank and to resign to the clergy and people their
  old electoral rights. As candidate for this election, Hildebrand
  himself chose bishop Gebhardt, the most trusted counsellor of
  the emperor. After long opposition Henry’s consent was won to
  this candidature, he even urged the bishop to accept it, who at
  last submitted with the words: “Now so do I surrender myself to
  St. Peter, soul and body, but only on the condition that you also
  yield to him what belongs to him.” The latter, however, seems
  not mere beating of the air, for the emperor restored to the
  newly elected pope the patrimony of Peter in the widest extent,
  and bestowed on him besides the governorship of all Italy.--Henry
  died in A.D. 1056, after he had appointed his queen Agnes to the
  regency, and had recommended her to the counsel and good offices
  of the pope. But the pope’s days were already numbered. He died
  in A.D. 1057. Hildebrand could not boast of having dominated him,
  but the position of the powerful monk of Clugny under him had
  become one of great importance.

  § 96.6. =The Papacy under the Control of Hildebrand,
  A.D. 1057-1078.=--After Victor’s death the cardinals without
  paying any regard to the imperial right, immediately elected
  Cardinal Frederick of Lorraine, at that time abbot of Monte
  Cassino, and Hildebrand travelled to Germany in order to
  obtain the _post factum_ approval of the empress. =Stephen IX.=,
  A.D. 1057-1058, for so Frederick styled himself, died before
  Hildebrand’s return. The Tusculan party took advantage of
  his absence to put forward as pope a partisan of their own,
  Benedict X., A.D. 1058. But an embassy of Hildebrand’s to the
  empress secured the succession to bishop Gerhard of Florence.
  Benedict was obliged to withdraw, and Gerhard ascended the papal
  throne as Nicholas II., A.D. 1058-1061. With him begins the
  full development of Hildebrand’s greatness, and from this time,
  A.D. 1059, when he became archdeacon of Rome, till he himself
  mounted the papal chair, he was the moving spirit of the Romish
  hierarchy. By his powerful genius in spite of all hindrances he
  raised the papacy and the church to a height of power and glory
  never attained unto before. He thus wrought on, systematically,
  firmly, and irresistibly advancing toward a complete reformation
  in ecclesiastical polity. Absolute freedom of the church from
  the power and influence of the state, and in order to attain
  this and make it sure, the dominion of the church over the
  state, papal elections independent of any sort of temporal
  influence, the complete uprooting of all simoniacal practices,
  unrelenting strictness in dealing with the immorality of the
  clergy, invariable enforcement of the law of celibacy, as the
  most powerful means of emancipating the clergy from the world
  and the state, filling the sacred offices with the most virtuous
  and capable men, were some of the noble aims and achievements
  of this reformation. Hildebrand sought the necessary secular
  protection and aid for the carrying out of his plans among
  the Normans. Nicholas II., on the basis of the donation of
  Constantine, gave as a fief to their leader, Robert Guiscard
  (§ 95, 1), the lordship of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, out of
  which the Saracens had yet to be expelled, and exacted from him
  the oath of a vassal, by which he bound himself to pay a yearly
  tribute, to protect the papal chair against all encroachments
  of its privileges, and above all to maintain the right of papal
  elections by the “_meliores cardinales_.” Yet again, Nicholas,
  when, at a later period, by the help of the Normans, he had
  broken the power of the Tusculan nobles, issued a decree at
  a Lateran synod at Rome, in A.D. 1059, by which papal elections
  (§ 82, 4) were regulated anew. Of the two extant recensions
  of this decree, which are distinguished as the papal and the
  imperial, the former is now universally acknowledged to be
  the more authentic form. According to it the election lies
  exclusively with the Roman cardinal priests (§ 97, 1); to
  the rest of the clergy as to the people there is left only
  the right of acclamation, that brought no advantage, and to
  the emperor, according to Boichorst, the right of concurrence
  after the election and investiture, according to Granert, the
  right of veto before the election. This decree, and not less
  the league with the Normans, were open slights to the imperial
  claims upon Italy and the papal chair. The empress therefore
  convened about Easter, A.D. 1061, a council of German bishops, at
  which Nicholas was deposed, and all his decisions were annulled.
  Soon after the pope died. The Tusculan party, now joined with
  the Germans under the Lombard chancellor Wibert, asked a new
  pope from the empress. At the Council of Basel in A.D. 1061,
  bishop Cadalus of Parma was appointed. He assumed the name
  of Honorius II., A.D. 1061-1072. But Hildebrand had already
  five weeks earlier in concert with the Margravine Beatrice
  of Canossa, wholly on his own responsibility, chosen bishop
  Anselm of Lucca, and had him consecrated as =Alexander II.=
  A.D. 1061-1073. Honorius advanced to Rome, accompanied by
  Wibert, and frequently in bloody conflicts conquered the
  party of his opponent. Duke Godfrey the Bearded of Lorraine,
  the husband of Beatrice, now appeared as mediator. He made
  both popes retire to their dioceses and gave to the empress
  the decision of the controversy. But meanwhile a catastrophe
  occurred in Germany that led to the most important results.
  Archbishop Anno of Cologne, standing at the head of a rising
  of the princes, decoyed the young king of twelve years of age
  on board a ship at Kaiserswerth on the Rhine, and took him
  to Cologne. The regency and the conduct of government were
  now transferred to the German bishops collectively, but lay
  practically in the hands of Anno, who meanwhile, however,
  since A.D. 1063, found himself obliged to share the power with
  Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen. At a council held at Augsburg
  in A.D. 1062, Alexander was acknowledged as the true pope, but
  Honorius by no means resigned his claims. With a small army
  he advanced upon Rome in A.D. 1064, seized fort Leo, which
  had been built and fortified by Leo IV. for defence against
  the Saracens, entrenched himself in the castle of St. Angelo,
  and repeatedly routed his opponent’s forces. But Hildebrand
  reminded the Normans of their oath of fealty. At a council
  held at Mantua in A.D. 1064 (or 1067?) Alexander was once
  again acknowledged, and Honorius, whose party the council
  sought in vain to break up by force of arms, was again deposed.
  The proud, ambitious and self-seeking priest of Cologne had
  meanwhile been obliged to transfer to his northern colleague,
  Adalbert of Bremen, the further education and training of
  the young king, who, though only fifteen years old was now
  proclaimed of age in A.D. 1065, as =Henry IV.=, A.D. 1056-1106.
  If the bishop of Cologne injured the disposition of the royal
  youth by his excessive harshness and severity, the bishop of
  Bremen did him irreparable damage by allowing him unrestrained
  indulgence in his evil passions.

  § 96.7. =Gregory VII., A.D. 1073-1085.=--Hildebrand had at last
  brought the papacy to such a height of power that he was able
  now to put the finishing stroke to his own work in his own name,
  and so now he mounted the chair of the chief of the apostles,
  as Gregory VII., elected and enthroned by a disorderly mob. The
  Lombard and German bishops appealed to the emperor to have the
  election declared invalid. But he being on all sides threatened
  with wars and revolution, thought it advisable to forego the
  assertion of his rights and to win the favour of the pope by a
  letter full of devotion and humility. At the Roman Fast Synod of
  A.D. 1074, Gregory renewed the old law of celibacy and rendered
  it more strict, deposed all married priests or those who got
  office through simony, and pronounced their priestly acts
  invalid. The lower clergy, who were generally married, violently
  opposed the measure, but Gregory’s stronger will prevailed. Papal
  legates visited all lands, and, supported by the people, insisted
  upon the strict observance of the papal decree. At the next
  fast synod in A.D. 1075, the pope began the contest against the
  usual investiture of the higher clergy by the temporal princes,
  with ring and staff as symbols of episcopal office. Whoever
  should accept ecclesiastical office from the hand of a layman
  was to be deposed, and any potentate who should give investiture
  should be put under the ban of the church. Here too he thundered
  his anathema against the counsellors of Henry who should meanwhile
  prove guilty of the sale of ecclesiastical offices. Henry, whose
  hands were fully occupied with the rebellious Saxons, at first
  dismissed his counsellors, but after the close of the wars he
  reinstated them, and quite ignored the papal prohibition of
  investiture. Gregory had for a while quite enough to do in Italy.
  Cencius, the head of the nobles opposed to reform, fell upon
  him on Christmas, A.D. 1075, during Divine service, and made
  him prisoner, but the Romans rescued him, and Cencius had to
  take to flight. On New Year’s Day, A.D. 1076, there appeared at
  the royal residence at Goslar a papal embassy which threatened
  the king with excommunication and deposition should he not
  immediately break off all relations with the counsellors under
  the ban, and reform his own infamous life. The king burst out
  in furious rage. He heaped insults upon the legates, and at
  the Synod of Worms, on 24th January, had the pope formally
  deposed as a perjured usurper of the papal chair, a tyrant,
  an adulterer and a sorcerer. The Lombard bishops, too, gave
  their consent to this decree (§ 97, 5). At the next Roman Fast
  Synod on 22nd February, the pope placed all bishops who had
  taken part in these proceedings under ban, and at the same time
  solemnly excommunicated and deposed the king, and released all
  his subjects from the obligation of their oaths of allegiance.
  Moreover he had the king’s ambassadors, whose life he had
  preserved from the fury of those present at the meeting of
  synod by his personal interference, cast into prison, and
  then in the most contemptuous manner led through the streets.
  The papal ban made a deep impression upon the German people
  and princes. One bishop after another gave in, the Saxons
  raised a new revolt, and at the princes’ conference at Tribur,
  in October, A.D. 1076, the pope was invited to come personally
  to Augsburg on 2nd February, to meet and confer with the princes
  about the affairs of the king. It was resolved that if Henry
  did not succeed by 22nd February, the first anniversary of the
  ban, to get it removed, he should for ever forfeit the crown,
  but that meanwhile he should reside at Spires and continue in
  the exercise of all royal prerogatives.

  § 96.8. It was for the pope’s advantage to have the business
  settled upon German soil with the greatest possible publicity.
  Therefore he scornfully refused the humble petition of the king
  to send him absolution from Rome, and hastened his preparations
  for travelling to Augsburg. But Henry went forth to meet him on
  the way. Shortly before Christmas he escaped from Spires with
  his wife and child, and in spite of a severe winter crossed Mount
  Cenis. The Lombards protected him in defying the pretensions
  of the pope. But Henry’s whole attention was now directed to
  overturning the machinations of the hostile German princes.
  So he suddenly appeared at Canossa, where Gregory was staying
  with the Margravine Matilda, daughter of Beatrice, a princess
  enthusiastically attached to him and his ideal. This meeting
  was unexpected and undesired by the pope. There during the cold
  winter days, from 25th to 27th January, A.D. 1077, stood the son
  of Henry III. barefoot in the courtyard of the castle of Canossa,
  wearing a sackcloth shirt, fasting all day and supplicating
  access to the proud monk. With inflexible severity the pope
  refused, until at last the tears, entreaties, and reproaches
  of the margravine overcame his obduracy. Henry promised to
  submit himself to the future judgment of the pope in regard
  to his reconciliation with the German princes, and was absolved.
  Nevertheless the princes at the Assembly at Forcheim in March,
  with the concurrence of the papal legate, elected a new king in
  the person of Rudolph of Swabia, Henry’s brother-in-law. Roused
  to fury, Henry now hastened back to Germany, where soon he
  gathered round him a great army. Notwithstanding all pressure
  brought to bear upon him, Gregory maintained for three years a
  position of neutrality, but at last, in A.D. 1080, at the Roman
  Fast Synod, where the envoys of the contending kings presented
  their complaints, he renewed the excommunication and deposition
  of Henry. Then the bishops of Henry’s party immediately met
  at Brixen, and hurled the anathema and pronounced sentence of
  deposition against Gregory, and elected as anti-pope Wibert,
  formerly chancellor, then archbishop of Ravenna, who assumed
  the title of Clement III., A.D. 1080-1100. After the death of
  Rudolph in battle, at Merseburg, in A.D. 1080, Henry marched
  across the Alps and appeared at Pentecost before the gates
  of Rome, which were opened to him after a three years’ siege.
  Clement III. then at Easter, A.D. 1084, set upon him and his
  queen the imperial crown. Gregory had withdrawn to the Castle
  of St. Angelo. Henry, however, was compelled by the appearance
  of a new rival for the crown, Henry, Count of Luxemburg, to
  return to Germany, and Robert Guiscard, the Norman duke, hastened
  from the south to deliver the pope, which he accomplished only
  after Rome had been fearfully devastated. Gregory died in the
  following year, A.D. 1085, at Salerno. Gregory VII. also took
  the field against the dissolute and prodigal king of France,
  Philip I., and threatened him, because of simony, with interdict
  and deposition. His success here, however, was comparatively
  small. Philip avowedly submitted to the papal decree, but did
  not in the least alter his conduct, and Gregory felt that it was
  not prudent to push matters to an extremity. He showed himself
  more indulgent toward the powerful William the Conqueror of
  England, although this prince ruled the church of his dominions
  with an iron hand, pronounced all church property to be freehold,
  and was scarcely less guilty of simony than the kings of Germany
  and France. Yet the pope himself, who hoped to secure the aid
  of his arms against Henry IV., and sought therefore to dazzle
  him with the prospect of the imperial throne, winked at his
  delinquencies, and loaded him with expressions of his good-will.
  The primate of England, too, the powerful Conqueror’s right-hand
  supporter, Lanfranc of Canterbury, who bore a grudge against
  Gregory because of his patronage of the heretic Berengarius
  [Berengar] (§ 101, 2), showed no special zeal for the reforms
  advocated by the pope. At a synod held at Winchester in A.D. 1076,
  the law of celibacy was enforced, with this limitation, however,
  that those of the secular clergy who were already married should
  not be required to put away their wives, but no further marriages
  among them were to be permitted.[275]

  § 96.9. =The Central Idea in Gregory’s Policy= was the
  establishment of a universal theocracy, with the pope as
  its one visible head, the representative of Christ upon earth,
  who as such stands over the powers of the world. Alongside of
  it, indeed, the royal authority was to stand independently as
  one ordained of God, but it was to confine itself strictly to
  temporal affairs, and to be directed by the pope in regard to
  whatever might be partly within and partly without these lines.
  All states bearing the Christian name were to be bound together
  as members of one body in the great papal theocracy which had
  superior to it only God and His law. The princes must receive
  consecration and Divine sanction from the spiritual power;
  they are “by the grace of God,” not immediately, however, but
  only mediately, the church as the middle term stands between
  them and God. The pope is their arbiter and highest liege lord,
  whose decisions they are under obligation unconditionally to
  obey. Royalty stands related to the papacy as the moon to the
  sun, from which she receives her light and warmth. The church,
  which lends to the power of the world her Divine authority, can
  also withdraw it again when it is being misused. When this is
  done, the obligation of subjects to obey also ceases. Gregory
  began this gigantic work, not so much to raise himself personally
  to the utmost pinnacle of power, but rather to save the church
  from destruction. He certainly was not free from ambition
  and the lust of ruling, but with him higher than all personal
  interests was the idea of the high vocation of the church,
  and to the realizing of it he enthusiastically devoted all
  the energies of his life. On the other hand, he cannot escape
  the reproach of having striven with carnal weapons for what he
  called a spiritual victory, of having meted out unequal measures,
  where his interests demanded it, in the exercise of his assumed
  function as judge of kings and princes, and of having occupied
  himself more with political schemes and intrigues than with the
  ministry of the church of Christ. His whole career shows him to
  have been a man of great self reliance, yet, on the other hand,
  he was able to preserve the consciousness of the poor sinner who
  seeks and finds salvation only in the mercy of Christ. The strict
  morality of his life has been admitted even by his bitterest
  foes. Not infrequently too did he show himself in advance of
  his time in humanity and liberality of sentiment, as _e.g._
  in the Berengarian controversy (§ 101, 2), and in his decided
  disapproval of the prosecution of witches and sorcerers.[276]

  § 96.10. =Victor III. and Urban II., A.D. 1086-1099.=--Gregory VII.
  was succeeded by the talented abbot of Monte Cassino, Desiderius,
  under the title of =Victor III.=, A.D. 1086-1087. Only after
  great pressure was brought to bear upon him did he consent to
  leave the cloister, which under his rule had flourished in a
  remarkable manner; but now aged and sickly, he only enjoyed
  the pontificate for sixteen months. His successor was bishop
  Odo, of Ostia, a Frenchman by birth, and a member of the Clugny
  brotherhood, who took the name of =Urban II.=, A.D. 1088-1099.
  For a long time he was obliged to give up Rome to the party of
  the imperial anti-pope. But the enthusiasm with which the idea
  of rescuing the Holy Sepulchre was taken up, which he proposed
  to Western Christendom at the Council of Clermont, in A.D. 1095
  (§ 94), secured for him the highest position in his time, and
  made him strong enough to withstand the opposition of Philip I.,
  king of France, whom he had put under ban at Clermont, on
  account of his adulterous connection with Bertrada. Returning
  to Italy from his victorious campaign through France, he was
  able to celebrate Christmas once again in the Lateran at Rome
  in A.D. 1096. His main supporters in the conflict against the
  emperor were the powerful Margravine Matilda, and the emperor’s
  most dangerous opponent in Germany, duke Welf of Bavaria, whose
  son of the same name, then in his seventeenth year, was married
  by the pope to the widowed Matilda, who was now forty years of
  age, whence arose the first of the anti-imperial and strongly
  papistical Welf or Guelph party in Germany and Italy. On the
  other side the margravine succeeded in stirring up Conrad,
  the son of Henry IV., to rebel against his father, and had him
  crowned king in A.D. 1087. At Cremona this prince held the pope’s
  stirrup, and took the oath of obedience to him. The emperor had
  him deposed in A.D. 1098, and had his second son elected and
  crowned as Henry V. Urban, who received on his death-bed the
  news of the destruction of Jerusalem, died in A.D. 1099, and
  his anti-pope Clement III., who had withdrawn to Ravenna, died
  in the following year.

  § 96.11. =Paschalis II., Gelasius II., and Calixtus II.,
  A.D. 1099-1124.=--Urban’s successor, =Paschalis II.=,
  A.D. 1099-1118, also a member of the Clugny brotherhood, at
  once stirred up the fire of rebellion against the excommunicated
  emperor, and favoured a conspiracy of the princes. The young
  king, at the head of the insurgents, took his father prisoner,
  and obliged him to abdicate in A.D. 1106. Six months afterwards
  the emperor died. The church’s curse pursued even his corpse.
  Twice interred in holy ground, first in the cathedral of Liège,
  then in the cathedral of Spires, his bones were exhumed and
  thrown into unconsecrated ground, until at last, in A.D. 1111,
  his son obtained the withdrawal of the ban. At the Council
  of Guastalla in A.D. 1106, Paschalis renewed the prohibition
  of =Investiture=. But =Henry V.=, A.D. 1106-1125, concerned
  himself as little about this prohibition as his father had done.
  No sooner had he seated himself upon the throne in Germany than
  he crossed the Alps to compel the pope to crown him emperor
  and concede to him the right of investiture. The pope, who was
  willing that the church should be poor if only she retained
  her freedom, being now without counsel or help (for Matilda
  was old and her warlike spirit was broken, and from the Normans
  no assistance could be looked for), was driven in A.D. 1111, in
  his perplexity to offer a compromise, whereby the emperor should
  surrender investiture to the church, but on the other hand the
  clergy should return to him all landed property and privileges
  given them by the state since the times of Charlemagne, while
  the Patrimony of Peter should continue the property of the
  pope himself. On the basis of this agreement the coronation of
  the emperor was to be celebrated in St. Peter’s on 12th Feb.,
  A.D. 1111. But when after the celebration had begun the document
  which set forth the compact was read, the prelates present in
  the cathedral raised loud cries of dissent and demanded that it
  should immediately be cancelled. The coronation was not proceeded
  with, the pope and his cardinals were thrown into prison, and a
  revolt of the Romans was suppressed. The pope was then compelled
  to rescind the synodal decrees and formally to grant to the king
  the right of investiture; he had also, after solemnly promising
  never again to put the emperor under ban, to proceed with the
  coronation. But Hildebrand’s party called the pope to account
  for this betrayal of the church. A synod at Rome in A.D. 1112
  declared the concessions wrung from him invalid, and pronounced
  the ban against the emperor. The pope, however, remembering his
  oaths, refused to confirm it, but it was nevertheless proclaimed
  by his legate in the French and German synods. Matilda’s death
  in A.D. 1115 called the emperor again to Italy. She had even in
  the time of Gregory VII. made over all her goods and possessions
  to the Roman Church; but she had the right of free disposal
  only in regard to allodial property, not in regard to her feudal
  territories. Henry, however, now laid claim to all her belongings.
  At the Fast Synod of A.D. 1116 Paschalis asked pardon of God and
  man for his sin of weakness, renewed and made more strict the
  prohibition of investiture, but still stoutly refused to confirm
  the ban of the emperor. In consequence of a rebellion of the
  Romans he was obliged to take to flight, and he died in exile
  in A.D. 1118. The high church party now chose =Gelasius II.=,
  A.D. 1118-1119, but immediately after the election he was seized
  by a second Cencius (see § 96, 7) on account of a private grudge,
  fearfully maltreated and confined in chains within his castle.
  The Romans indeed rescued him, but the emperor’s sudden arrival
  in Rome led him, in order to avoid making inconvenient terms of
  peace, to seek his own and the church’s safety in flight. The
  people and nobles in concert with the emperor set up Gregory VIII.
  as anti-pope. So soon as the emperor left Rome, Gelasius returned.
  But Cencius fell upon him during Divine service, and only
  with difficulty he escaped further maltreatment by flight
  into France, where he died in the monastery of Clugny after a
  pontificate of scarcely twelve months. The few cardinals present
  at Clugny elected archbishop Guido of Vienne. He assumed the
  title of =Calixtus II.=, A.D. 1119-1124. Pope and emperor met
  together expressing desires for peace. But the auspiciously
  begun negotiations never got beyond the statement of the terms
  of contract, and ended in the pope renewing at the Council
  of Rheims, in A.D. 1119, the anathema against the emperor and
  anti-pope. Next year Calixtus crossed the Alps. He received
  a hearty greeting in Rome. He laid siege to the anti-pope
  in Sutri, took him prisoner, and after the most contumelious
  treatment before the Roman mob, cast him into a monastic prison.
  The investiture question, now better understood through learned
  discussions on civil and ecclesiastical law, was at last
  definitely settled in the =Worms Concordat=, as the result
  of mutual concessions made at the National Assembly at Worms,
  A.D. 1122. The arrangement come to was this: canonical election
  of bishops and abbots of the empire by the diocesan clergy
  and the secular nobles should be restored, and under imperial
  inspection made free from all coercion, but in disputed elections
  decisions should be given in accordance with the judgment of
  the metropolitan and the rest of the bishops, the investing of
  the elected with the sceptre in Germany before, in other parts
  of the empire after, consecration, should belong to the emperor,
  and investiture with ring and staff at the consecration should
  belong to the pope. This agreement was solemnly ratified at the
  =First Œcumenical Lateran Synod= in A.D. 1123.

  § 96.12. The contemporary =English Investiture Controversy=
  was brought earlier to a conclusion. William the Conqueror had
  unopposed put Norman prelates in the place of the English bishops,
  and had homage rendered him by them, while they received from
  him investiture with the ring and the staff. William Rufus, the
  Conqueror’s son and successor, A.D. 1087-1100, a domineering and
  greedy prince, after Lanfranc’s death in A.D. 1089 (§ 101, 1)
  allowed the archbishopric of Canterbury to remain vacant for
  four years, in order that he might himself enjoy the undisturbed
  possession of the revenues. It was not till A.D. 1093, during
  a severe illness and under fear of death, that he agreed to
  bestow it upon Anselm, the celebrated Abbot of Bec (§ 101, 1, 3),
  with the promise to abstain ever afterwards from simony. No
  sooner had he recovered than he repented him of his promise.
  He resumed his old practices, and even demanded of Anselm a
  large sum for his appointment. For peace sake Anselm gave him
  a voluntary present of money, but it did not satisfy the king.
  When, in A.D. 1097, the archbishop asked permission to make a
  journey to Rome in order to have the conflict settled there,
  the king banished him. In Rome Anselm was honourably received
  and his conduct was highly approved; but neither Urban II. nor
  Paschalis II. could venture upon a complete breach with the
  king. William the Conqueror’s third son, Henry I. Beauclerk,
  A.D. 1100-1135, who, having also snatched Normandy from his
  eldest brother Robert, needed the support of the clergy to
  secure his position, agreed to the return of the exiled primate,
  and promised to put a stop to every kind of simony; but he
  demanded the maintenance of investiture and the oath of fealty
  which Anselm now, in consequence of the decrees of a Roman
  synod which he had himself agreed to, felt obliged to refuse.
  Thus again the conflict was renewed. The king now confiscated
  the goods and revenues of the see, and the archbishop was on the
  point of issuing an excommunication against him, when at last an
  understanding was come to in A.D. 1106, through the mediation of
  the pope, according to which the crown gave up the investiture
  with ring and staff, and the archbishop agreed to take the oath
  of fealty.--In France, too, from the end of the 11th century,
  owing to the pressure used by the high church reforming party,
  the secular power was satisfied with securing the oath of
  fealty from the higher clergy, without making further claim
  to investiture.[277]

  § 96.13. =The Times of Lothair III. and Conrad III.,
  A.D. 1125-1152.=--After the death of Henry V. without issue,
  the Saxon =Lothair=, A.D. 1125-1137, was elected, and the
  Hohenstaufen grandson of Henry IV. descended in the female
  line was passed over. =Honorius II.=, A.D. 1124-1130, successor
  of Calixtus II., hastened to confer the papal sanction upon
  the newly elected emperor, who already upon his election had,
  by accepting spiritual investiture before temporal investiture,
  and a minimising of the oath of fealty by ecclesiastical
  reservations, showed himself ready to support the claims
  of the clergy. But neither ban nor the preaching of a crusade
  against Count Roger II. of Sicily (§ 95, 1) could prevent him
  from building up a powerful kingdom comprehending all Southern
  Italy. The next election of the cardinals gives us two popes:
  =Innocent II.=, A.D. 1130-1143, and Anacletus II., A.D. 1130-1138.
  The latter, although not the pope of the majority, secured a
  powerful support in the friendship of Roger II., whom he had
  crowned king by his legate at Palermo. Innocent, on the other
  hand, fled to France. There the two oracles of the age, the
  abbot Peter of Clugny and Bernard of Clairvaux, took his side
  and won for him the favour of all Cisalpine Europe. Both popes
  fished for Lothair’s favour with the bait of the promise of
  imperial coronation. A second edition of the Synod of Sutri
  would probably have enabled a more powerful king to attain the
  elevation of Henry III. But Lothair was not the man to seize the
  opportunity. He decided in favour of the _protégé_ of Bernard,
  led him back in A.D. 1133 to the eternal city, had himself
  crowned emperor by him in the Lateran and invested with Matilda’s
  inheritance, which was declared by the curialists a fief of
  the empire. But Lothair’s repeated demands, that what had been
  acquired by the Concordat of Worms should be renounced, were
  set aside, through the opposition not so much of the pope as
  of St. Bernard and St. Norbert (§ 98, 2). At the prayer of the
  pope, who immediately after Lothair’s departure had been driven
  out by Roger, and moved by the prophetic exhortations of Bernard,
  the emperor prepared for a second Roman campaign in A.D. 1136.
  Leaving the conquest of Rome to the eloquence of the prophet
  of Clairvaux, he advanced from one victory to another until he
  brought all Southern Italy under the imperial sway, and died on
  his return homeward in an Alpine hut in the Tyrol. Fuming with
  rage Roger now crossed over from Sicily and in a short time he
  reconquered his southern provinces of Italy. The appointment,
  however, of a new pope after the death of Anacletus miscarried,
  and Innocent was able at the =Second Œcumenical Lateran Synod=
  in A.D. 1139 to declare the schism at an end. The pope then
  renewed the excommunication of Roger and pronounced an anathema
  against the teachings of Arnold of Brescia (§ 108, 7), a young
  enthusiastic priest of the school of Abælard, who traced all
  ecclesiastical corruption back to the wealth of the church and
  the secular power of the clergy. He next prepared himself for
  war with Roger. That prince, however, waylaid him and had him
  brought into his tent, where he and his sons cast themselves at
  the holy father’s feet and begged for mercy and peace. The pope
  could do nothing else than play the _rôle_ of the magnanimous
  given him in this comedy. He had therefore to confirm the
  hated Norman in the possession of the conquered provinces
  as a hereditary monarchy with the ecclesiastical privilege
  of a native legate, and, as some set off to comfort himself
  with, the prince was to regard the territory as a fief of the
  papal see. But still greater calamities befell this pope. The
  republican freedom, which the cities of Tuscany and Lombardy
  won during the 12th century, awakened also among the Romans
  a love of liberty. They refused to render obedience in temporal
  matters to the pope and established in the Capitol a popular
  senate, which undertook the civil government in the name of
  the Roman Commune. Innocent died during the revolution. His
  successor =Cœlestine II.= held the pontificate for only five
  months, and =Lucius II.=, after vainly opposing the Commune
  for seven months, was killed by a stone thrown in a tumult.
  =Eugenius III.=, A.D. 1145-1153, a scholar and friend of
  St. Bernard, was obliged immediately after his election to
  seek safety in flight. An agreement, however, was come to in
  that same year: the pope acknowledged the government of the
  Commune as legitimate, while it recognised his superiority and
  granted to him the investiture of the senators. Yet, though
  taken back three times to Rome, he could never remain there for
  more than a few months. He visited France and Germany (Treves)
  in A.D. 1147. In France he heard of the fall of Edessa. Supported
  by the fiery zeal of Bernard, the summons to a second crusade
  (§ 94, 2) aroused a burning enthusiasm throughout all the West.
  But in Rome he was unable to offer any effectual resistance
  to the demagogical preaching by which Arnold of Brescia from
  A.D. 1146 had inflamed the people and the inferior clergy with
  an ardent enthusiasm for his ideal constitution of an apostolic
  church and a democratic state. Since this change of feeling
  had taken place in Rome, both parties, that of the Capitol
  as well as that of the Lateran, had repeatedly endeavoured
  to win to their side the first Hohenstaufen on the German
  throne, =Conrad III.=, A.D. 1138-1152, by promise of bestowing
  the imperial crown. But Conrad, meanwhile otherwise occupied,
  refrained from all intermeddling, and when at last he actually
  started upon a journey to Rome death overtook him on the way.

  § 96.14. =The Times of Frederick I. and Henry VI.,
  A.D. 1152-1190.=--The nephew and successor of Conrad III.,
  =Frederick I. Barbarossa=, A.D. 1152-1190, began his reign with
  the firm determination to realize fully the ideas of Charlemagne
  (§ 82, 3) by his pope Paschalis III., whom at a later period,
  in A.D. 1165, he had canonized. With profound contempt at heart
  for the Roman democracy of his time, he concluded a compact
  in A.D. 1153 with the papal see, which confirmed him in the
  possession of the imperial crown and gave to the pope the
  _Dominium temporale_ in the Church States. After the death
  of Eugenius which soon followed, the aged =Anastasius IV.=
  occupied the papal chair for a year and a half, a time of peace
  and progress. He was succeeded by the powerful =Hadrian IV.=,
  A.D. 1154-1159. He was an Englishman, Nicholas Breakspear, son
  of a poor English priest, the first and, down to the present
  time, the only one of that nation who attained the papal dignity.
  He pronounced an interdict upon the Romans who had refused him
  entrance into the inner part of the city and had treacherously
  slain a cardinal. Rome endured this spiritual famine only for
  a few weeks, and then purchased deliverance by the expulsion of
  Arnold of Brescia, who soon thereafter fell into the hands of a
  cardinal. He was indeed again rescued by force, but Frederick I.,
  who had meanwhile in A.D. 1154 begun his first journey to
  Rome, and on his way thither had humbled the proud Lombard
  cities struggling for freedom, urged by the pope, insisted
  that he should be surrendered up again, and subsequently gave
  him over to the Roman city prefect, who, in A.D. 1155, without
  trial or show of justice condemned him to be burnt and had
  his ashes strewn upon the Tiber. In the camp at Sutri the pope
  personally greeted the king who, after refusing for several days,
  at length agreed to show him the customary honour of holding
  his stirrup, doing it however with a very bad grace. Soon too
  the senatorial ambassadors of the Roman people, who indulged in
  bombastic, turgid declamation, presented themselves professing
  their readiness on consideration of a solemn undertaking to
  protect the Roman republic, and on payment of five thousand
  pounds, to proclaim the German king from the Capitol Roman
  emperor and ruler of the world. With a furious burst of anger
  Frederick silenced them, and with scathing words showed them
  how the witness of history pointed the contrast between their
  miserable condition and the glory and dignity of the German name.
  Yet on the day of the coronation, which they were not able to
  prevent, the Romans took revenge for the insults he had heaped
  upon them by an attack upon the papal residence in the castle
  of Leo, and upon the imperial camp in front of the city, but
  were repelled with sore loss. Soon thereafter, in A.D. 1155, the
  emperor made preparations for returning home, leaving everything
  else to the pope. The relations between the two became more
  and more strained from day to day. The Lombards, too, once
  again rebelled. Frederick therefore in A.D. 1158 made his second
  expedition to Rome. On the Roncalian plains he held a great
  assembly which laid down to the Lombards as well as to the pope
  the imperial prerogatives. Hadrian would have given utterance to
  his wrath by thundering an anathema, but he was restrained by the
  hand of death.

  § 96.15. The cardinals of the hierarchical party elected
  =Alexander III.=, A.D. 1159-1181, those of the imperial party,
  Victor IV. A synod convened by the emperor at Pavia in A.D. 1160
  decided in favour of Victor, who was now formally recognised.
  Meanwhile Milan threw off the yoke that had been laid upon her.
  After an almost two years’ siege the emperor took the city in
  A.D. 1162 and razed it to the ground. From France whither he had
  fled, Alexander, in A.D. 1163, launched his anathema against the
  emperor and his pope. The latter died in A.D. 1164, and Frederick
  had Paschalis III. († A.D. 1168) chosen his successor; but in
  A.D. 1165, Alexander returning from France, pressed on in advance
  of him and was acknowledged by the Roman senate. Now for the
  third time in A.D. 1166, Frederick crossed the Alps. A small
  detachment of troops that had been sent in advance to accompany
  the imperial pope to Rome under the leadership of the archbishops
  of Cologne and Mainz, in a bloody battle at Monte Porzio in
  A.D. 1167 utterly destroyed a Roman army of twenty times its
  size. Frederick then himself hasted forward. After an eight
  days’ furious assault the fortress of Leo surrendered, and
  Paschalis was able to perform the _Te Deum_ in St. Peter’s.
  The Transtiberines, too, after Alexander had sought safety
  in flight, soon took the oath of fealty to the emperor upon
  a guarantee of imperial protection of their republic. But at
  the very climax of his success “the fate of Sennacherib” befell
  him. The Roman malaria during the hot August became a deadly
  fever plague, thinned the lines of his army and forced him to
  withdraw. So weakened was he that he could not even assert his
  authority in Lombardy, but had to return to Germany in A.D. 1168.
  The emperor’s disaster told also unfavourably upon the fortunes
  of his pope, whose successor Calixtus III. was quite disregarded.
  In A.D. 1174 Frederick again went down into Italy and engaged
  upon a decisive battle with the confederate cities of Lombardy,
  but in A.D. 1176 at Legnano he suffered a complete defeat,
  in consequence of which he agreed at the Congress of Venice,
  in A.D. 1177, to acknowledge the freedom of the Lombard
  cities, abandoned the imperial claims upon Rome, and recognised
  Alexander III., who was also present there, as the rightful
  pope, kissing his feet and holding his stirrup according to
  custom. Rome, which he had not seen for nearly eleven years,
  would no longer shut her gates against the pope. Welcomed
  by senate and people, he made his public entrance into the
  Lateran in March A.D. 1178, where in the following year he
  gathered together 300 bishops in the =Third Lateran Council=
  (the 11th œcumenical), in order by their advice to heal the
  wounds which the schism of the church had made. Here also,
  in order to prevent double elections in time to come, it was
  resolved that for a valid papal election two-thirds of the whole
  college of cardinals must be agreed. The right of concurrence
  assigned by the decree of Nicholas II. in A.D. 1059 to the people
  and emperor was treated as antiquated and forgotten, and was not
  even alluded to.

  § 96.16. Even before his victory over the powerful Hohenstaufen,
  Alexander III. during his exile won a yet more brilliant success
  in England. King Henry II., A.D. 1154-1189, wished to establish
  again the supremacy of the state over church and clergy, and
  thought that he would have a pliant tool in carrying out his
  plans in =Thomas à Becket=, whom he made archbishop of Canterbury,
  in A.D. 1162. But as primate of the English church, Thomas
  proved a vigorous upholder of hierarchical principles. Instead
  of the accommodating courtier, the king found the archbishop
  immediately upon his consecration the bold asserter of the claims
  of the church. The jovial man of the world became at once the
  saintly ascetic. At a council at Tours in A.D. 1163, he returned
  into the pope’s own hand the pallium with which an English
  prince had invested him in name of the king, resigning also his
  archiepiscopal dignity, that he might receive these directly as
  a papal gift. Straightway began the conflict between the king
  and his former favourite. Henry summoned a diet at Clarendon,
  where he obtained the approval of the superior clergy for his
  anti-hierarchical propositions; Thomas also for a time withstood,
  promising at last, when urged on all sides, to assent to the
  constitutions, but refusing to sign the document when it was
  placed before him. The king now ordered a process of deposition
  to be executed against him, and Thomas then fled to France,
  where the pope was at that time residing. The pope released him
  from his promise, condemned the Constitutions of Clarendon, and
  threatened the king with anathema and interdict. At last, after
  protracted negotiations, in A.D. 1170 by means of a personal
  interview on the frontiers of Normandy, a reconciliation was
  effected; by which, however, neither the king nor the archbishop
  renounced their claims. Thomas now returned to England and
  threatened with excommunication all bishops who should agree
  to the Constitutions of Clarendon. Four knights seized upon an
  unguarded word of the king which he had uttered in passion, and
  murdered the archbishop at the altar in A.D. 1170. Alexander
  canonized the martyr to Hildebrandism, and the king was so
  sorely pressed by the pope, his own people and his rebellious
  sons, that he consented to do penance humbly at the tomb of
  his deadly sainted foe, and submitted to be scourged by the
  monks. Becket’s bones, for which a special chapel was reared at
  Canterbury, were visited by crowds of pilgrims until Henry VIII.,
  when he had broken with Rome (§ 139, 4), formally arraigned
  the saint as a traitor, had his name struck out of the calendar
  and his ashes scattered to the winds.[278]--Thus by A.D. 1178
  Alexander III. had risen to the summit of ecclesiastical power;
  but in Rome itself as well as in the Church States, he remained
  as powerless politically as before. Soon, therefore, after the
  great council he again quitted the city for a voluntary exile,
  and never saw it more. His three immediate successors, too,
  =Lucius III.= († A.D. 1185), =Urban III.= († A.D. 1187), and
  =Gregory VIII.= († A.D. 1187), were elected, consecrated and
  buried outside of Rome. =Clement III.= († A.D. 1191) was the
  first to enter the Lateran again in A.D. 1188, on the basis of
  a compromise which acknowledged the republican constitution under
  the papal superiority. Meanwhile Frederick I., without regarding
  the protest of the pope as liege lord of the Sicilian crown, had
  in A.D. 1186 consummated the fateful marriage of his son Henry
  with Constance, the posthumous daughter of king Roger, and aunt
  of his childless grandson William II. († A.D. 1194), and thus the
  heiress of the great Norman kingdom of Italy. From the crusade
  which he then undertook in A.D. 1189 Frederick never returned
  (§ 94, 3). His successor, =Henry VI.=, A.D. 1190-1197, compelled
  the new pope =Cœlestine III.=, A.D. 1191-1198, to crown him
  emperor in A.D. 1191, conquered the inheritance of his wife,
  pushed back the boundaries of the Church States to the very
  gates of Rome, and asserted his imperial rights even over the
  city of Rome itself. He pressed on to the realizing of the scheme
  for making the German crown together with the imperial dignity
  for ever hereditary in his house. The princes of the empire in
  A.D. 1196 elected his son Frederick II., when scarcely two years
  old, as king of the Romans. He then thought under the pretext
  of a crusade to conquer Greece, to which he had laid groundless
  claims of succession, but while upon the way his plans were
  overthrown by his sudden death at Messina.

  § 96.17. =Innocent III., A.D. 1198-1216.=--After the death
  of Alexander III. the power and reputation of the Holy See had
  fallen into the lowest degradation. Then the cardinal deacon,
  Lothair Count of Segni in Anagni, succeeded in A.D. 1198 in his
  37th year, under the name of Innocent III., and raised the papacy
  again to a height of power and glory never reached before. In
  point of intellect and power of will he was not a whit behind
  Gregory VII., while in culture (§ 102, 9), scholarship, subtlety
  and adroitness he far excelled him. His piety, too, his moral
  earnestness, his enthusiasm and devotion to the church and the
  theocratical interest of the chair of St. Peter, were at least
  as powerful and decidedly purer, deeper and more spiritual
  than Gregory’s. And in addition to all these great endowments
  he enjoyed an invariable good fortune which never forsook him.
  His first task was the restoration of the Church States and
  his political prestige in Rome. In both these directions he
  was favoured by the sudden death of Henry VI. and the internal
  disorders of the Capitoline government of that time. On the very
  day of his enthronement the imperial prefect tendered him the
  oath of fealty and the Capitol did homage to him as the superior.
  And also before the second year had passed the Church States
  in their fullest extent were restored by the expulsion of the
  greater and smaller feudal lords who had been settled there
  by Henry VI. Rome was indeed once more the scene of wild party
  conflicts which forced the pope in A.D. 1203 to fly to Anagni.
  He was able, however, to return in A.D. 1204 and to conclude
  a definite and decisive peace with the Commune in A.D. 1205,
  according to the terms of which the many-headed senate resigned,
  and a single senator or podestà nominated by the pope was
  entrusted with the executive authority. Meanwhile Innocent
  had been gaining brilliant successes beyond the limits of the
  States of the Church. These were won first of all in Sicily.
  The widow of Henry VI. had her son Frederick of four years old,
  after his father’s death, crowned king in Palermo. Unadvised
  and helpless, pressed upon all sides, she sought protection
  from Innocent, which he granted upon her renouncing the
  ecclesiastical privileges previously claimed by the king
  and making acknowledgment of the papal suzerainty. Dying in
  A.D. 1198, Constance transferred to him the guardianship of her
  son, and the pope justified the confidence placed in him by the
  excellent and liberal education which he secured for his ward,
  as well as by the zeal and success with which he restored rest
  and peace to the land. In Germany, Philip of Swabia, Frederick’s
  uncle, was appointed to carry on the government in the name
  of his Sicilian nephew during his minority. The condition of
  Germany, however, demanded the direct control of a firm and
  vigorous ruler. The princes, therefore, insisted upon a new
  election, for which Philip also now appeared as candidate. The
  votes were split between two rivals; the Ghibellines voting
  for Philip, A.D. 1198-1208, and the Guelph party for =Otto IV.=
  of Brunswick, A.D. 1198-1218. The party of the latter referred
  the decision to the pope. For three years he delayed giving
  judgment, then he decided in favour of the Guelph, who paid
  for the preference by granting all the demands of the pope,
  and calling himself king by the grace of God and the pope. The
  States of the Church were thus represented as including the Duchy
  of Spoleto, and in the election of bishops the church was freed
  from the influence of the state. By A.D. 1204, however, Philip’s
  power and repute had risen to such a pitch that even the pope
  found himself obliged to take into account the altered position
  of matters. A papal court of arbitration at Rome to which both
  claimants had agreed to submit, was on the point of giving its
  decision unequivocally in favour of the Hohenstaufen, when the
  murder of Philip by Otto of Wittelsbach, in A.D. 1208, rendered
  it void. Otto IV. was now acknowledged by all, and in A.D. 1209
  he was crowned by the pope after new concessions had been made.
  But as Roman emperor he either would not or could not perform
  what he had promised before and at his coronation. He took to
  himself the possessions of Matilda as well as other parts of
  the States of the Church, and was not prevented from pursuing
  his victorious campaign in Southern Italy by the anathema which
  Innocent thundered against him in A.D. 1210. Then Innocent called
  to mind the old rights of his former pupil to the German crown,
  and insisted that they should be given effect to. In A.D. 1212,
  Frederick II., now in his eighteenth year, accepted the call, was
  received in Germany with open arms, and was crowned in A.D. 1215
  at Aachen. Otto could not maintain his position against him, and
  so withdrew to his hereditary possessions, and died in A.D. 1218.

  § 96.18. King Philip Augustus II. of France, had in A.D. 1193
  married the Danish princess Ingeborg, but divorced her in
  A.D. 1196, and married the beautiful Duchess Agnes of Meran.
  Innocent compelled him in A.D. 1200 to put her away by issuing
  against him an interdict, but it was only in A.D. 1213 that
  he again took back Ingeborg as his legitimate wife.--From far
  off Spain the young king Peter of Arragon went in A.D. 1204 to
  Rome, laid down his crown as a sacred gift upon the tomb of the
  chief of the apostles, and voluntarily undertook the payment of
  a yearly tribute to the Holy See. In the same year a crusading
  army, by founding a Latin empire in Constantinople, brought
  the schismatical East to the feet of the pope (§ 94, 4). In
  England, when the archbishopric of Canterbury became vacant,
  the chapter filled it by electing their own superior Reginald.
  This choice they had soon cause to rue. They therefore annulled
  their election, and at the wish of the usurping king John
  Lackland made choice of John, bishop of Norwich. Innocent
  refused to confirm their action, and persuaded certain members
  of the chapter staying in Rome to choose the cardinal priest
  Stephen Langton, whose election he immediately confirmed.[279]
  When the king refused to recognise this appointment, and on an
  interdict being threatened swore that he would drive all priests
  who should obey it out of the country, the pope issued it in
  A.D. 1208 against all England, excommunicated the king, and
  finally, in A.D. 1212, released all his subjects from their
  oath of allegiance and deposed the monarch, while he commissioned
  Philip Augustus of France to carry the sentence into effect.
  John, now as cringing and terrified as before he had been proud
  and despotic, humbled himself in the dust, and at Dover, in
  A.D. 1213, placed kingdom and crown at the feet of the papal
  legate Pandulf, and received it from his hands as a papal fief,
  undertaking to pay twice a year the tribute imposed. But in
  A.D. 1214 the English nobles extorted from their cowardly tyrant
  as a safeguard against lordly wilfulness and despotism the famous
  _Magna Charta_, against which the pope protested, threatening
  excommunication and promising legitimate redress of their
  grievances, though in consequence of confusion caused by the
  breaking out again of the civil wars he was unable to enforce
  his protest. And now his days were drawing to an end. At the
  famous =Fourth Lateran Council of A.D. 1215=, more than 1,500
  prelates from all the countries of Christendom, along with the
  ambassadors of almost all Christian kings, princes and free
  cities, gave him homage as the representative of God on earth,
  as visible Head of the Church, and supreme lord and judge of all
  princes and peoples. A few months later he died.--As in Italy and
  Germany, in France and England, he had also in all other states
  of the Christian world, in Spain and Portugal, in Poland, Livonia
  and Sweden, in Constantinople and Bulgaria, shown himself capable
  of controlling political as well as ecclesiastical movements,
  arranging and smoothing down differences, organizing and putting
  into shape what was tending to disorder. Some conception of his
  activity may be formed from the 5,316 extant decretals of the
  eighteen years of his pontificate.

  § 96.19. =The Times of Frederick II. and his Successors,
  A.D. 1215-1268.=--=Frederick II.=,[280] A.D. 1215-1250, contrary
  to the Hohenstaufen custom, had not only agreed to the partition
  of Sicily from the empire in favour of his son Henry, but also
  renewed the agreements previously entered into with the pope
  by Otto IV. He even increased the papal possessions by ceding
  Ancona, and still further at his coronation at Aachen he showed
  his goodwill by undertaking a crusade. He also allowed this
  same Henry who became king of Sicily as a vassal of the pope,
  to be elected king of the Romans in A.D. 1220, and then began
  his journey to Rome to receive imperial coronation. The new pope
  =Honorius III.=, A.D. 1216-1227, formerly Frederick’s tutor and
  even still entertaining for him a fatherly affection, exacted
  from him a solemn renewal of his earlier promises. But instead
  of returning to Germany, Frederick started for Sicily in order
  to make it the basis of operations for the future carrying out
  of the ideas of his father and grandfather. The peace-loving
  pope constantly urged him to fulfil his promise of fitting out
  a crusade. But it was only after his successor =Gregory IX.=,
  A.D. 1227-1241, a high churchman of the stamp of Gregory VII.
  and Innocent III., urged the matter with greater determination,
  that Frederick actually embarked. He turned back, however,
  as soon as an epidemic broke out in the ships, but he did
  not himself escape the contagion, and died three days after.
  In A.D. 1227 the pope had in a senseless passion hurled an
  anathema against him, and, in an encyclical to all the bishops,
  painted the emperor’s ingratitude and breach of faith in
  the darkest colours. The emperor on his part, in a manifesto
  justifying himself addressed to the princes and people of Europe,
  had quite as unsparingly lashed the worldliness of the church,
  the corruption, presumption and self-seeking of the papacy,
  and then in A.D. 1228 he again undertook the postponed crusade
  (§ 94, 5). The pope’s curse followed “the pirate” to the very
  threshold of the Holy Sepulchre, and a papal crusading force
  made a raid upon Southern Italy. Frederick therefore hastened
  his return, landed in A.D. 1229 in Apulia, and entered into
  negotiations for peace, to which, however, the pope agreed
  only in A.D. 1230, when the emperor’s victoriously advancing
  troops threatened him with the loss of the States of the Church.
  In consequence of the pope’s continued difficulties with his
  Romans, who drove him three times out of the city, Frederick
  had frequent opportunities of showing himself serviceable
  to the pope by giving direct aid or mediating in his favour.
  Nevertheless he continually conspired with the rebellious
  Lombards, and in A.D. 1239 renewed the ban against the emperor.
  The pope who had hitherto only charged Frederick with a tendency
  to freethinking, as well as an inclination to favour the Saracens
  (§ 95, 1), and to maintain friendly intercourse with the Syrian
  sultans, now accused him of flippant infidelity. The emperor,
  it was said, had among other things declared that the birth of
  the Saviour by a virgin was a fable, and that Jesus, Moses and
  Mohammed were the three greatest impostors the world had ever
  seen,--a form of unbelief which spread very widely in consequence
  of the crusades. Manifestoes and counter-manifestoes sought to
  outdo one another in their violence. And while the wild hordes
  of the Mongols were overspreading unopposed the whole of Eastern
  Europe, the emperor’s troops were victoriously pressing forward
  to the gates of Rome, and his ships were preventing the meeting
  of the council summoned against him by catching the prelates who
  in spite of his prohibition were hastening to it. The pope died
  in A.D. 1241, and was followed in seventeen days by his successor
  Cœlestine IV.

  § 96.20. For almost two years the papal chair remained vacant.
  Then this position was won by =Innocent IV.=, A.D. 1243-1254,
  who as cardinal had been friendly to the emperor, but as pope
  was a most bitter enemy to him and to his house. The negotiations
  about the removal of the ban were broken off, and Innocent
  escaped to France, where at the =First Lyonese or 13th Œcumenical
  Council of A.D. 1245=, attended by scarcely any but Frenchmen
  and Spaniards, he renewed the excommunication of the emperor,
  and declared him as a blasphemer and robber of the church
  deprived of his throne. Once again with the most abject humility
  Frederick sued for reconciliation with the church. The pope,
  however, wished not for reconciliation, but the destruction of
  the whole “viper brood” of the Hohenstaufens. But the rival king,
  Henry Raspe of Thuringia, set up by the papal party in Germany,
  and William of Holland, who was put forward after his death in
  A.D. 1247, could not maintain their position against Frederick’s
  son, Conrad IV., who as early as A.D. 1235 had been elected
  in place of his rebel brother Henry as king of the Romans.
  Even in Italy the fortune of war favoured at first the imperial
  arms. At the siege of Parma, which was disloyal, the tide began
  to turn. The sorely pressed citizens made a sally in A.D. 1248,
  while Frederick was away at a hunt, and roused to courage by
  despair, put his army to flight. His brave son, Enzio, king of
  Sardinia and governor of Northern Italy, fell in A.D. 1249 into
  the hands of the Bolognese, and was subjected to a life-long
  imprisonment. Frederick himself in A.D. 1250 closed his active
  life in the south in the arms of his son Manfred. The pope then
  returned to Italy, in order to take possession of the Sicilian
  kingdom, which he claimed as a papal fief. But in A.D. 1251
  =Conrad IV.=, summoned by Manfred, hasted thither from Germany,
  subdued Apulia, conquered Naples, and was resolved to lay hands
  on the person of the pope himself, who had also excommunicated
  him, when his career was stopped by death in A.D. 1254, in
  his twenty-sixth year. On behalf of Conrad’s two-year-old
  son, Conradin, who had been born in Germany after his father’s
  departure, Manfred undertook the regency in Southern Italy,
  but found himself obliged to acknowledge the pope’s suzerainty.
  Nevertheless the pope was determined to have him also overthrown.
  Manfred, however, escaped in time to the Saracenic colony
  of Luceria, and with its help utterly defeated the papal
  troops sent out against him. Five days after Innocent IV.
  died, =Alexander IV.=, A.D. 1254-1261, although without his
  predecessor’s ability, sought still to continue his work. He
  could not, however, either by ban or by war prevent Manfred,
  who on the report of Conradin’s death had had himself crowned,
  from extending the power and prestige of his kingdom farther and
  farther into the north. =Urban IV.=, A.D. 1261-1264, a Frenchman
  by birth, son of a shoemaker of Troyes, took up with all his
  heart the heritage of hate against the Hohenstaufens, and in
  A.D. 1263 invited Charles of Anjou, the youngest brother of
  Louis IX. of France, to win by conquest the Sicilian crown.
  While the prince was preparing for the campaign Urban died.
  His successor, =Clement IV.=, A.D. 1265-1268, also a Frenchman,
  could not but carry out what his predecessor had begun. Charles,
  whom the Romans without the knowledge of the pope had elected
  their senator, proceeded in A.D. 1265 into Italy, took the vassal
  oath of fealty, and was crowned as Charles I., A.D. 1265-1285,
  king of the two Sicilies. Treachery opened up his way into
  Naples. Manfred fell in A.D. 1266 in the battle of Benevento;
  and Conradin, whom the Ghibellines had called in as a deliverer
  of Italy, after the disastrous battle of Tagliacozzo in A.D. 1268,
  died on the scaffold in his sixteenth year.

  § 96.21. =The Times of the House of Anjou down to Boniface VIII.,
  A.D. 1288-1294.=--The papacy had emerged triumphantly from
  its hundred years’ struggle with the Hohenstaufens, and by
  the overthrow of this powerful house Germany was thrown into
  the utmost confusion and anarchy. But Italy, too, was now in
  a condition of extreme disorder, and the unconscionable tyrants
  of Naples subjected it to a much more intolerable bondage than
  those had done from whom they pretended to have delivered it.
  After the death of Clement IV. the Holy See remained vacant
  for three years. The cardinals would not elect such a pope
  as would be agreeable to Charles I. During this papal vacancy
  Louis IX. of France, A.D. 1226-1270, fitted out the seventh
  and last crusade (§ 94, 6), from which he was not to return.
  As previously he had reformed the administration of justice,
  he now before his departure introduced drastic reforms in the
  ecclesiastical institutions of his kingdom, which laid the first
  foundations of the celebrated “Gallican Liberties.” Clement IV.
  gave occasion for such procedure on the part of the monarch
  who was a model of piety after the standard of those times,
  by claiming in A.D. 1266 for the papal chair the _plenaria
  dispositio_ of all prebends and benefices. In opposition
  to this assumption the king secured by a Pragmatic Sanction
  of A.D. 1269 to all churches and monasteries of his realm
  unconditional freedom of all elections and presentations
  according to old existing rights, confirmed to them anew all
  privileges and immunities previously granted them, forbade
  every form of simony as a heinous crime, and prohibited all
  extraordinary taxation of church property on the part of the
  Roman curia.--At last the cardinals took courage and elected
  =Gregory X.=, A.D. 1271-1276, an Italian of the noble house
  of Visconti. The desolating interregnum in Germany was also
  put an end to by the election of =Count Rudolf of Hapsburg=,
  A.D. 1273-1291, as king of the Germans. At the =Second Lyonese
  or 14th Œcumenical Council of A.D. 1274=, the worthy pope
  continued his endeavours without avail to rouse the flagging
  enthusiasm of the princes so as to get them to undertake another
  crusade. The union with the Greek church did not prove of an
  enduring kind (§ 67, 4). The constitution, too, sanctioned
  at the council, which provided, in order to prevent prolonged
  vacancies in the papal see, that the election of pope should
  not only be proceeded with in immured conclaves in the place
  where the deceased pope last resided with the curia, but also
  (though this was again abrogated in A.D. 1351 by a decree of
  Clement VI.) should be expedited by limiting the supply of food
  after three days to one dish, after other five days to water,
  wine, and bread. Yet this completely failed to secure the object
  desired. More successful, however, were the negotiations carried
  on at Lyons with the ambassadors of the new German king. Rudolf,
  in entering upon his government, renewed all the concessions
  made by Otto IV. and Frederick II., renounced all imperial claims
  upon Rome and the States of the Church, with the exception of the
  possessions of Matilda, and abandoned all pretension to Sicily.
  The pope on his part acknowledged him as king of the Romans and
  undertook to crown him emperor in Rome, where this agreement
  was to be formally ratified and signed. But Gregory died before
  arrangements had been completed.

  § 96.22. The three following popes, Innocent V., Hadrian V.,
  and John XXI., died soon after one another. The last named,
  previously known as Petrus [Peter] Hispanus, had distinguished
  himself by his medical and philosophical writings. He was
  properly the twentieth Pope John, but as there was a slight
  element of uncertainty (§ 82, 6) he designated himself the
  twenty-first. After a six months’ vacancy =Nicholas III.=,
  A.D. 1277-1280, mounted the papal throne. By diplomacy he
  secured the ratification of the still undecided concordat with
  the German kingdom, and Rudolf, who had enough to do in Germany,
  immediately withdrew from Italian affairs, even abandoning
  his claims to imperial coronation. The powerful pope, whose
  pontificate was marked by rapacity and nepotism, and who is
  therefore put by Dante in hell, did not live long enough to
  carry out his plans for the overthrow of the French yoke in
  Italy. But he obliged Charles I. to resign his Roman senatorship,
  and secretly encouraged a conspiracy of the Sicilians, which
  under his successor =Martin IV.=, A.D. 1281-1285, a Frenchman
  and a pliable tool of Charles, broke out in the terrible
  “Sicilian Vespers” of A.D. 1282. The island of Sicily was
  thereby rent from the French rule and papal vassalage, and in
  a roundabout way the Hohenstaufens by the female line regained
  the government of this part of their old inheritance (§ 95, 1).
  Rome now again in A.D. 1284 shook off the senatorial rule which
  Charles I. had meanwhile again assumed, and after his death
  and that of Martin, which speedily followed, they transferred
  this dignity to the new pope =Honorius IV.=, A.D. 1285-1287,
  whose short but vigorous reign was followed by a vacancy of
  eleven months. The Franciscan general then mounted the papal
  throne as =Nicholas IV.=, A.D. 1288-1292. He filled up the
  period of his pontificate with vain endeavours to revive the
  spirit of the crusades and secure the suppression of heresy.
  Violent party feuds of cardinals of the Orsini and Colonna
  factions delayed the election of a pope after his death for
  two years. They united at last in electing the most unfit
  conceivable, Peter of Murrone (§ 98, 2), who, as =Cœlestine V.=
  changed the monk’s cowl for the papal tiara, but was persuaded
  after four months by the sly and ambitious Cardinal Cajetan
  to resign. Cajetan now himself succeeded in A.D. 1294 as
  Boniface VIII. The poor monk was confined by him in a tower,
  where he died. He was afterwards canonized by Pope John XXII.

  § 96.23. =Temporal Power of the Popes.=--During the 12th and 13th
  centuries, when the spiritual power of the papacy had reached its
  highest point, the pope came to be regarded as the absolute head
  of the church. Gregory VII. arrogated the right of confirming
  all episcopal elections. The papal recommendations to vacant sees
  (_Preces_, whence those so recommended were called _Precistæ_)
  were from the time of Innocent III. transformed into mandates
  (_Mandata_), and Clement IV. claimed for the papal chair
  the right of a _plenario dispositio_ of all ecclesiastical
  benefices. Even in the 12th century the theory was put forth
  as in accordance with the canon law that all ecclesiastical
  possessions were the property not of the particular churches
  concerned but of God or Christ, and so of the pope as His
  representative, who in administering them was responsible to
  Him alone. Hence the popes, in special cases when the ordinary
  revenues of the curia were insufficient, had no hesitation
  in exercising the right of levying a tax upon ecclesiastical
  property. They heard appeals from all tribunals and could
  give dispensations from existing church laws. The right of
  canonization (§ 104, 8), which was previously in the power of
  each bishop with application simply to his own diocese, was
  for the first time exercised with a claim for recognition over
  the whole church by John XV., in A.D. 993, without, however,
  any word of withdrawing their privilege from the bishops.
  Alexander III. was the first to declare in A.D. 1170 that
  canonization was exclusively the right of the papal chair. The
  system of Gregory VII. made no claim of doctrinal infallibility
  for the Holy See, though his ignorance of history led him to
  suppose that no heretic had ever presided over the Roman church,
  and his understanding of Luke xxii. 32 made him confidently
  expect that none ever would. Innocent III., indeed, publicly
  acknowledged that even the pope might err in matters of faith,
  and then, but only then, become amenable to the judgment of
  the church. And Innocent IV., fifty years later, taught that
  the pope might err. It is therefore wrong to say, “I believe
  what the pope believes;” for one should believe only what the
  church teaches. Thomas Aquinas was the first who expressly
  maintained the doctrine of papal infallibility. He says that
  the pope alone can decide finally upon matters of faith, and that
  even the decrees of councils only become valid and authoritative
  when confirmed by him. Thomas, however, never went the length of
  maintaining that the pope can by himself affirm any dogma without
  the advice and previous deliberations of a council.--Kissing
  the feet sprang from an Italian custom, and even an emperor
  like Frederick Barbarossa humbled himself to hold the pope’s
  stirrup. According to the _Donation of Constantine_ document
  (§ 87, 4), Constantine the Great had himself performed this
  office of equerry to Pope Sylvester. When the coronation of
  the pope was introduced is still a disputed point. Nicholas I.
  was, according to the _Liber pontificalis_, formally crowned on
  his accession. Previously the successors of the apostles were
  satisfied with a simple episcopal mitre (§ 84, 1), which on the
  head of the crowned pope was developed into the tiara (§ 110, 15).
  At the Lateran Council of A.D. 1059 Hildebrand is said to have
  set upon the head of the new pope Nicholas II. a double crown to
  indicate the council’s recognition of his temporal and spiritual
  sovereignty. The papal granting of a golden rose consecrated by
  prayer, incense, balsam and holy water to princes of exemplary
  piety or even to prominent monasteries, churches, or cities,
  conveying an obligation to make acknowledgment by a large money
  gift, dates as far back as the 12th century. So far as is known,
  Louis VII. was the first to receive it from Alexander III.
  in A.D. 1163.--The popes appointed legates to represent them
  abroad, as they had done even earlier at the synods held in the
  East. Afterwards, when the institution came to be more fully
  elaborated, a distinction was made between _Legati missi_ or
  nuntios and _Legati nati_. The former were appointed as required
  for diplomatic negotiations, visitation and organization of
  churches, as well as for the holding of provincial synods, at
  which they presided. They were called _Legati a latere_, if the
  special importance of the business demanded a representation
  from among the nearest and most trusted councillors of the pope,
  _i.e._ one of the cardinals, as _Pontifices collaterales_. The
  rank of _born_ legate, _Legatus natus_, on the other hand, was
  a prelatic dignity of the highest order conferred once for all
  by papal privilege, sometimes even upon temporal princes, who
  had specially served the Holy See, as for example the king of
  Hungary and the Norman princes of Italy (§ 96, 3, 13), which
  made them permanently representatives of the pope invested with
  certain ecclesiastical prerogatives.--Among the numerous literary
  and documentary fictions and forgeries with which the Gregorian
  papal system sought to support its ever-advancing pretensions to
  authority over the whole church, is one which may be regarded as
  the contemporary supplement to the work of the Pseudo-Isidore.
  It is the production of a Latin theologian residing in the East,
  otherwise unknown, who, at the time of the controversies waged
  at the Lyonese Council of A.D. 1274 between the Greeks and
  Latins (§ 67, 4), brought forth what professed to be an unbroken
  chain of traditions from alleged decrees and canons of the most
  famous Greek Councils, _e.g._ Nicæa, Chalcedon, etc., and church
  fathers, most frequently from Cyril of Alexandria, the so-called
  Pseudo-Cyril, in which the controverted questions were settled
  in favour of the Roman pretensions, and especially the most
  extreme claims to the primacy of the pope were asserted. It was
  presented in A.D. 1261 to Urban IV., who immediately guaranteed
  its genuineness in a letter to the emperor Michael Palæologus.
  On its adoption by Thomas Aquinas, who diligently employed its
  contents in his controversies against the Greeks as well as in
  his dogmatic works, it won respect and authority throughout all
  the countries of the West.


                           § 97. THE CLERGY.

  By tithes, legacies, donations, impropriations, and the rising value
of landed estates, the wealth of churches and monasteries grew from
year to year. In this way benefit was secured not only to the clergy
and the monks, but also in many ways to the poor and needy. The law
of celibacy strictly enforced by Gregory VII. saved the church from
the impoverishment with which it was beginning to be threatened by the
dividing or squandering of the property of the church upon the children
of the clergy. But while an absolute stop was put to the marriage
of the clergy, it tended greatly to foster concubinage, and yet more
shameful vices. Yet notwithstanding all the corruption that prevailed
among the clerical order it cannot be denied that the superior as well
as the inferior clergy embraced a great number of worthy and strictly
moral men, and that the sacerdotal office which the people could quite
well distinguish from the individuals occupying it, still continued to
be highly respected in spite of the immoral lives of many priests. Even
more hurtful to the exercise of their pastoral work than the immorality
of individual clergymen was the widespread illiteracy and gross
ignorance of Christian truth of those who should have been teachers.

  § 97.1. =The Roman College of Cardinals.=--All the clergy
  attached to one particular church were called _Clerici cardinales_
  down to the 11th century. But after Leo IX. had reformed and
  re-organized the Roman clergy, and especially after Nicholas II.
  in A.D. 1059 had transferred the right of papal election to
  the Roman cardinals, _i.e._ the seven bishops of the Roman
  metropolitan dioceses and to the presbyters and deacons of the
  principal churches of Rome, the title of cardinal was given to
  them at first by way of eminence and very soon exclusively. It
  was not till the 13th century that it became usual to give to
  foreign prelates the rank of Roman cardinal priests as a mark of
  distinction. Under the name of the holy college the cardinals, as
  the spiritual dignitaries most nearly associated with the pope,
  formed his ecclesiastical and civil council, and were also as
  such entrusted with the highest offices of state in the papal
  domains. Innocent IV. at Lyons in A.D. 1245 gave to them as a
  distinction the red hat; Boniface VIII. in A.D. 1297 gave them
  the purple mantle that indicated princely rank. To these Paul II.
  in A.D. 1464 added the right of riding the white palfrey with red
  cloth and golden bridle; and finally, Urban VIII. in A.D. 1630
  gave them the title “Eminence.” Sixtus V. in A.D. 1586 fixed
  their number at seventy, after the pattern of the elders of
  Israel, Exod. xxiv. 1, and the seventy disciples of Jesus,
  Luke x. 1. The popes, however, took care to keep a greater
  or less number of places vacant, so that they might have
  opportunities of showing favour and bestowing gifts when
  necessary. The cardinals were chosen in accordance with the
  arbitrary will of the individual pope, who nominated them
  by presenting them with the red hat, and installed them into
  their high position by the ceremony of closing and opening the
  mantle. From the time of Eugenius IV., A.D. 1431, the college
  of cardinals put every newly elected pope under a solemn oath
  to maintain the rights and privileges of the cardinals and not
  to come to any serious and important resolution without their
  advice and approval.

  § 97.2. =The Political Importance of the Superior Clergy= (§ 84)
  reached its highest point during this period. This was carried
  furthest in Germany, especially under the Saxon imperial dynasty.
  On more than one occasion did the wise and firm policy of the
  German clergy, splendidly organized under the leadership of
  the primate of Mainz, save the German nation from overthrow
  or dismemberment threatened by ambitious princes. This power
  consisted not merely in influence over men’s minds, but also
  in their position as members of the states of the empire and
  territorial lords. Whether or not a warlike expedition was to
  be undertaken depended often only on the consent or refusal of
  the league of lords spiritual. It was the policy of the clergy to
  secure a united, strong, well-organized Germany. The surrounding
  countries wished to be included in the German league of churches
  and states; not, however, as the emperor wished, as crown lands,
  but as portions of the empire. Against expeditions to Rome, which
  took the attention of German princes away from German affairs
  and ruined Germany, the German clergy protested in the most
  decided manner. They wished the chair of St. Peter to be free
  and independent as a European, not a German, institution, with
  the emperor as its supporter not its oppressor, but they manfully
  resisted all the assumptions and encroachments of the popes.
  One of the most celebrated of the German dignitaries of any age
  was Bruno the Great, brother of the Emperor Otto I., equally
  distinguished as a statesman and as a reformer of the church,
  and the unwearied promoter of liberal studies. Chancellor under
  his imperial brother from A.D. 940, he was his most trusted
  counsellor, and was appointed by him in A.D. 953 Archbishop of
  Cologne, and was soon after made Duke of Lorraine. He died in
  A.D. 965. Another example of a German prelate of the true sort
  is seen in Willigis of Mainz, who died in A.D. 1011, under the
  two last Ottos and Henry II., whom he raised to the throne. The
  good understanding that was brought about between this monarch
  and the clergy of Germany was in great measure owing to the
  wise policy of this prelate. Under Henry IV. the German clergy
  got split up into three parties,--the papal party of Clugny
  under Gebhard [Gebhardt] of Salzburg, including almost all
  the Saxon bishops; an imperial party under Adalbert of Bremen,
  who endeavoured with the emperor’s help to found a northern
  patriarchate, which undoubtedly tended to become a northern
  papacy; and an independent German party under St. Anno II.
  of Cologne (§ 96, 6), in which notwithstanding much violence,
  ambition, and self-seeking, there still survived much of the
  spirit that had characterized the policy of the old German
  bishops. Henry V., too, as well as the first Hohenstaufens,
  had sturdy supporters in the German clergy; but Frederick II.
  by his ill treatment of the bishops alienated their clergy from
  the interest of the crown. The rise of the imperial dignitaries
  after the time of Otto I., and the transference to them under
  Otto IV. of the election of emperor raised the archbishops of
  Mainz, Treves, and Cologne to the rank of spiritual electoral
  princes as arch-chaplains or archchancellors. The Golden Bull
  of Charles IV., in A.D. 1356 (§ 110, 4), confirmed and tabulated
  their rights and duties.

  § 97.3. =The Bishops and the Cathedral Chapter.=--The
  bishops exercised jurisdiction over all the clergy of their
  diocese, and punished by deprivation of office and imprisonment
  in monasteries. Especially questions of marriage, wills,
  oaths, were brought before their tribunal. The German synodal
  judicatures soon gave way before the Roman judiciary system. The
  archdeacons emancipated themselves more and more from episcopal
  authority and abused their power in so arbitrary a way that
  in the 12th century the entire institution was set aside. For
  the discharge of business episcopal officials and vicars were
  then introduced. The _Chorepiscopi_ (§ 84) had passed out of
  view in the 10th century. But during the crusades many Catholic
  bishoprics had been founded in the East. The occupants of these
  when driven away clung to their titles in hopes of better times,
  and found employment as assistants or suffragans of Western
  bishops. Thus arose the order of _Episcopi in partibus (sc.
  infidelium)_ which has continued to this day, as a witness of
  inalienable rights, and as affording a constant opportunity to
  the popes of showing favour and giving rewards. For the exercise
  of the archiepiscopal office, the Fourth Lateran Council of
  A.D. 1215 made the receiving from the pope the pallium (§ 59, 7)
  an absolutely essential condition, and those elected were obliged
  to pay to the curia an arbitrary tax of a large amount called the
  pallium fee. The canonical life (§ 84, 4) from the 10th century
  began more and more to lose its moral weight and importance. Out
  of attempts at reform in the 11th century arose the distinction
  of _Canonici seculares_ and _regulares_. The latter lived in
  cloisters according to monkish rules, and were zealous for the
  good old discipline and order, but sooner or later gave way to
  worldliness. The rich revenues of cathedral chapters made the
  reversion of prebendal stalls the almost exclusive privilege of
  the higher nobility, notwithstanding the earnest opposition of
  the popes. In the course of the 13th century the cathedral clergy,
  with the help of the popes, arrogated to themselves the sole
  right of episcopal elections, ignoring altogether the claims
  of the diocesan clergy and the people or nobles. The cathedral
  clergy also made themselves independent of episcopal control.
  They lived mostly outside of the cathedral diocese, and had
  their canonical duties performed by vicars. The chapter filled
  up vacancies by co-optation.

  § 97.4. =Endeavours to Reform the Clergy.=--As a reformer of the
  English clergy, who had sunk very low in ignorance, rudeness and
  immorality, the most conspicuous figure during the 10th century
  was =St. Dunstan=. He became Archbishop of Canterbury in A.D. 959
  and died in A.D. 988. He sought at once to advance the standard
  of education among the clergy and to inspire the Church with a
  higher moral and religious spirit. For these ends he laboured on
  with an energy and force of will and an inflexible consistency
  and strictness in the pursuit of his hierarchical ideals, which
  mark him out as a Hildebrand before Hildebrand. Even as abbot
  of the monastery of Glastonbury he had given a forecast of
  his life work by restoring and making more severe the rule of
  St. Benedict, and forming a brotherhood thoroughly disciplined
  in science and in ascetical exercises, from the membership
  of which, after he had become bishop of Worcester, then of
  London, and finally primate of England and the most influential
  councillor of four successive kings, he could fill the places of
  the secular priests and canons whom he expelled from their cures.
  As the primary condition of all clerical reformation he insisted
  upon the unrelentingly consistent putting down of marriage
  and concubinage among the priests.[281]--In the 11th century
  =St. Peter Damiani= distinguished himself as a zealous supporter
  of the reform party of Clugny in the struggle against simony,
  clerical immorality, and the marriage of priests. This obtained
  for him not only his position as cardinal-bishop of Ostia,
  but also his frequent employment, as papal legate in serious
  negotiations. In A.D. 1061 he resigned his bishopric and
  retired into a monastery, where he died in A.D. 1072. His
  friend Hildebrand, who repeatedly called him forth from his
  retreat to occupy a conspicuous place among the contenders for
  his hierarchical ideal, was therefore called by him his “holy
  Satan.” He had indeed little interest in pressing hierarchical
  and political claims, and was inclined rather to urge moral
  reforms within the church itself. In his _Liber Gomorrhianus_
  he drew a fearful picture of the clerical depravity of his
  times, and that with a nakedness of detail which gave to
  Pope Alexander II. a colourable excuse for the suppression
  of the book. For himself, however, Damiani sought no other
  pleasure than that of scourging himself till the blood flowed
  in his lonely cell (§ 106, 4). His collected works, consisting
  of epistles, addresses, tracts and monkish biographies,
  were published at Rome in A.D. 1602 in 4 vols. by Cardinal
  Cajetan.--In the 12th century St. Hildegard (§ 107, 1) and
  the abbot Joachim of Floris, (§ 108, 5) raised their voices
  against the moral degradation of the clergy, and among the men
  who contributed largely to the restoring of clerical discipline,
  the noble provost Geroch of Reichersberg in Bavaria, who died
  in A.D. 1169 (§ 102, 5) and the canon Norbert, subsequently
  archbishop of Magdeburg (§ 98, 2), are deserving of special
  mention.--In the 13th century in England =Robert Grosseteste=
  distinguished himself as a prelate of great nobility and
  force of character. After being chancellor of Oxford he became
  bishop of Lincoln, energetically reforming many abuses in his
  diocese, and persistently contending against any form of papal
  encroachment. He died in A.D. 1253.[282]

  § 97.5. =The Pataria of Milan.=--Nowhere during the 11th century
  were simony, concubinage and priests’ marriages more general
  than among the Lombard clergy, and in no other place was such
  determined opposition offered to Hildebrand’s reforms. At the
  head of this opposition stood Guido, archbishop of Milan, whom
  Henry III. deposed in A.D. 1046. Against the papal demands,
  he pressed the old claims of his chair to autonomy (§ 46, 1)
  and renounced allegiance to Rome. The nobles and the clergy
  supported Guido. But two deacons, Ariald and Landulf, about
  A.D. 1057 formed a conspiracy among the common people, against
  “the Nicolaitan sect” (§ 27, 8). To this party its opponents
  gave the opprobrious name of Pataria, Paterini, from patalia,
  meaning rabble, riffraff, or from Pattarea, a back street
  of ill fame in Milan, the quarter of the rabble, where the
  Arialdists held their secret meetings. They took the name
  given in reproach as a title of honour, and after receiving
  military organization from Erlembald, Landulf’s brother, they
  opened a campaign against the married priests. For thirty years
  this struggle continued to deluge city and country with blood.


                § 98. MONASTIC ORDERS AND INSTITUTIONS.

  In spite of the great and constantly increasing corruption the
monastic idea during this period had a wonderfully rapid development,
and more persistently and successfully than ever before or since
the monks urged their claims to be regarded as “the knighthood of
asceticism.” A vast number of monkish orders arose, taking the place
for the most part of existing orders which had relaxed their rules.
These were partly reformed off-shoots of the Benedictine order, partly
new organizations reared on an independent basis. New monasteries
were being built almost every day, often even within the cities.
The reformed Benedictine monasteries clustered in a group around the
parent monastery whose reformed rule they adopted, forming an organized
society with a common centre. These groups were therefore called
Congregations. The oldest and, for two centuries, the most important,
of these congregations was that of the Brethren of Clugny, whose
ardent zeal for reform in the hierarchical direction was mainly
instrumental in raising again the church and the papacy out of that
degradation and corruption into which they had fallen during the
10th and 11th centuries. The otherwise less important order of the
Camaldolites was also a vigorous promoter of these movements. But
Clugny had in Clairvaux a rival which shared with it on almost equal
terms the respect and reverence of that age. The unreformed monasteries
of the Benedictines, on the other hand, still continued their easy,
luxurious style of living. They were commonly called the Black Monks
to distinguish them from the Cistercians who were known as the White
Monks. In order to prevent a constant splitting up of the monkish
fraternities, Innocent III. at the Lateran Council of A.D. 1215 forbade
the founding of new orders. Yet he himself took part in the formation
of the two great mendicant orders, and also the following popes issued
no prohibition.--The papacy had in the monkish orders its standing army.
It was to them, in a special manner, that Gregory’s system owed its
success. But they were also by far the most important promoters and
fosterers of learning, science, and art. The pope in various ways
favoured the emancipation of the monasteries from episcopal control,
their so-called _Exemption_; and conferred upon the abbots of famous
monasteries what was practically episcopal rank, with liberty to wear
the bishop’s mitre, so that they were called _Mitred Abbots_ (§ 84, 1).
The princes too classed the abbots in respect of dignity and order
next to the bishops; and the people, who saw the popular idea of the
church more and more represented in the monasteries, honoured them
with unmeasured reverence. From the 10th century the monks came to
be considered a distinct religious order (_Ordo religiosorum_). Lay
brethren, _Fratres conversi_, were now taken in to discharge the
worldly business of the monastery. They were designated _Fratres_,
while the others who received clerical ordination were addressed
as _Patres_. The monks rarely lived on good terms with the secular
clergy; for the former as confessors and mass priests often seriously
interfered with the rights and revenues of the latter.--Besides the
many monkish orders, with their strict seclusion, perpetual vows and
ecclesiastically sanctioned rule, we meet with organizations of a freer
type such as the Humiliati of Milan, consisting of whole families.
Of a similar type were the Beguines and Beghards of the Netherlands,
the former composed of women, the latter of men. These people abandoned
their handicraft and their domestic and civic duties for a monastic-like
mode of life retired from the world. The crusading enthusiasm also
occasioned a combination of the monastic idea with that of knighthood,
and led to the formation of the so-called Orders of Knights, which
with a Grandmaster and several Commanders, were divided into Knights,
Priests, and Serving Brethren.--Continuation, § 112.

  § 98.1. =Offshoots of the Benedictines.=

    1. =The Brethren of Clugny.= Among the Benedictines, since
       their reformation by the second Benedict (§ 85, 2) many
       serious abuses had crept in. After the Burgundian Count
       Berno, who died in A.D. 927, had done useful service by
       restoring discipline and order in two monasteries of which
       he was abbot, the Duke William of Aquitaine founded for him
       a new institution. Thus arose in A.D. 910 the celebrated
       monastery of Clugny, _Cluniacum_, in Burgundy, which the
       founder placed under immediate papal control. Berno’s
       successor Odo, who died in A.D. 942, abandoning the life
       of a courtier on his recovery from a severe illness, made
       it the head and heart of a separate Clugny-Congregation
       as a branch of the Benedictine order. Strict asceticism,
       a beautiful and artistic service, zealous prosecution of
       science and the education of the young, with yet greater
       energy in the promotion of a hierarchical reform of the
       church as a whole, as well as an entire series of able
       abbots, among whom Odilo († A.D. 1048), the friend of
       Hildebrand, and Peter the Venerable († A.D. 1156) are
       specially prominent, gave to this congregation, which
       in the 12th century had 2,000 monasteries in France, an
       influence quite unparalleled in this whole period. The
       abbot of Clugny stood at the head, and appointed the priors
       for all the other monasteries. Under the licentious Abbot
       Pontius, who on account of his base conduct was deposed in
       A.D. 1122, the order fell into decay, but rose again under
       Peter the Venerable. Continuation, § 164, 2.

    2. =The Congregation of the Camaldolites= was founded in
       A.D. 1018 by the Benedictine Romuald, descended from the
       Duke of Ravenna, at Camaldoli (_Campus Maldoli_), a wild
       district in the Apennines. In A.D. 1086 a nunnery was placed
       alongside of the monastery. The president of the parent
       monastery at Camaldoli stood at the head of the whole order
       as Major. The order carried out enthusiastically the high
       church ideal of Clugny, and won great influence in its
       time, although it by no means attained the importance of
       the French order.

    3. Twenty years later, in A.D. 1038, the Florentine Gualbertus
       founded the =Order of Vallombrosa=, in a romantically
       situated shady valley of the Apennines (_Vallis umbrosa_),
       according to the rule of Benedict. This was the first of
       all the orders to appoint lay brethren for the management
       of worldly business, in order that the monks might observe
       their vow of silence and strict seclusion. The parent
       monastery attained to great wealth and reputation, but it
       never had a great number of affiliated institutions.

    4. =The Cistercians.= In A.D. 1098 the Benedictine abbot Robert
       founded the monastery of Citeaux (_Cistercium_) near Dijon,
       which as the parent monastery of the Congregation of the
       Cistercians became the most formidable rival of Clugny. The
       Cistercians were distinguished from the Brethren of Clugny
       by voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the bishops,
       avoidance of all interference with the pastorates of others,
       and the banishing of all ornaments from their churches
       and monasteries. The order continued obscure for a while,
       till St. Bernard (§ 102, 3), from A.D. 1115 abbot of the
       monastery of Clairvaux (Claravallis), an offshoot of Citeaux,
       by his ability and spirituality raised it far above all
       other orders in the esteem of the age. In honour of him
       the French Cistercians took the name of =Bernardines=.
       The hostility between them and the Brethren of Clugny
       was overcome by the personal friendship of Bernard and
       Peter the Venerable. By the statutory constitution, the
       so-called _Charta charitatis_, drawn up in A.D. 1119,
       the administration of all the affairs of the order
       was assigned to a general of the order, appointed by
       the abbot of Citeaux, the abbots of the four chief
       affiliated monasteries, and twenty other elected
       representatives forming a high council. This council,
       however, was answerable to the general assembly of all the
       abbots and priors, which met at first yearly, but afterwards
       every third year. The affiliated monasteries had a yearly
       visitation of the abbot of Citeaux, but Citeaux itself was
       to be visited by the four abbots just referred to. In the
       13th century this order had 2,000 monasteries and 6,000
       nunneries.

    5. =The Congregation of Scottish Monasteries= in Germany
    owed its origin to the persistent love of travel on the part
    of Irish and Scottish monks, which during the 10th century
    received a new impulse from the Danish invasions (§ 93, 1).
    The first monastery erected in Germany for the reception
    exclusively of Irish monks was that of St. Martin at Cologne,
    built in the 10th century. Much more important, however, was
    the Scottish monastery of St. James at Regensburg, founded
    in A.D. 1067 by Marianus Scotus and two companions. It was
    the parent monastery of eleven other Scottish cloisters in
    South Germany. Old Celtic sympathies (§ 77, 8), which may have
    originally bound them together, could not assert themselves
    in the new home during this period as they did in earlier days;
    and when Innocent III., at the Lateran Council of A.D. 1215,
    sanctioned them as a separate congregation bound by the
    Benedictine rule, there certainly remained no longer any
    trace of Celtic peculiarities. They were distinguished at
    first for strict asceticism, severe discipline and scientific
    activity, but subsequently they fell lower than all the rest
    in immorality and self-indulgence (§ 112).

  § 98.2. =New Monkish Orders.=--Reserving the great mendicant
  orders, the following are the most celebrated among the vast
  array of new orders, not bound by the Benedictine rule:

    1. =The Order of Grammont= in France, founded by Stephen of
       Ligerno in A.D. 1070. It took simply the gospel as its rule,
       cultivated a quiet, humble and peaceable temper, and so by
       the 12th century it had its very life crushed out of it by
       the bold assumptions of its lay brethren.

    2. =The Order of St. Anthony=, founded in A.D. 1095 by a
       French nobleman of Dauphiny [Dauphiné], called Guaston,
       in gratitude for the recovery of his son Guérin from the
       so-called St. Anthony’s fire on his invoking St. Anthony.
       He expended his whole property upon the restoring of a
       hospital beside the church of St. Didier la Mothe, in a
       chapel of which it was supposed the bones of Anthony lay,
       and devoted himself, together with his son and some other
       companions, to the nursing of the sick. At first merely a
       lay fraternity, the members took in A.D. 1218 the monk’s
       vow. Boniface VIII. made them canons under the rule of
       St. Augustine (§ 45, 1). They were now called Antonians,
       and devoted themselves to contemplation. The order spread
       greatly, especially in France. They wore a black cloak with
       a T-formed cross of blue upon the breast (Ezek. ix. 9) and a
       little bell round the neck while engaged in collecting alms.

    3. =The Order of Fontevraux= was founded in A.D. 1094 by
       Robert of Arbrissel in Fontevraux (_Fons Ebraldi_) in
       Poitou. Preaching repentance, he went through the country,
       and founded convents for virgins, widows and fallen women.
       Their abbesses, as representatives of the Mother of God, to
       whom the order was dedicated, were set over the priests who
       did their bidding.

    4. =The Order of the Gilbertines= had its name from its
       founder Gilbert, an English priest of noble birth. Here
       too the women formed the main stem of the order. They were
       the owners of the cloister property, and the men were only
       its administrators. The monasteries of this order were
       mostly both for men and women. It did not spread much
       beyond England, and had at the time of the suppression
       of the monasteries twenty-one well endowed convents, with
       orphanages and houses for the poor and sick.

    5. =The Carthusian Order= was founded in A.D. 1086 by Bruno
       of Cologne, rector of the High School at Rheims. Disgusted
       with the immoral conduct of Archbishop Manasseh, he retired
       with several companions into a wild mountain gorge near
       Grenoble, called Chartreuse. He enjoined upon his monks
       strict asceticism, rigid silence, earnest study, prayer, and
       a contemplative life, clothed them in a great coarse cowl,
       and allowed them for their support only vegetables and bran
       bread. Written statutes, _Consuetudines Cartusiæ_, which
       soon spread over several houses of the Carthusians, were
       first given them in A.D. 1134 by Guido, the fifth prior
       of the parent monastery. A steward had management of the
       affairs of the convent. Each ate in his own cell; only on
       feast days had they a common meal. At least once a week they
       fasted on salt, water and bread. Breaking silence, permitted
       only on high festivals, and for two hours on Thursdays, was
       punished with severe flagellation. Even the lay brethren
       were treated with great severity, and were not allowed
       either to sit or to cover their heads in the presence of
       the brothers of the order. Carthusian nuns were added to
       the order in the 13th century with a modified rule.

    6. =The Premonstratensian Order= was founded in A.D. 1121
       by Norbert, the only German founder of orders besides and
       after Bruno. A rich, worldly-minded canon of Xanthen in
       the diocese of Cologne, he was brought to another mind by
       the fall of a thunderbolt beside him. He retired along with
       several other like-minded companions into the rough valley
       of Prémontré in the bishopric of Laon (_Præmonstratum_,
       because pointed out to him in a vision). In his rule he
       joined together the canonical duties with an extremely
       strict monastic life. He appeared in A.D. 1126 as a preacher
       of repentance at the Diet of Spires, was there elected
       archbishop of Magdeburg, and made a most impressive entrance
       into his metropolis dressed in his mendicant garb. His order
       spread and established many convents both for monks and for
       nuns.

    7. =The Trinitarian Order=, _ordo s. Trinitatis de redemptione
       captivorum_, was called into existence by Innocent III., and
       had for its work the redemption of Christian captives.

    8. =The Cœlestine Order= was founded by Peter of Murrone,
       afterwards Pope Cœlestine V. (§ 96, 22). Living in a
       cave of Mount Murrone in Apulia, under strict penitential
       discipline and engaged in mystic contemplation, the fame
       of his sanctity attracted to him many companions, with
       whom in A.D. 1254 he established a monastery on Mount
       Majella. Gregory X., in whose presence Peter, according
       to his biographer, hung up his monkish cowl in empty space,
       upon a sunbeam which he took for a cord stretching across,
       instituted the order as Brethren of the Holy Spirit. But
       when in A.D. 1294 their founder ascended the papal throne,
       they took his papal name. This order, which gave itself up
       entirely to extravagant mystic contemplation, spread over
       Italy, France and the Netherlands.

  § 98.3. =The Beginnings of the Franciscan Order down to
  A.D. 1219.=--The founder of this order was =St. Francis=, born
  in A.D. 1182, son of a rich merchant of Assisi in Umbria. His
  proper name was Giovanni Bernardone. The name of Francis is said
  to have been given him on account of his early proficiency in the
  French language; “Francesco”--the little Frenchman. As a wealthy
  merchant’s son, he gave himself to worldly pleasures, but was
  withdrawn from these, in A.D. 1207, by means of a severe illness.
  A dream, in which he saw a multitude with the sign of the cross,
  bearing weapons designed for him and his companions, led him to
  resolve upon a military career. But a new vision taught him that
  he was called to build up the fallen house of God. He understood
  this of a ruined chapel of St. Damiani at Assisi, and began to
  apply the proceeds of valuable cloth fabrics from his father’s
  factory to its restoration. Banished for such conduct from his
  father’s house, he lived for a time as a hermit, until the gospel
  passage read in church of the sending forth of the disciples
  without gold or silver, without staff or scrip (Matt. x.), fell
  upon his soul like a thunderbolt. Divesting himself of all his
  property, supplying the necessaries of life by the meanest forms
  of labour, even begging when need be, he went about the country
  from A.D. 1209, sneered at by some as an imbecile, revered
  by others as a saint, preaching repentance and peace. In the
  unexampled power of his self-denial and renunciation of the world,
  in the pure simplicity of his heart, in the warmth of his love
  to God and man, in the blessed riches of his poverty, St. Francis
  was like a heavenly stranger in a selfish world. Wonderful,
  too, and powerful in its influence was the depth of his natural
  feeling. With the birds of the forest, with the beasts of the
  field, he held intercourse in childlike simplicity as with
  brothers and sisters, exhorting them to praise their Creator.
  The paradisiacal relation of man to the animal world seemed to
  be restored in the presence of this saint.--Very soon he gathered
  around him a number of like-minded men, who under his direction
  had decided to devote themselves to a similar vocation. For the
  society of “_Viri pœnitentiales de civitate Assisii oriundi_”
  thus formed Francis issued, in A.D. 1209, a rule, at the basis
  of which lay a literal acceptance of the precepts of Christ to
  His disciples, sent forth to preach the kingdom of God (Matt. x.;
  Luke x.), along with similar gospel injunctions (Matt. xix. 21,
  29; Luke vi. 29; ix. 23; xiv. 26), and then he went to Rome
  to get for it the papal confirmation. The pope was, indeed,
  unwilling; but through the pious man’s simplicity and humility
  he was prevailed upon to grant his request. In later times this
  incident was in popular tradition transformed into a legend,
  representing the pope as at first bidding him go to attend the
  swine, which the holy man literally obeyed. =Innocent III.= was
  the more inclined to yield, owing to the painful experiences
  through which the church had passed in consequence of its unwise
  treatment of similar proposals made by the Waldensians thirty
  years before. He therefore gave at least verbal permission to
  Francis and his companions to live and teach according to this
  rule. At the same time also Francis heartily responded to the
  demand to place at the head of his rule the obligation to obey
  and reverence the pope, and to conclude with a vow of the most
  rigid avoidance of every kind of addition, abatement, or change.
  There was no thought of founding a new monkish order, but only
  of a free union and a wandering life, amid apostolic poverty,
  for preaching repentance and salvation by word and example. On
  entering the society the brothers were required to distribute all
  their possessions among the poor, and dress in the poor clothing
  of the order, consisting of a coarse cloak bound with a cord and
  a capouch, to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God wherever
  their master sent them, and to earn their livelihood by their
  usual occupation, or any other servile work. In case of need they
  were even to beg the necessaries of life. Thus mendicancy, though
  only allowed in case of necessity, soon came to be transformed
  by the lustre of the example of the poverty of Jesus and His
  disciples and mother, who all had lived upon alms, and by the
  idea of a twofold merit attaching to self-abnegation, inasmuch
  as not only the receiver, by voluntarily submitting to the
  disgrace which it involved in the eyes of the world, but also
  the giver of alms, obtained before the judgment seat of God a
  great reward. But neither as wages for work nor as alms were the
  brothers permitted to accept money, but only the indispensable
  means of life, while that which remained after their own wants
  had been supplied was divided among the poor. From time to time
  they withdrew, either singly or in little groups, for prayer,
  contemplation, and spiritual exercises into deserts, caves,
  or deserted huts; and annually at Pentecost they assembled for
  mutual edification and counsel in the small chapel at Assisi,
  dedicated to “Mary of the Angel,” given to St. Francis by the
  Benedictines. This church, under the name of the _Portiuncula_,
  became the main centre of the order, and all who visited it on
  the day of its consecration received from the pope a plenary
  indulgence. The number of the brothers meanwhile increased from
  day to day. When representatives of all ranks in society and
  of all the various degrees of culture sought admission, it soon
  became evident that the obligation to preach, hitherto enjoined
  upon all the members of the order, should be restricted to
  those who were specially qualified for the work, and that the
  rest should take care to carry out in their personal lives the
  ideal of poverty, joined with loving service in institutions
  for the poor, the sick, and the lepers. A further move in the
  development of the order, tending to secure for it an independent
  ecclesiastical position, was the admission into it of ordained
  priests. Their missionary activity among Christian people was
  restricted at first to Umbria and the neighbouring districts
  of central Italy. But soon the thought of a missionary vocation
  among the unbelievers got possession of the mind of the founder.
  Even in A.D. 1212 he himself undertook for this purpose a journey
  to the East, to Syria, and afterwards to Morocco; in neither case,
  however, were his efforts attended with any very signal success.
  In A.D. 1218, Elias of Cortona, with some companions, again took
  up the mission to Syria, with equally little success; and in
  A.D. 1219 five brethren were again sent to Morocco, and there
  won the crown of martyrdom. In that same year, A.D. 1219, the
  Pentecost assembly at Assisi passed the resolution to include
  within the range of their call as itinerants the sending of
  missions, with a “_minister_” at the head of each, into all
  the Christian countries of Europe. They began immediately,
  privileged with a papal letter of recommendation to the higher
  secular clergy and heads of orders in France, to carry out the
  resolution in France, Spain, Portugal, and Germany; while at the
  same time Francis himself, accompanied by twelve brethren, again
  turned his steps toward the East.

  § 98.4. =The Franciscans from A.D. 1219 to A.D. 1223.=--Soon
  after the departure of St. Francis the report of his death
  spread through Italy, and loosened the bonds which, by reason
  of the obligation to render him obedience hitherto operative,
  had secured harmony among the brethren. Francis had, on the
  basis of Luke x. 7, 8, laid upon his companions only the commonly
  accepted rules of fasting, but the observance of a more rigorous
  fast required his own special permission. Now, however, some
  rigorists, at a convention of the elders, gave expression to
  the opinion, that the brethren should be enjoined to fast not
  as hitherto, like all the rest of Christendom, only on two, but
  on four, days of the week, a resolution which not only removed
  the rule altogether from its basis in Luke x. 7, 8, but also
  broke the solemn promise to observe the wish of Innocent III.,
  incorporated in it, that in no particular should it be altered.
  And while the rule forbade any intercourse with women, brother
  Philip obtained a papal bull which appointed him representative
  of the order of “poor women,” afterwards the Nuns of St. Clara,
  founded in A.D. 1212 on the model of the Franciscan ideal
  of poverty. Another brother, John of Capella, sought to put
  himself at the head of an independent order of poor men and women.
  Many such projects were being planned. So soon as news reached
  Francis of these vagaries, he returned to Italy, accompanied
  by his favourite pupil, the energetic, wise, and politic Elias
  of Cortona, whose organizing and governing talent was kept
  within bounds down to the founder’s death. Perceiving that all
  these confusions had arisen from the want of a strictly defined
  organization, legitimized by the pope and under papal protection,
  Francis now endeavoured to secure such privileges for his order.
  He therefore entreated Honorius III. to appoint Cardinal Ugolino
  of Ostia, afterwards Pope Gregory IX., previously a zealous
  promoter of his endeavours, as protector and governor of his
  brotherhood; and he soon with a strong hand put a stop to all
  secessionist movements in the community. A vigorous effort was
  now made by the brotherhood, suggested and encouraged by the
  papal chair, to carry out a scheme of transformation, by means
  of which the order, which had hitherto confined itself to simple
  religious and ascetic duties, should become an independent and
  powerful monkish order, to place it “with the whole force of its
  religious enthusiasm, with its extraordinary flexibility and its
  mighty influences over the masses, at the service of the papacy,
  and to turn it into a standing army of the pope, ever ready
  to obey his will in the great movements convulsing the church
  and the world of that time.” Honorius III. took the first step
  in this direction by a bull addressed, in Sept., A.D. 1220, to
  Francis himself and the superiors of his order, there styled
  “_Ordo fratrum minorum_,” by which a novitiate of one year and
  an irrevocable vow of admission were prescribed, the wearing of
  the official dress made its exclusive privilege, and jurisdiction
  given to its own tribunal to deal with all its members. Francis
  was now also obliged, willing or unwilling, to agree to a revision
  of his rule. This new rule was probably confirmed or at least
  approved at the famous Pentecost chapter held at the Portiuncula
  chapel in A.D. 1221, called the “_Mat Chapter_” (_C. storearum_),
  because the brethren assembled there lived in tents made of
  rush-mats.[283] It is, as Carl Müller has incontestably proved,
  this same rule which was formerly regarded by all as the first
  rule composed in A.D. 1209. The older rule, however, formed in
  every particular its basis, and the enlargements and modifications
  rendered necessary by the adoption of the new ideas appear so
  evidently as additions, that the two different constituents
  can even yet with tolerable certainty be distinguished from one
  another, and so the older rule can be reconstructed. But the
  development and modification of the order necessarily proceeding
  in the direction indicated soon led to a gradual reformation
  of the rule, which in this new form was solemnly and formally
  ratified by Honorius III. in November, A.D. 1223, as possessing
  henceforth definite validity. In it the requirement of the literal
  acceptance of the commands of Jesus on sending out His disciples
  in Matthew x. and Luke x. is no longer made the basis and pattern,
  as in the two earlier rules, but all the stress is laid rather
  upon the imitation of the lives of poverty led by Jesus and His
  apostles; as an offset to the renunciation of all property, the
  obligation to earn their own support by work was now set aside,
  and the practice of mendicancy was made their proper object in
  life, came indeed to be regarded as constituting the special
  ideal and sanctity of the order, which in consequence was
  now for the first time entitled to be called a =mendicant or
  begging order=. At its head stood a _general-minister_, and all
  communications between the order and the holy see were conducted
  through a _cardinal-protector_. The mission field of the order,
  comprising the whole world, was divided into _provinces_ with
  a _provincial-minister_, and the provinces into _custodies_
  with a _custos_ at its head.--Every third year at Pentecost
  the general called together the provincials and custodes to
  a general chapter, and the custodes assembled the brethren of
  their dioceses as required in provincial and custodial chapters.
  The dress of the order remained the same. The usual requirement
  to go barefoot, however, was modified by the permission in cases
  of necessity, on journeys and in cold climates, to wear shoes or
  sandals.

  § 98.5. =The Franciscans from A.D. 1223.=--There was no mention
  in the rule of A.D. 1223 of any sort of fixed place of abode
  either in cloisters or in houses of their own. The life of the
  order was thus conceived of as a homeless and possessionless
  pilgrimage; and as for the means of life they were dependent on
  what they got by begging, so also it was considered that for the
  shelter of a roof they should depend upon the hospitable. The
  gradual transition from a purely itinerant life had already begun
  by the securing of fixed residences at definite points in the
  transalpine district and first of all in Germany. After the first
  sending forth of disciples in A.D. 1219, without much attention
  to rule and without much plan, had run its course there with
  scarcely any success, a more thoroughly organized mission, under
  the direction of brother Cæsarius of Spires, consisting of twelve
  clerical and thirteen lay brethren, including John v. Piano
  Cupini, Thomas v. Celano, Giordano v. Giano, was sent by the
  “_Mat Chapter_” of A.D. 1221 to Germany, which, strengthened by
  oft-repeated reinforcements, carried on from A.D. 1228 a vigorous
  propaganda in Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and Norway.
  In accordance with the rule of A.D. 1223 Germany as forming
  one province was divided into five custodies, but in A.D. 1230
  into two distinct provinces, the Rhineland and Saxony, with a
  corresponding number of custodies. Even more brilliant was the
  success attending the mission to England in A.D. 1224. On their
  missionary tours the brethren took up their residence temporarily
  in hospitals and leper houses, or in hospitable parsonages and
  private houses, and preached by preference in the open air, where
  the people flocked around them in crowds, occasionally at the
  invitation of a bishop or priest in the churches. Presents of
  lands gave them the opportunity of erecting convents of their
  own, with churches and burying-grounds for themselves, which,
  placed under the charge of a guardian, soon increased in number
  and importance. The begging, which was now made the basis of the
  whole institution, was regulated by the principle, that, besides
  the benefactions voluntarily paid into the cloister, monks sent
  forth at particular terms, hence called Terminants[284] with
  a beggar’s bag, should beg about for the necessaries of life.
  With agriculture and industrial work, and generally all bodily
  labour, the brothers had nothing to do. On the contrary, what
  was altogether foreign to the intention of the founder and their
  rules, and so originating not from within the order itself, but
  from without, first of all by the admission of scientifically
  cultured priests, a strong current set in in favour of scientific
  studies, stimulated by their own personal ambition as well as
  by rivalry with the Dominicans. These scholarly pursuits soon
  yielded abundant fruit, which raised the reputation, power,
  and influence of the order to such a height, that it has been
  enabled to carry out in all details the task assigned it in
  the papal polity. Architecture, painting, and poetry also found
  among the members of the order distinguished cultivators and
  ornaments.--Supported by accumulating papal privileges, which,
  for example, gave immunity from all episcopal jurisdiction and
  supervision, and allowed its clergy the right in all parts,
  not only of preaching, but also of reading mass and hearing
  confessions, and aided in its course of secularization by papal
  modifications and alterations of its rule, which permitted the
  obtaining and possessing rich cloister property, the order of
  Minor Brothers or Minorites soon could boast of an extension
  embracing several thousands of cloisters.--Francis, wasted by
  long-continued sickness and by increasing infirmities, was found
  dead, in A.D. 1226, stretched on the floor of the Portiuncula
  chapel. Two years afterwards he was canonized by Gregory IX.,
  and in A.D. 1230 there was a solemn translation of his relics to
  the beautiful basilica built in his honour at Assisi. The legend,
  that a seraph during his last years had imprinted upon him the
  bloody wound-prints or stigmata of the Saviour was also turned
  to account for the glorification of the whole order, which
  now assumed the epithet “_seraphic_.”--The one who possessed
  most spiritual affinity to his master of all the disciples of
  St. Francis, and after him most famous among his contemporaries
  and posterity, was =St. Anthony of Padua=. Born in A.D. 1195 at
  Lisbon, when an Augustinian canon at Coimbra he was, in A.D. 1220,
  received into the communion of the Minorites, when the relics of
  the five martyrs of Morocco were deposited there, and thereupon
  he undertook a mission to Africa. But a severe sickness obliged
  him to return home, and driven out of his course by a storm, he
  landed at Messina, from whence he made a pilgrimage to Assisi.
  The order now turned his learning to account by appointing him
  teacher of theology, first at Bologna, then at Montpellier. For
  three years he continued as custos in the south of France, going
  up and down through the land as a powerful preacher of repentance,
  till the death of the founder and the choice of a successor
  called him back to Italy. He died at Padua in A.D. 1231. The
  pope canonized him in A.D. 1232, and in A.D. 1263 his relics were
  enshrined in the newly built beautiful church at Padua dedicated
  to him. Among the numerous tales of prodigies, which are said
  to have accompanied his goings wherever he went, the best known
  and most popular is, that when he could obtain no ready hearing
  for his doctrine among men, he preached on a lonely sea-shore
  to shoals of fishes that crowded around to listen. His writings,
  sermons, and a biblical concordance, under the title _Concordantiæ
  Morales SS. Bibliorum_, are often printed along with the _Letters,
  Hymns, Testament_, etc., ascribed to St. Francis.--Among the
  legends of the order still extant about the life of St. Francis
  is the _Vita I._ of Thomas of Celano, written in A.D. 1229, the
  oldest and relatively the most impartial. On the other hand, the
  later biographies, especially that of the so-called _Tres socii_
  and the _Vita II._ of Thomas, which has been made accessible by
  the Roman edition of Amoni of 1880, written contemporaneously
  somewhere about A.D. 1245, as well as that of St. Bonaventura
  of A.D. 1263, recognised by the chapter of the order as the
  only authoritative form of the legends, are all more or less
  influenced by the party strifes that had arisen within its ranks,
  while all are equally overladen with reports of miracles. In
  A.D. 1399, by authority of the general chapter at Assisi, the
  “_Liber Conformitatum_” of Bartholomew of Pisa pointed out forty
  resemblances between Christ and St. Francis, in which the saint
  has generally the advantage over the Saviour. In the Reformation
  times an anonymous German version of this book was published by
  Erasmus Alber with a preface by Luther, under the title, _Der
  Barfüssermönche Eulenspiegel und Alkoran_, Wittenberg, 1542.
  The most trustworthy contemporary source of information has been
  only recently again rendered accessible to us in the _Memorabilia
  de Primitiv. Fratrum in Teutoniam Missorum Conversatione et
  Vita_ of the above-named Giordano of Giano, embracing the years
  1207-1238, which G. Voigt discovered among his father’s papers,
  and has published with a full and comprehensive introduction.
  The Franciscans of Quaracchi near Florence have re-edited it
  “after the unique Berlin manuscript,” as well as the supplementary
  document, the _De Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Anglia_, in the first
  volume of their _Analecta Franciscana, Quar._, 1885.--Thode, in
  his _Fr. v. A. und die Anfänge d. Kunst d. Renaissance in Ital._
  (Berl., 1885), has described in a thorough and brilliant style
  the mighty influence which St. Francis and his order exerted
  upon the development of art in Italy, especially of painting
  and architecture, as well as of poetry in the vernacular; for
  he has shown how the peculiar and close relation in which the
  saint stood to nature gave the first effective impulse to the
  emancipation of art from the trammels of formalism, and how the
  new artistic tendency, inspired by his spirit, was first given
  expression to in the building and adorning of the basilica at
  Assisi dedicated to him.[285]

  § 98.6. =Party Divisions within the Franciscan Order.=--That
  the founder was by no means wholly in sympathy with the tendency
  which prevailed in his order from A.D. 1221, and only tolerated
  what he was no longer in a position to prevent, might have been
  guessed from the fact that from that time he withdrew himself
  more and more from the supreme direction of the order, and
  made it over to =Elias of Cortona=, as his general-vicar, who
  in existing circumstances was better fitted for the task. But
  from his _Testament_ it appears quite evident that he strictly
  adhered to the views of his early days, and even attempted a
  last but fruitless reaction against the tendency to worldly
  conformity that had set in. Thus, for example, it still puts all
  the brethren under obligation to perform honourable labour, and
  will allow them to beg only in case of necessity, but especially
  forbids them most distinctly by their sacred vow of obedience
  from asking any privilege from the papal chair, or altering
  the simple literal meaning of the rule of the order, and of this
  his last will and testament by addition, abatement, or change.
  After his death, on 4th October, 1226, Elias retained in his
  hand the regency till the next meeting of the Pentecost chapter;
  but then he was deprived of office by the election of John Pareus
  as general-minister, a member of the stricter party. Meanwhile
  the increasing number and wealth of their cloisters and churches,
  with their appurtenances, made it absolutely necessary that
  the brethren should face the question how the holding of such
  possessions was to be reconciled with the strict injunction of
  poverty in the sixth chapter of their rule, according to which
  “the brothers are to possess nothing of their own, neither a
  house, nor an estate, nor anything whatsoever, but are to go
  about for alms as strangers and pilgrims in this world.” At
  the next general chapter, in A.D. 1230, this question came up
  for discussion, along with that of the validity of the testament
  above referred to. When they could not agree among themselves, it
  was decided, in spite of all the protestations of the general, to
  request by a deputation the advice of the pope, Gregory IX., on
  this and certain other disputed questions. With reference to the
  testament, the pope declared that its demands, because issued
  without the consent and approval of the general chapter, could
  not be binding upon the order. With reference to the property
  question, he repudiated the rendering of the rule in such
  a way as if in this, just as in all other orders, only the
  possession of property on the part of individual brothers was
  forbidden; but the membership of the order as a whole could not
  be prevented from holding property, as directly contrary to the
  literal statements of the rule, without, however, entering upon
  the question as to whose property the movables and immovables
  standing really at the call of the order were to be considered.
  And as he had at an earlier date, on the occasion of sending a
  new Minorite mission to Morocco, granted as a privilege to the
  order to take alms in money, which was allowed by the rule only
  for the support of sick brethren, for the reason that without
  money they would not be able there to procure the necessaries
  of life, so he now extended this permission for other purposes
  essential to the good of the order, _e.g._ building and
  furnishing of cloisters and churches, as not contrary to the
  rule, if the collecting and spending of the money is carried on,
  not by members of the order, but by procurators chosen for the
  work. It was probably to this victory of the lax party that Elias
  owed his elevation at the next election, in A.D. 1332, to the
  office of general. It also enabled him to maintain his position
  for seven years, during which he showed himself particularly
  active and efficient, not only as general of the order, but also
  in political negotiations with the princes of Italy, especially
  as mediator between the pope and the emperor, Gregory IX. and
  Frederick II. But his government of the order in a despotic
  and lordly manner, and his reckless endeavours to conform
  to worldly customs, intensified the bitterness of his pious
  opponents, and his growing friendliness with the emperor lost
  him the favour of the pope. And so it came about that his
  overthrow was accomplished at the general chapter in Rome,
  in A.D. 1239. He now openly passed over into the service of the
  emperor, against whom the ban had anew been issued, accompanied
  him on his military campaigns, and inveighed unsparingly against
  the pope in public speeches. As partisan of the banned emperor,
  already _de jure_ excommunicated, the ban was pronounced against
  him personally in A.D. 1244, and he was expelled from the
  order. He died in A.D. 1253, reconciled with the church after
  a penitential recantation and apology. His four immediate
  successors in the generalship all belonged to the strict party;
  but the growing estrangement of the order from the interests
  and purposes of the curia, especially too its relations to
  the _Evangelium æternum_, pronounced heretical in A.D. 1254
  (§ 108, 5), produced a reaction, in consequence of which the
  general, John of Parma, was deprived of office in A.D. 1257.
  With his successor, St. Bonaventura, the opposition succeeded
  to the undisputed control of the order. The difficult question,
  how the really pre-eminently rich cloister property was to
  be reconciled with the rule of the order requiring absolute
  abandonment of all possessions, found now among the preponderating
  lax party, the so-called =Fratres de communitate=, its solution
  in the assertion, that the goods in their hands had been bestowed
  upon them by the donors only in usufruct, or even that they
  were presented not so much to the order, as rather to the
  Romish Church, yet with the object of supporting the order.
  Nicholas III., in A.D. 1279, legitimated the theory, for he
  decided the question in dispute in his bull _Exiit qui seminat_,
  by saying that it is allowed to the disciples of St. Francis to
  hold earthly goods in usufruct, but not in absolute possession,
  as this is demanded by the example of Christ and His apostles.
  But now arose a new controversy, over the form and measure
  of using with a distinction of a _usus moderatus_ and a _usus
  tenuis_ or _pauper_, the latter permitting no store even of
  the indispensable necessaries of life beyond what is absolutely
  required to satisfy present needs. Those, on the other hand,
  who were dissatisfied with the principles affirmed in the papal
  bull, the =Spirituales= or _Zelatores_, with Peter John de
  Oliva and Ubertino de Casale at their head, assumed an attitude
  of open, fanatical opposition to the papacy, identifying it
  with antichrist (§ 108, 6). A section of them, which, besides
  the points about poverty, took offence at the lax party also
  over questions of clothing reform, obtained permission from
  Cœlestine V., in A.D. 1294, to separate from the main body
  of the order, and, under the name of =Cœlestine Eremites=, to
  form an independent communion with a general of their own. They
  settled for the most part in Greece and on the islands of the
  Archipelago. Boniface VIII., in A.D. 1302, peremptorily insisted
  upon their return to the West and to the present order. But as
  he died soon after, even those who had returned continued their
  separate existence and their distinctive dress.--Continuation,
  § 112, 2.

  § 98.7. =The Dominican or Preaching Order.=--=St. Dominic=,
  to whom this order owes its origin, was born, in A.D. 1170,
  at Calaruega, in Old Castile, of a distinguished family (De
  Guzman?). As a learned Augustinian canon at Osma, he had already
  wrought zealously for the conversion of Mohammedans and heretics,
  when Bishop Diego of Osma, entrusted in A.D. 1204, by King
  Alphonso VIII. with obtaining a bride for his son Ferdinand,
  took him as one of his travelling retinue. The sudden death
  of the bride, a Danish princess, rendered the undertaking
  nugatory. On their homeward journey they met at Montpellier
  with the Cistercian mission, sent out for the conversion of
  the Albigensians (§ 109, 1), the utter failure of which had
  become already quite apparent. Dominic, inflamed with holy zeal,
  prevailed upon his bishop to enter along with himself upon the
  work already almost abandoned in despair; and after the bishop’s
  early death, in A.D. 1206, he carried on the enterprise at his
  own hand. For Albigensian women, converted by him, he founded a
  sort of conventual asylum at Prouille, and a house at Toulouse,
  which was soon afterwards gifted to him, became the first
  centre where his disciples gathered around him, whence by-and-by
  they removed into the cloister of St. Romanus, assigned to them
  by Bishop Fulco. During the Albigensian crusade, the thought
  ripened in his mind that he might secure a firmer basis and
  more powerful support for his enterprise by founding a new,
  independent order, whose proper and exclusive task should be the
  combating and preventing of heresy by instruction, preaching, and
  disputation. In order to obtain for this proposal ecclesiastical
  sanction, he accompanied his patron, Bishop Fulco of Toulouse,
  in A.D. 1215, to the Fourth Lateran Council at Rome. But pope and
  council seemed little disposed to favour his idea. The former,
  indeed, sought rather to persuade him to join some existing
  ecclesiastical institution, and carry out his scheme under its
  organization. Consequently Dominic, with his sixteen companions,
  resolved to adopt the rule of St. Augustine, augmented by several
  Præmonstratensian articles. When, however, Honorius III. had
  ascended the papal chair, Dominic hastened again to Rome, and
  in A.D. 1216 obtained from this pope without difficulty what
  Innocent III. had refused him, namely, permission to found a new,
  independent order, with the privilege of preaching and hearing
  confession everywhere. Then, and also subsequently, he preached
  frequently with great acceptance to those living in the papal
  palace, and thus an opportunity was afforded of establishing the
  office of a _magister sacri palatii_, or papal court preacher,
  which was immediately occupied, and has ever since continued to
  be held, by a Dominican. At a later period the supreme censorship
  of books was also assigned to this same official. The first
  general chapter of the order met at Bologna in A.D. 1220. There
  the vow of poverty, which was hitherto insisted upon only in
  the sense of all the earlier orders as a mere abandonment of
  property on the part of individuals, was put in a severer form,
  so that even the order as such kept itself free from every kind
  of possession of earthly goods and revenues, except the bare
  cloister buildings, and exhorted all its adherents to live
  only on begged alms. Thus the Dominicans, even earlier than the
  Franciscans, whose rule then permitted begging only in case of
  need, constituted themselves into a regular mendicant order.
  Dominic, however, chose voluntary poverty for himself and
  his disciples, not like St. Francis simply for the purpose of
  securing personal holiness, but rather only to obtain a perfectly
  free course for his work in the salvation of others. The official
  designation, “=Ordo fratrum Prædicatum=,” was also fixed at this
  chapter.[286] At the second general chapter, in A.D. 1221, there
  were already representatives from sixty cloisters out of eight
  provinces. Dominic died soon after, at Bologna, on 6th August,
  1221, uttering anathemas against any one who should corrupt his
  order by bestowing earthly goods upon it. He was canonized by
  Gregory IX. in A.D. 1233. His immediate successor, Jordanus,
  wrote his first biography, adorned, as we might expect, with
  endless miracles.

  § 98.8. According to the constitutional rules of the order,
  collected and revised by the third general of the order,
  Raimund de Pennaforte, about A.D. 1238, the general who stands
  at the head of the whole order, residing at Rome, _magister
  generalis_, is elected to office for life at the general chapter
  held annually at Pentecost, and he nominates his own _socii_ as
  advisory assistants. The government of the provinces is conducted
  by a provincial chosen every four years by the provincial chapter,
  assisted by four advisory _definitores_, and each cloister elects
  its own prior. The mode of life was determined by strict rules,
  severe fasts were enjoined, involving strict abstinence from
  the use of flesh, and during particular hours of the day absolute
  silence had to be observed. In the matter of clothing, only
  woollen garments were allowed. The dress consisted of a white
  frock with white scapular and a small peaked capouch; but outside
  of the cloister a black cloak with capouch was worn over it. From
  the favourite play upon the name Dominican, _Domini canes_, in
  contrast to the dumb dogs of Isaiah lvi. 10, the order adopted
  as its coat of arms a dog with the torch of truth in its mouth.
  The special vocation of the order as preachers and opponents of
  heresy required a thorough scientific training. Every province
  of the order was therefore expected to have a seminary capable
  of giving a superior theological education to the members of
  the order, to which they gave the name of a _studium generale_,
  borrowed from the universities, although the predicate was
  here used in a sense much more restricted (comp. § 99, 3).
  But ambitious desires for scientific reputation incited them
  to obtain authority for instituting theological chairs in the
  University of Paris, the most celebrated theological seminary
  of that age. The endeavour was favoured by a conflict of Queen
  Blanca with the Parisian doctors, in consequence of which they
  left the city and for a time gathered their students around
  them partly at Rheims, partly at Angers, while the Dominicans,
  encouraged by the bishop, established their first chair in the
  vacant places in A.D. 1230. The Franciscans too accomplished
  the same end about this time. The old professors on their return
  used every means in their power to drive out the intruders, but
  were completely beaten after almost thirty years of passionate
  conflict, and the nurture of scholastic theology was henceforth
  all but a monopoly of the two mendicant orders (§ 103, 3).
  The art of ecclesiastical architecture and painting, which
  during this age reached a hitherto unattained degree of
  perfection, found many of its most distinguished ornaments
  and masters in the preaching order. And in zeal for missions
  to the Mohammedans and the heathen the Franciscans alone could
  be compared with them. But the order reached the very climax
  of its reputation, influence, and power when Gregory IX., in
  A.D. 1232, assigned to it exclusive control of the inquisition
  of heretics (§ 109, 2).--The veneration of the devout masses of
  the people, who preferred to confide their secret confessions to
  the itinerant monks, roused against both orders the hatred of the
  secular clergy, the preference shown them by the popes awakened
  the envy of the other orders, and their success in scientific
  pursuits brought down upon them the ill-will of the learned.
  Circumstances thus rendered it necessary for a long time that
  the two orders should stand well together for united combat and
  defence. But after all those hindrances had been successfully
  overcome, the rivalry that had been suppressed owing to temporary
  community of interests broke out all the more bitterly in the
  endeavour to secure world-wide influence, intensified by opposing
  philosophico-dogmatic theories (§ 113, 2), as well as by the
  difference in the interpretation and explanation of the doctrine
  of poverty, in regard to which they strove with one another
  in the most violent and passionate manner (§ 112, 2). From
  having in their hands the administration of the Inquisition
  the preaching order obtained an important advantage over the
  Minorites; while these, on the other hand, were far more popular
  among the common people than the proud, ambitious Dominicans,
  who occupied themselves with high civil and ecclesiastical
  politics as counsellors and confessors of the princes and the
  nobles.--Continuation, § 112, 4.

  § 98.9. To each of the =two mendicant orders= there was at an
  early date attached a female branch, which was furnished by the
  saint who founded the original order with a rule adapting his
  order’s ideal of poverty to the female vocation, and therefore
  designated and regarded as his “second order.”

    1. The female conventual asylum, founded in A.D. 1206 at
       Prouille, may be considered the first cloister of =Dominican
       nuns=. The principal cloister and another institution,
       however, was the convent of _San Sisto_ in Rome, given
       to St. Dominic for this purpose by Honorius III. In all
       parts of Christendom where the preaching order settled
       there now appeared female cloisters under the supervision
       and jurisdiction of its provincial superior, with seclusion,
       strict asceticism, passing their time in contemplation, and
       conforming as closely as possible to the mode of life and
       style of clothing prescribed for the male cloisters. This
       institution was presided over by a prioress.

    2. The order of the =Nuns of St. Clara=, as “_the second
       order of St. Francis_,” was founded by =St. Clara of
       Assisi=. Born of a distinguished family, endowed with
       great physical beauty, and destined to an early marriage,
       in her eighteenth year, in A.D. 1212, she was powerfully
       impressed by the teaching of St. Francis, so that she
       resolved completely to abandon the world and its vanities.
       She proved the earnestness of her resolve by obeying the
       trying requirement of the saint to go through the streets
       of the city clad in a penitent’s cloak, begging alms for
       the poor. On Palm Sunday at the Portiuncula chapel she took
       at the hand of her chosen spiritual father the three vows.
       Her younger sister Agnes, along with other maidens, followed
       her example. Francis assigned to this union of “poor women”
       as a conventual residence the church of St. Damiani restored
       by him, from which they were sometimes called the _Nuns
       of St. Damiani_. When in A.D. 1219 St. Francis undertook
       his journey to the east, he commended them to the care
       of Cardinal Ugolino, who prescribed for them the rule of
       the Benedictine nuns; but after the saint’s return they so
       incessantly entreated him to draw up a rule for themselves,
       that he at last, in A.D. 1224, prepared one for them and
       obtained for it the approval of the pope. Clara died in
       A.D. 1253, and was canonized by Innocent IV. in A.D. 1255.
       Her order spread very widely in more than 2,000 cloisters,
       and can boast not only of having received 150 daughters of
       kings and princes, but also of having enriched heaven with
       an immense number of beatified and canonized virgins.

  § 98.10. =The other Mendicant Orders.=--The brilliant success
  of the Franciscans and Dominicans led other societies, either
  previously existing, or only now called into being, to adopt the
  character of mendicants. Only three of them succeeded, though in
  a much less degree than their models, in gaining position, name
  and extension throughout the West. The first of these was the
  =Carmelite Order=. It owed its origin to the crusader Berthold,
  Count of Limoges, who in A.D. 1156 founded a monastery at
  the brook of Elias on Mount Carmel, to which in A.D. 1209
  the patriarch of Jerusalem prescribed the rule of St. Basil
  (§ 44, 3). Hard pressed by the Saracens, the Carmelites
  emigrated in A.D. 1238 to the West, where as a mendicant
  order, under the name of _Frates Mariæ de Monte Carmelo_, with
  unexampled hardihood they repudiated their founder Berthold, and
  maintained that the prophet Elias had been himself their founder,
  and that the Virgin Mary had been a sister of their order. What
  they most prided themselves on was the sacred scapular which the
  Mother of God herself had bestowed upon Simon Stock, the general
  of the order in A.D. 1251, with the promise that whosoever should
  die wearing it should be sure of eternal blessedness. Seventy
  years later, according to the legends of the order, the Virgin
  appeared to Pope John XXII. and told him she descended every
  Saturday into purgatory, in order to take such souls to herself
  into heaven. In the 17th century, when violent controversies
  on this point had arisen, Paul V. authenticated the miraculous
  qualities of this scapular, always supposing that the prescribed
  fasts and prayers were not neglected. Among the Carmelites,
  just as among the Franciscans, laxer principles soon became
  current, causing controversies and splits which continued down
  to the 16th century (§ 149, 6).--=The Order of Augustinians=
  arose out of the combination of several Italian monkish societies.
  Innocent IV. in A.D. 1243 prescribed to them the rule of
  St. Augustine (§ 45, 1) as the directory of their common life.
  It was only under Alexander IV. in A.D. 1256 that they were
  welded together into one order as _Ordo Fratrum Eremitarum
  S. Augustini_, with the duties and privileges of mendicant
  monks. Their order spread over the whole West, and enjoyed
  the special favour of the papal chair, which conferred
  upon its members the permanent distinction of the office
  of sacristan to the papal chapel and of chaplain to the Holy
  Father (Continuation, § 112, 5).--Finally, as the fifth in the
  series of mendicant orders, we meet with the =Order of Servites=,
  _Servi b. Virg._, devoted to the Virgin, and founded in A.D. 1233
  by seven pious Florentines. It was, however, first recognised as
  a mendicant order by Martin V., and had equal rank with the four
  others granted it only in A.D. 1567 by Pius V.

  § 98.11. =Penitential Brotherhoods and Tertiaries of the
  Mendicant Orders.=--Carl Müller was the first to throw light
  upon this obscure period in the history of the Franciscans. The
  results of his investigations are essentially the following: In
  consequence of the appearance of St. Francis as a preacher of
  repentance and of the kingdom of God there arose a religious
  movement which, not merely had as its result the securing of
  numerous adherents to the association of Minor Brethren directed
  by himself, as well as to the society of “_poor women_” attaching
  itself to St. Clara, but also awakened in many, who by marriage
  and family duties were debarred from entering these orders, the
  desire to lead a life of penitence and asceticism removed from
  the noisy turmoil of the world in the quiet of their own homes
  while continuing their industrial employments and the discharge
  of civil duties. As originating in the movement inaugurated by
  St. Francis, these “_Fratres pœnitentiæ_” designated themselves
  “_the third order of St. Francis_,” and as such made the claim
  that they should not be disturbed in their retired penitential
  life to engage upon services for the State, military duty, and
  so forth. In this way they frequently came into conflict with
  the civil courts. Although in this direction powerfully supported
  by the papal curia, the brotherhoods were just so much the less
  able to press their claim to immunity in proportion as they
  spread and became more numerous throughout the cities of Italy,
  and the greater the rush into their ranks became from day to
  day from all classes, men and women, married and unmarried.
  The right of spiritual direction and visitation of them was
  assigned in A.D. 1234 by Gregory IX. to the bishops; but in
  A.D. 1247 Innocent IV., at the request of the Minorites, issued
  an ordinance according to which this right was to be given to
  them, but they were not able in any case to carry it out. Not
  only the secular clergy were opposed, but they were vigorously
  aided in their resistance by the Dominicans.--In A.D. 1209, at
  the beginning of the Albigensian crusade, St. Dominic had founded,
  at Toulouse, an association of married men and women under the
  name of _Militia Christi_, which, recognisable by the wearing
  of a common style of dress, undertook to vindicate the faith
  of the church against heretics, to restore again any goods that
  had wrongfully been appropriated by them, to protect widows
  and orphans, etc. This _Militia_ migrated from France to Italy.
  Although originally founded for quite different purposes than
  the Penitential brotherhoods, it had the same privileges as these
  enjoyed conferred upon it by the popes, and assimilated itself
  largely to these in respect of mode of life and ascetic practices,
  and practically became amalgamated with them. But still the
  Penitential brotherhoods always formed a neutral territory, upon
  which, according to circumstances, sometimes the secular clergy,
  and sometimes one or other of the two mendicant orders, but much
  more frequently the Minorite clergy, exercised visitation rights.
  The first attempt at effecting a definite separation arose
  from the Dominicans, whose seventh general, Murione de Zamorra,
  prescribed a rule to those Penitential brotherhoods which were
  more closely related to his order. Upon their adopting it they
  were loosed from the general society as “_Fratres de Pœnitentia_”
  =S. Dominici=, and described as exclusively attached to the
  preaching order. In A.D. 1288, however, Jerome of Arcoli, the
  former general of the Franciscans, ascended the papal throne as
  Nicholas IV., and now used all means in his power to secure to
  his own order the supremacy in every department. In the following
  year, A.D. 1289, he issued the bill _Supra montem_, in which he
  prescribed (_statuimus_) a rule of his own for all Penitential
  brotherhoods; and then, since on this point, out of regard
  for the powerful Dominican order, he did not venture to do
  more than simply recommend, added the advice (_consulimus_),
  that the visitation and instruction of these should be assigned
  to the Minorite superiors, giving as a reason that all these
  institutions owed their origin to St. Francis. Against both
  the prescription and the advice, however, the bishops, as well
  in the interest of their own prerogatives as for the protection
  of their clergy, threatened in vocation and income, raised
  a vigorous and persistent protest, which at last, however,
  succumbed before the supreme power of the pope and the marked
  preference on the part of the people for the clergy of the
  orders. Those brotherhoods which adopted the rule thus obtruded
  on them stood now in the position of rivals, alongside of those
  of St. Dominic, as “_Fratres de pœnitentia_” =S. Francisci=.
  The Dominican Penitentials afterwards adopted the name and
  character of a “_third order of St. Dominic_” or “_Tertiaries_.”
  In the Franciscan legends, however, the rule drawn up by
  Nicholas IV. soon came to be represented as the one prescribed
  to the Penitentials on their first appearance in A.D. 1221 by
  St. Francis himself, only ratified anew by the pope, and has
  been generally regarded as such down to our own day.--The rapid
  growth in power and influence which the two older mendicant
  orders owe to the Tertiary Societies, induced also the later
  mendicant orders to produce an imitation of them within the range
  of their activity. Crossing the Alps the Penitential brotherhoods
  found among these orders, on this side, an open door,--the
  Franciscan brothers being especially numerous,--and entered
  into peculiarly intimate relations with the Beghard societies
  which had sprung up there, forming, like them, associations of
  a monastic type.

  § 98.12. =Working Guilds of a Monkish Order.=--(1) During the
  11th century, midway between the strictly monastic and secular
  modes of life, a number of pious artisan families in Milan,
  mostly weavers, under the name of =Humiliati=, adopted a communal
  life with spiritual exercises, and community of handicraft and
  of goods. Whatever profit came from their work was devoted to
  the poor. The married continued their marriage relations after
  entering the community. In the 12th century, however, a party
  arose among them who bound themselves by vows of celibacy, and
  to them were afterwards attached a congregation of priests. Their
  society was first acknowledged by Innocent III. in A.D. 1021.
  But meanwhile many of them had come under the influence of
  Arnold (§ 108, 6), and so had become estranged from the Catholic
  church. At a later period these formed a connection with the
  French Waldensians, the _Pauperes de Lugduno_, adopted their
  characteristic views, and for the sake of distinction took the
  name of _Pauperes Italici_ (§ 108, 12).--Related in every respect
  to the Lombard Humiliati, but distinguished from them by the
  separation of the sexes and a universal obligation of celibacy,
  were the communities of the =Beguines= and =Beghards=. Priority
  of origin belongs to the Beguines. They took the three monkish
  vows, but only for so long as they belonged to the society. Hence
  they could at any time withdraw, and enter upon marriage and
  other relations of social life. They lived under the direction
  of a lady superior and a priest in a so-called Beguine-house,
  _Curtis Beguinarum_, which generally consisted of a number of
  small houses connected together by one surrounding wall. Each
  had her own household, although on entrance she had surrendered
  her goods over to the community and on withdrawing she received
  them back. They busied themselves with handiwork and the
  education of girls, the spiritual training of females, and
  sewing, washing and nursing the poor in the houses of the city.
  The surplus of income over expenditure was applied to works of
  benevolence. Every Beguine house had its own costume and colour.
  These institutions soon spread over all Belgium, Germany, and
  France. The first Beguine house known to us was founded about
  1180 at Liège, by the famous priest and popular preacher, Lambert
  la Bèghe, _i.e._ the Stammerer. Hallmann thinks that the name
  of the society may have been derived from that of the preacher.
  Earlier writers, without anything to support them but a vague
  similarity of sound, were wont to derive it from Begga, daughter
  of Pepin of Landen in the 7th century. Most likely of all,
  however, is Mosheim’s derivation of it from “beggan,” which means
  not to pray, “beten,” a praying sister, but to beg, as the modern
  English, and so proves that the institute originally consisted
  of a collection of poor helpless women. We may compare with this
  the designation “Lollards,” § 116, 3.--After the pattern of the
  Beguine communities there soon arose communities of men, Beghards,
  with similar tendencies. They supported themselves by handicraft,
  mostly by weaving. But even in the 13th century corruption and
  immorality made their appearance in both. Brothers and sisters of
  the New (§ 108, 4) and of the Free Spirit (§ 116, 5), Fratricelli
  (§ 112, 2) and other heretics, persecuted by the church, took
  refuge in their unions and infected them with their heresies.
  The Inquisition (§ 109, 2) kept a sharp eye on them, and many
  were executed, especially in France. The 15th General Council
  at Vienna, in A.D. 1312, condemned eight of their positions
  as heretical. There was now a multitude of Beguine and Beghard
  houses overthrown. Others maintained their existence only by
  passing over to the Tertiaries of the Franciscans. Later popes
  took the communities that were free from suspicion under their
  protection. But even among these many forms of immorality broke
  out, concubinage between Beguines and Beghards, and worldliness,
  thus obliging the civil and ecclesiastical authorities again
  to step in. The unions still remaining in the time of the
  Reformation were mostly secularized. Only in Belgium have
  a few Beguine houses continued to exist to the present day
  as institutions for the maintenance of unmarried women of the
  citizen class.[287]

  § 98.13. =The Spiritual Order of Knights.=--The peculiarity of
  the Order of Knights consists in the combination of the three
  monkish vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience with the vow
  to maintain a constant struggle with the infidels. The most
  important of these orders were the following.

    1. =The Templars=, founded in A.D. 1118 by Hugo de Payens
       and Godfrey de St. Omer for the protection of pilgrims in
       the Holy Land. The costume of the order was a white mantle
       with a red cross. Its rule was drawn up by St. Bernard,
       whose warm interest in the order secured for it papal
       patronage and the unanimous approbation of the whole West.
       When Acre fell in A.D. 1291 the Templars settled in Cyprus,
       but soon most of them returned to the West, making France
       their headquarters. They had their name probably from a
       palace built on the site of Solomon’s temple, which king
       Baldwin II. of Jerusalem assigned them as their first
       residence.[288]--Continuation, § 112, 7.

    2. =The Knights of St. John= or Hospitallers, founded by
       merchants from Amalfi as early as the middle of the
       11th century, residing at first in a cloister at the
       Holy Sepulchre, were engaged in showing hospitality to
       the pilgrims and nursing the sick. The head of the order
       Raimund du Puy, who occupied this position from A.D. 1118,
       added to these duties, in imitation of the Templars, that
       of fighting against the infidels. They carried a white cross
       on their breast, and a red cross on their standard. Driven
       out by the Saracens, they settled in Rhodes in A.D. 1310,
       and in A.D. 1530 took possession of Malta.[289]

    3. =The Order of Teutonic Knights= had its origin from a
       hospital founded by citizens of Bremen and Lübeck during
       the siege of Acre in A.D. 1120. The costume of the knights
       was a white mantle with a black cross. Subsequently the
       order settled in Prussia (§ 93, 13), and in A.D. 1237
       united with the order of the Brothers of the Sword, which
       had been founded in Livonia in A.D. 1202 (§ 93, 12). Under
       its fourth Grandmaster, the prudent as well as vigorous
       Hermann v. Salza, A.D. 1210-1239, it reached the summit
       of its power and influence.

    4. =The Knights of the Cross= arose originally in Palestine
       under the name of the Order of Bethlehem, but at a later
       period settled in Austria, Bohemia, Moravia and Poland.
       There they adopted the life of regular canons (§ 97, 5)
       and devoted themselves to hospital work and pastoral duties.
       They are still to be found in Bohemia as holders of valuable
       livings, with the badge of a cross of red satin.

  In =Spain=, too, various orders of spiritual knights arose under
  vows to fight with the Moors (§ 95, 2). The two most important
  were the =Order of Calatrava=, founded in A.D. 1158 by the
  Cistercian monk Velasquez for the defence of the frontier city
  Calatrava, and the =Order of Alcantara=, founded in A.D. 1156 for
  a similar purpose. Both orders were confirmed by Alexander III.
  and gained great fame and still greater wealth in the wars
  against the Moors. Under Ferdinand the Catholic the rank of
  Grandmaster of both orders passed over to the crown. Paul III.
  in A.D. 1540 released the knights from the vow of celibacy, but
  obliged them to become champions of the Immaculate Conception of
  the Virgin. Both orders still exist, but only as military orders
  of merit.

  § 98.14. =Bridge-Brothers and Mercedarians.=--The name of
  Bridge Brothers, _Frères Pontifex_, _Fratres Pontifices_, was
  given to a union founded under Clement III., in Southern France,
  in A.D. 1189, for the building of hospices and bridges at points
  where pilgrims crossed the large rivers, or for the ferrying
  of pilgrims over the streams. As a badge they wore a pick upon
  their breast. Their constitution was modelled upon that of
  the Knights of St. John, and upon their gradual dissolution
  in the 13th century most of their number went over to that
  order.--Petrus [Peter] Nolescens, born in Languedoc, of noble
  parents and military tutor of a Spanish prince, moved by what
  he had seen of the sufferings of Christian slaves at the hand
  of their Moorish masters, and strengthened in his resolve by
  an appearance of the Queen of Heaven, founded in A.D. 1228 the
  knightly order of the =Mercedarians=, _Mariæ Virg. de mercede
  pro redemptione Captivorum_. They devoted all their property
  to the purchase of Christian captives, and where such a one was
  in danger of apostatising to Islam and the money for redemption
  was not procurable, they would even give themselves into slavery
  in his place. When in A.D. 1317 the Grand Commandership passed
  over into the hands of the priests, the order was gradually
  transformed into a monkish order. After A.D. 1600, in consequence
  of a reform after the pattern of the rule of the Barefoots,
  it became a mendicant order, receiving the privileges of other
  begging fraternities from Benedict XIII. in A.D. 1725. The order
  proved a useful institution of its time in Spain, France and
  Italy, and at a later period also in Spanish America.




            III. Theological Science and its Controversies.


                  § 99. SCHOLASTICISM IN GENERAL.[290]

  The scientific activity of the Middle Ages received the name of
=Scholasticism= from the cathedral and cloister schools in which it
originated (§ 90, 8). The Schoolmen, with their enthusiasm and devotion,
their fidelity and perseverance, their courage and love of combat, may
be called the knights of theology. Instead of sword and spear they used
logic, dialectic and speculation; and profound scholarship was their
breastplate and helmet. Ecclesiastical orthodoxy was their glory
and pride. Aristotle, and also to some extent Plato, afforded them
their philosophical basis and method. The Fathers in their utterances,
_sententiæ_, the Councils in their dogmas and canons, the popes in
their decretals, yielded to this Dialectic Scholasticism theological
material which it could use for the systematising, demonstrating, and
illustrating of the Church doctrine. If we follow another intellectual
current, we find the Mystical Scholasticism taking up, as the highest
task of theology, the investigating and describing of the hidden life
of the pious thinker in and with God according to its nature, course,
and results by means of spiritual contemplation on the basis of one’s
individual experience. Dogmatics (including Ethics) and the Canon
Law constituted the peculiar field of the Dialectic Theology of the
Schoolmen. The standard of dogmatic theology during the 12th century
was the Book of the Sentences of the Lombard (§ 102, 5); that of the
Canon Law the Decree of Gratian. Biblical Exegesis as an independent
department of scientific study stood, indeed, far behind these two,
but was diligently prosecuted by the leading representatives of
Scholasticism. The examination of the simple literal sense, however,
was always regarded as a secondary consideration; while it was esteemed
of primary importance to determine the allegorical, tropological, and
anagogical signification of the text (§ 90, 9).

  § 99.1. =Dialectic and Mysticism.=--With the exception
  of the speculative Scotus Erigena, the Schoolmen of the
  Carlovingian Age were of a practical turn. This was changed
  on the introduction of Dialectic in the 11th century. Practical
  interests gave way to pure love of science, and it was now the
  aim of scholars to give scientific shape and perfect logical form
  to the doctrines of the church. The method of this =Dialectic
  Scholasticism= consisted in resolving all church doctrines into
  their elementary ideas, in the arranging and demonstrating of
  them under all possible categories and in the repelling of all
  possible objections of the sceptical reason. The end aimed at was
  the proof of the reasonableness of the doctrine. This Dialectic,
  therefore, was not concerned with exegetical investigations
  or Scripture proof, but rather with rational demonstration.
  Generally speaking, theological Dialectic attached itself to
  the ecclesiastical system of the day as positivism or dogmatism;
  for, appropriating Augustine’s _Credo ut intelligam_, it made
  faith the principal starting point of its theological thinking
  and the raising of faith to knowledge the end toward which it
  laboured. On the other hand, however, scepticism often made its
  appearance, taking not faith but doubt as the starting point
  for its inquiries, with the avowed intention, indeed, of raising
  faith to knowledge, but only acknowledging as worthy of belief
  what survived the purifying fire of doubt.--Alongside of this
  double-edged Dialectic, sometimes in conflict, sometimes in
  alliance with it, we meet with the =Mystical Scholasticism=,
  which appealed not to the reason but to the heart, and sought
  by spiritual contemplation rather than by Dialectic to advance
  at once theological science and the Christian life. Its object
  is not Dogmatics as such, not the development of _Fides quæ
  creditur_, but life in fellowship with God, the development of
  _Fides qua creditur_. By contemplative absorption of the soul
  into the depth of the Divine life it seeks an immediate vision,
  experience and enjoyment of the Divine, and as an indispensable
  condition thereto requires purity of heart, the love of God
  in the soul and thorough abnegation of self. What is gained
  by contemplation is made the subject of scientific statement,
  and thus it rises to speculative mysticism. Both contemplation
  and speculative mysticism in so far as their scientific
  procedure is concerned are embraced under the name of scholastic
  mysticism. The practical endeavour, however, after a deepening
  and enhancing of the Christian life in the direction of a
  real and personal fellowship with God was found more important
  and soon out-distanced the scientific attempt at tabulating
  and formulating the facts of inner experience. Practical
  mysticism thus gained the ascendency during the 12th, 13th
  and 14th centuries, and formed the favourite pursuit of the
  numerous inmates of the nunneries (§ 107).

  § 99.2. =The Philosophical Basis of Dialectic Scholasticism= was
  obtained mainly from the Aristotelian philosophy, which, down to
  the end of the 12th century, was known at first only from Latin
  renderings of Arabic and even Hebrew translations, and afterwards
  from Latin renderings of the Greek originals (§ 103, 1).
  Besides Aristotle, however, Plato also had his enthusiastic
  admirers during the Middle Ages. The study of the writings of
  Augustine and the Areopagite (§ 90, 7) led back again to him,
  and the speculative mystics vigorously opposed the supremacy
  of Aristotle.--At the outset of the philosophical career of
  scholasticism in the 11th century we meet with the controversy
  of Anselm and Roscellinus [Roscelin] about the relations of
  thinking and being or of the idea and the substance of things
  (§ 101, 3). =The Nominalists=, following the principles of the
  Stoics, maintained that General Notions, _Universalia_, are mere
  abstractions of the understanding, _Nomina_, which as such have
  no reality outside the human mind, _Universalia =post= res_.
  =The Realists=, on the contrary, affirmed the reality of General
  Notions, regarding them as objective existences before and
  apart from human thinking. But there were two kinds of realism.
  The one, based on the Platonic doctrine of ideas, taught that
  General Notions are really existent before the origin of the
  several things as archetypes in the Divine reason, and then
  also in the human mind before the contemplation of the things
  empirically given, _Universalia =ante= res_. The other, resting
  on Aristotle’s doctrine, considered them as lying in the things
  themselves and as first getting entrance into the human mind
  through experience, _Universalia =in= rebus_. The Platonic
  Realism thought to reach a knowledge of things by pure thought
  from the ideas latent in the human mind; the Aristotelian, on the
  other hand, thought to gain a knowledge of things only through
  experience and thinking upon the things themselves.--Continuation,
  § 103, 1.

  § 99.3. =The Nurseries of Scholasticism.=--The work previously
  done in cathedrals and cloister schools was, from about the
  12th century, taken up in a more comprehensive and thorough
  way by the =Universities=. They were, as to their origin,
  independent of church and state, emperor and pope. Here and
  there famous teachers arose in the larger cities or in connection
  with some celebrated cloister or cathedral school. Youths from
  all countries gathered around them. Around the teacher who first
  attracted attention others gradually grouped themselves. Teachers
  and scholars organized themselves into a corporation, and thus
  arose the University. By this, however, we are to understand
  nothing less than a _Universitas litterarum_, where attention
  was given to the whole circle of the sciences. For a long time
  there was no thought of a distribution into faculties. When the
  multitude of teachers and students demanded a distribution into
  several corporations, this was done according to nations. The
  name signifies the _Universitas magistrorum et scholarium_
  rather than an articulated whole. The study here pursued was
  called _Studium generale_ or _universale_, because the entrance
  thereto stood open to every one. At first each university
  pursued exclusively and in later times chiefly some special
  department of science. Thus, _e.g._ theology was prosecuted in
  Paris and Oxford and subsequently also in Cologne, jurisprudence
  in Bologna, Medicine in Salerno. The first university that
  expressly made provision for teaching all sciences was founded
  at Naples in A.D. 1224 with imperial munificence by Frederick II.
  The earliest attempt at a distribution of the sciences among
  distinct faculties was occasioned by the struggle between the
  university of Paris and the mendicant monks (§ 103, 1), who
  separated themselves from the other theological teachers and
  as members of a guild formed themselves in A.D. 1259 into a
  theological faculty. The number of the students, among whom
  were many of ripe years, was immensely great, and in some of
  the most celebrated universities reached often to ten or even
  twenty thousand. There was a ten years’ course prescribed for
  the training of the monks of Clugny: two years’ _Logicalia_,
  three years’ _Literæ naturales et philosophicæ_, and five
  years’ Theology. The Council at Tours in A.D. 1236 insisted
  that every priest should have passed through a five years’
  course of study.[291]

  § 99.4. =The Epochs of Scholasticism.=--The intellectual work
  of the theologians of the Middle Ages during our period ran its
  course in four epochs, the boundaries of which nearly coincide
  with the boundaries of the four centuries which make up that
  period.

    1. From the 10th century, almost completely destitute of any
       scientific movement, the so-called _Sæculum obscurum_, there
       sprang forth the first buds of scholarship, without, however,
       any distinct impress upon them of scholasticism.

    2. In the 11th century scholasticism began to show itself, and
       that in the form of dialectic, both sceptical and dogmatic.

    3. In the 12th century mysticism assumed an independent place
       alongside of dialectic, carried on a war of extermination
       against the sceptical dialectic, and finally appeared in a
       more peaceful aspect, contributing material to the positive
       dogmatic dialectic.

    4. In the 13th century dialectic scholasticism gained the
       complete ascendency, and reached its highest glory in the
       form of dogmatism in league with mysticism, and never, in
       the persons of its greatest representatives, in opposition
       to it.

  § 99.5. =The Canon Law.=--After the Pseudo-Isidore (§ 87, 2)
  many collections of church laws appeared. They sought to render
  the material more complete, intentionally or unintentionally
  enlarging the forgeries and massing together the most
  contradictory statements without any attempt at comparison
  or sifting. The most celebrated of these were the collections
  of bishops Burchard of Worms about A.D. 1020, Anselm of Lucca,
  who died in A.D. 1086, nephew of the pope of the same name,
  Alexander II., and Ivo of Chartres, who died in A.D. 1116. Then
  the Camaldolite monk =Gratian= of Bologna undertook not only
  to gather together the material in a more complete form than
  had hitherto been done, but also to reconcile contradictory
  statements by scholastic argumentation. His work appeared about
  A.D. 1150 under the title _Concordantia discordantium canonum_,
  and is commonly called _Decretum Gratiani_. A great impulse was
  given to the study of canon law by means of this work, especially
  at Bologna and Paris. Besides the _Legists_, who taught the Roman
  law, there now arose numerous _Decretists_ teaching the canon
  law and writing commentaries on Gratian’s work. Gregory IX.
  had a new collection of Decrees of Councils and Decretals in
  five books, the so-called _Liber extra Decretum_, or shortly
  _Extra_ or _Decretum Gregorii_, drawn up by his confessor and
  Grand-Penitentiary, the learned Dominican Raimundus [Raimund]
  de Pennaforti [Pennaforte], and sent it in A.D. 1234 to the
  University of Bologna. Boniface VIII. in A.D. 1298 added to
  this collection in five parts his _Liber Sextus_, and Clement V.
  in A.D. 1314 added what are called after him the _Clementinæ_.
  From that time down to A.D. 1483 the decretals of later popes
  were added as an appendix under the name _Extravagantes_,
  and with these the _Corpus juris canonici_ was concluded.
  An official edition was begun in A.D. 1566 by the so-called
  _Correctores Romani_, which in A.D. 1580 received papal sanction
  as authoritative for all time to come.[292]

  § 99.6. The Schoolmen as such contributed nothing to =Historical
  Literature=. Histories were written not in the halls of the
  universities but in the cells of the monasteries. Of these
  there were three kinds as we have already seen in § 90, 9. For
  workers in the department of Biblical History, see § 105, 5;
  and of Legends of the Saints, § 104, 8. For ancient Church
  History Rufinus and Cassiodorus were the authorities and the
  common text books (§ 5, 1). An interesting example of the manner
  in which universal history was treated when mediæval culture
  had reached its highest point, is afforded by the _Speculum
  magnum s. quadruplex_ of the Dominican =Vincent of Beauvais=
  (_Bellovacensis_). This treatise was composed about the middle
  of the 13th century at the command of Louis IX. of France as
  a hand-book for the instruction of the royal princes. It forms
  an encyclopædic exposition of all the sciences of that day in
  four parts, _Speculum historiale_, _naturale_, _doctrinale_,
  and _morale_. The _Speculum doctrinale_ breaks off just at
  the point where it should have passed over to theology proper,
  and the _Speculum morale_ is a later compilation by an unknown
  hand.[293]


         § 100. THE _SÆCULUM OBSCURUM_: THE 10TH CENTURY.[294]

  In contrast to the brilliant theological scholarship and the
activity of religious life in the 9th century, as well as to the
remarkable culture and scientific attainments of the Spanish Moors
with their world-renowned school at Cordova, the darkness of the
10th century seems all the more conspicuous, especially its first
half, when the papacy reached its lowest depths, the clergy gave way
to unblushing worldliness and the church was consumed by the foulest
corruption. During this age, indeed, there were gleams of light even
in Italy, but only like a will o’ the wisp rising from swampy meadows,
a fanatical outburst on behalf of ancient classic paganism. The
literature of this period stood in direct and avowed antagonism to
Christian theology and the Christian church, and commended a godless
frivolity and the most undisguised sensuality. A grammarian Wilgard
of Ravenna taught openly that Virgil, Horace, and Juvenal were better
and nobler than Paul, Peter, and John. The church had still so much
authority as to secure his death as a heretic, but in almost all the
towns of Italy he had sympathisers, and that among the clergy as well
as among laymen. It was only by the influence of the monks of Clugny,
the reformatory ascetic efforts of Romuald (§ 98, 1) and St. Nilus the
Younger, a very famous Greek recluse of Gaeta, who died in A.D. 1005,
aided by the reformatory measures for the purification of the church
taken by the Saxon emperors, that this unclean spirit was gradually
driven out. The famous endeavours of Alfred the Great and their
temporary success were borne to the grave along with himself. From
A.D. 959 however, Dunstan’s reformation awakened anew in England
appreciation of a desire for theological and national culture. The
connection of the imperial house of Otto with Byzantium also aroused
outside of Italy a longing after old classical learning. The imperial
chapel founded by the brother of Otto I., Bruno the Great (§ 97, 2),
became the training school of a High-German clergy, who were there
carefully trained as far as the means at the disposal of that age
permitted, not only in politics, but also in theological and classical
studies.

  § 100.1. The degree to which =Classical Studies= were pursued
  in Germany during the period of the Saxon imperial house is shown
  by the works of the learned nun =Roswitha= of Gandersheim, north
  of Göttingen, who died about A.D. 984. The first edition of her
  works, which comprise six dramas on biblical and ecclesiastical
  themes in the style of Terence, in prose interspersed with
  rhymes, also eight legends, a history of Otto I., and a history
  of the founding of her cloister in leonine hexameters, was
  issued by the humanist Conrad Celtes, with woodcuts by Dürer
  in A.D. 1501.--=Notker Labeo=, president of the cloister
  school of St. Gall, who died in A.D. 1022, enriched the old
  German literature by translations of the Psalms, of Aristotle’s
  _Organon_, the _Moralia_ of Gregory the Great, and various
  writings of Boethius [Boëthius].--In =England= the educational
  efforts of =St. Dunstan= (§ 97, 4) were powerfully supported
  by Bishop =Ethelwold= of Winchester, who quite in the spirit of
  Alfred the Great (§ 90, 10) wrought incessantly with his pupils
  for the extension and enrichment of the Anglo-Saxon literature.
  Of his scholars by far the most famous was =Aelfric=, surnamed
  Grammaticus, who flourished about A.D. 990. He wrote an
  Anglo-Saxon Grammar, prepared a collection of homilies for all
  the Sundays and festivals and a free translation from sermons of
  the Latin Fathers, translated also the Old Testament heptateuch,
  and wrote treatises on other portions of Scripture and on
  biblical questions.[295]

  § 100.2. =Italy= produced during the second half of the century
  many theologians eminent and important in their day. =Atto=,
  bishop of Vercelli, who died about A.D. 960, distinguished
  himself by his exegetical compilations on Paul’s epistles, and
  as a homilist and a vigorous opponent of the oppressors of the
  church during these rough times. Still more important was his
  younger contemporary =Ratherius=, bishop of Verona, afterwards
  of Liège, but repeatedly driven away from both, who died A.D. 974.
  A strict and zealous reformer of clerical morals, he insisted
  upon careful study of the Bible, and wrought earnestly against
  the unblushing paganism of the Italian scholars of his age
  as well as against all kinds of hypocrisy, superstition, and
  ecclesiastical corruptions. This, and also his attachment to
  the political interests of the German court, exposed him to
  much persecution. Among his writings may be named _De contemptu
  canonum_, _Meditationes cordis_, _Apologia sui ipsius_, _De
  discordia inter ipsum et clericos_.--In =France= we meet with
  =Odo of Clugny=, who died in A.D. 942, famed as a hymn writer
  and homilist, and, in his _Collationum Ll. iii._, as a zealous
  reprover of the corrupt morals of his age. In England and France,
  =Abbo of Fleury= taught toward the end of the century. From
  England, where he had been induced to go by St. Dunstan, he
  returned after some years to his own cloister of Fleury, and by
  his academic gifts raised its school to great renown. He wrote on
  astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, and history. He also composed
  a treatise on dialectics, in which he makes his appearance as
  the first and most eminent precursor of the Schoolmen. Chosen
  abbot of his monastery and exercising strict discipline over his
  monks, he suffered a martyr’s death by the hand of a murderer in
  A.D. 1004.--=Gerbert of Rheims=, afterwards Pope Sylvester II.
  (§ 96, 3, 4), during his active career lived partly in France,
  partly in Italy. Distinguished both for classical and Arabic
  scholarship, he shone in the firmament of this dark century
  as it was passing away († A.D. 1003) like a star of the first
  magnitude in theology, mathematics, astronomy, and natural
  science, while by the common people he was regarded as a magician.
  Under him the school of Rheims reached the summit of its fame.


                      § 101. THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

  During the 11th century, with the moral and spiritual elevation of
the church, eager attention was again given to theological science. It
was at first mainly prosecuted in the monasteries of the Cistercians
and among the monks of Clugny, but afterwards at the seminaries which
arose toward the end of the century. The dialectic method won more
and more the upper hand in theology, and in the Eucharist controversy
between Lanfranc and Berengar, as well as in the controversy between
Anselm and Gaunilo about the existence of God, and between Anselm and
Roscelin about the Trinity, Dogmatism obtained its first victory over
Scepticism.

  § 101.1. =The Most Celebrated Schoolmen of this Century.=

    1. =Fulbert= opens the list, a pupil of Gerbert, and
       from A.D. 1007 Bishop of Chartres Before entering on
       his episcopate he had founded at Chartres a theological
       seminary. His fame spread over all the West, so that pupils
       poured in upon him from every side.

    2. The most important of these was =Berengar of Tours=,
       afterwards a canon and teacher of the cathedral school
       of his native city, and then again archdeacon at Angers.
       He died in A.D. 1088. The school of Tours rose to great
       eminence under him.

    3. =Lanfranc=, the celebrated opponent of the last-named,
       was abbot of the monastery of Bec in Normandy, and from
       A.D. 1070 Archbishop of Canterbury (§ 96, 8). He died in
       A.D. 1089. He wrote against Berengar _Liber de corpore et
       sanguine Domini_.

    4. Bishop =Hildebert of Tours=, who died in A.D. 1134, famous
       as a writer of spiritual songs, was a pupil of Berengar.
       But he avoided the sceptical tendencies of his teacher, and,
       warned of the danger of dialectic and following the mystical
       bent of his mind, he applied himself to the cultivation of
       a life of faith, so that St. Bernard praised him as _tantam
       columnam ecclesiæ_.

    5. The monastic school of Bec, which Lanfranc had rendered
       celebrated, reached the summit of its fame under his pupil
       =Anselm of Canterbury=, who far excelled his teacher in
       genius as well as in importance for theological science.
       He was born in A.D. 1033 at Aosta in Italy, educated in the
       monastery of Bec, became teacher and abbot there, was raised
       in A.D. 1093 to the archiepiscopal chair of Canterbury, and
       died in A.D. 1109. As a churchman he courageously defended
       the independence of the church according to the principles
       of Hildebrand (§ 96, 12). As a theologian he may be ranked
       in respect of acuteness and profundity, speculative talent
       and Christian earnestness, as a second Augustine, and
       on the theological positions of that Father he based his
       own. Though carrying dialectic even into his own private
       devotions, there was yet present in him a vein of religious
       mysticism. According to him faith is the condition of true
       knowledge, _Fides præcedit intellectum_; but it is also with
       him a sacred duty to raise faith to knowledge, _Credo ut
       intelligam_. Only he who in respect of endowment and culture
       is not capable of this intellectual activity should content
       himself with simple _Veneratio_. His _Monologium_ contains
       discussions on the nature of God, his _Proslogium_ proves
       the being of God; his three books, _De fide Trinitatis et
       de incarnatione Verbi_, develop and elaborate the doctrine
       of the Trinity and Christology; while the three dialogues
       _De veritate_, _De libero arbitrio_, and _De casu diaboli_
       treat of the object, and the tract _Cur Deus homo?_ treats
       of the subject, of soteriology. The most able, profound,
       and impressive of all his writings is the last-named,
       which proves the necessity of the incarnation of God in
       Christ for the reconciliation of man with God. It was an
       epoch-making treatise in the historical development of the
       church doctrine of satisfaction on Pauline foundations.[296]
       Anselm took part in the controversy of the Greeks by his
       work _De processione Spiritus_ (§ 67, 4). He discussed the
       question of predestination in a moderate Augustinian form in
       the book, _De concordia præscientæ et prædest. et gratiæ Dei
       cum libero arbitrio_. In his _Meditationes_ and _Orationes_
       he gives expression to the ardent piety of his soul, as also
       in the voluminous collection (426) of his letters.[297]

    6. =Anselm of Laon=, surnamed Scholasticus, was the pupil
       of Anselm of Canterbury. From A.D. 1076 he taught with
       brilliant success at Paris, and thus laid the first
       foundation of its university. Subsequently he returned
       to his native city Laon, was made there archdeacon and
       Scholasticus, and founded in that place a famous theological
       school. He died in A.D. 1117. He composed the _Glossa
       interlinearis_, a short exposition of the Vulgate between
       the lines, which with Walafrid’s _Glossa ordinaria_
       (§ 90, 4), became the favourite exegetical handbook of
       the Middle Ages.

    7. =William of Champeaux=, the proper founder of the University
       of Paris, had already taught rhetoric and dialectic for
       some time with great success in the cathedral school, when
       the fame of the theological school of Laon led him to the
       feet of Anselm. In A.D. 1108 he returned to Paris, and
       had immense crowds listening to his theological lectures.
       Chagrined on account of a defeat in argument at the hand
       of Abælard, one of his own pupils, he retired from public
       life into the old chapel of St. Victor near Paris, and there
       founded a monastery under the same name for canons of the
       rule of St. Augustine. He died in A.D. 1121 as Bishop of
       Chalons.

    8. The abbot =Guibert of Nogent=, in the diocese of Laon,
       who died about A.D. 1124, a scholar of Anselm at Bec,
       was a voluminous writer and, with all his own love of
       the marvellous, a vigorous opponent of all the grosser
       absurdities of relic and saint worship. He wrote a useful
       history of the first crusade, and a work important in
       its day entitled, _Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat_.
       His great work was one in four books, _De pignoribus
       Sanctorum_, against the abuses of saint and relic worship,
       the exhibition of pretended parts of the Saviour’s body,
       _e.g._ teeth, pieces of the foreskin, navel cord, etc.,
       against the translation or distribution of the bodies
       of saints, against the fraud of introducing new saints,
       relics, and legends.

  § 101.2. =Berengar’s Eucharist Controversy,
  A.D. 1050-1079.=--Berengar of Tours elaborated a theory of the
  eucharist which is directly antagonistic to the now generally
  prevalent theory of Radbert (§ 91, 3). He taught that while the
  elements are changed and Christ’s body is really present, neither
  the change nor the presence is substantial. The presence of His
  body is rather the existence of His power in the elements, and
  the change of the bread is the actual manifestation of this power
  in the form of bread. The condition however of this power-presence
  is not merely the consecration but also the faith of the receiver.
  Without this faith the bread is an empty and impotent sign.
  Such views were publicly expressed by him and his numerous
  followers for a long while without causing any offence. But
  when he formally stated them in a letter to his friend Lanfranc
  of Bec, this churchman became Berengar’s accuser at the Synod
  of Rome in A.D. 1050. The synod condemned him unheard. A second
  synod of the same year held at Vercelli, before which Berengar
  was to have appeared but could not because he had meanwhile
  been imprisoned in France, in an outburst of fanatical fury
  had the treatise of Ratramnus on the eucharist, wrongly ascribed
  to Erigena, torn up and burnt, while Berengar’s doctrine was
  again condemned. Meanwhile Berengar was by the intervention of
  influential friends set at liberty and made the acquaintance of
  the powerful papal legate Hildebrand, who, holding by the simple
  Scripture doctrine that the bread and wine of the sacrament
  was the body and blood of Christ, occupied probably a position
  intermediate between Radbert’s grossly material and Berengar’s
  dynamic hypothesis. Disinclined to favour the fanaticism of
  Berengar’s opponents, Hildebrand contented himself with exacting
  from him at the Synod of Tours in A.D. 1054 a solemn declaration
  that he did not deny the presence of Christ in the Supper, but
  regarded the consecrated elements as the body and blood of Christ.
  Emboldened by this decision and still always persecuted by his
  opponents as a heretic, Berengar undertook in A.D. 1059 a journey
  to Rome, in order, as he hoped, by Hildebrand’s influence to
  secure a distinct papal verdict in his favour. But there he found
  a powerful opposition headed by the passionate and pugnacious
  Cardinal Humbert (§ 67, 3). This party at the Lateran Council
  in Rome in A.D. 1059, compelled Berengar, who was really very
  deficient in strength of character, to cast his writings into
  the fire and to swear to a confession composed by Humbert which
  went beyond even Radbert’s theory in the gross corporeality of
  its expressions. But in France he immediately again repudiated
  this confession with bitter invectives against Rome, and
  vindicated anew against Lanfranc and others his earlier views.
  The bitterness of the controversy now reached its height.
  Hildebrand had meanwhile, in A.D. 1073, himself become pope.
  He vainly endeavoured to bring the controversy to an end by
  getting Berengar to accept a confession couched in moderate
  terms admitting the real presence of the body and blood in the
  Supper. The opposite party did not shrink from casting suspicion
  on the pope’s own orthodoxy, and so Hildebrand was obliged, in
  order to avoid the loss of his great life work in a mass of minor
  controversies, to insist at a second synod in Rome in A.D. 1079
  upon an unequivocal and decided confession of the substantial
  change of the bread. Berengar was indiscreet enough to refer
  to his private conversations with the pope; but now Gregory
  commanded him at once to acknowledge and abjure his error.
  With fear and trembling Berengar obeyed, and the pope dismissed
  him with a safe conduct, distinctly prohibiting all further
  disputation. Bowed down under age and calamities, Berengar
  withdrew to the island of St. Come, near Tours, where he lived
  as a solitary penitent in the practice of strict asceticism, and
  died at a great age in peace with the church in A.D. 1088. His
  chief work is _De Cœna S. adv. Lanfr._--Continuation, § 102, 5.

  § 101.3. =Anselm’s Controversies.=

    I. On the basis of his Platonic realism, Anselm of Canterbury
       constructed the ontological proof of the being of God, that
       there is given in man’s reason the idea of the most perfect
       being to whose perfection existence also belongs. When he
       laid this proof before the learned world in his _Monologium_
       and _Proslogium_, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who
       was a supporter of Aristotelian realism, opposed him, and
       acutely pointed out the defects of this proof in his _Liber
       pro insipiente_. He so named it in reference to a remark
       of Anselm, who had said that even the _insipiens_ who,
       according to Psalm xiv. 1, declares in his heart that there
       is no God, affords thereby a witness for the existence of
       the idea, and consequently also for the existence of God.
       Anselm replied in his _Apologeticus c. Gaunilonem_. And
       there the controversy ended without any definite result.

   II. Of more importance was Anselm’s controversy with
       =Roscelin=, the Nominalist, canon of Compiègne. He in
       a purely nominalistic fashion understood the idea of the
       Godhead as a mere abstraction, and thought that the three
       persons of the Godhead could not be _una res_, οὐσία, as
       then they must all at once have been incarnate in Christ.
       A synod at Soissons in A.D. 1092 condemned him as a
       tritheist. He retracted, but afterwards reiterated his
       earlier views. Anselm then, in his tract _De fide Trinitatis
       et de incarnatione Verbi contra blasphemias Rucelini_,
       proved that the drift of his argumentation tended toward
       tritheism, and vindicated the trinitarian doctrine of the
       church. For more than two centuries Nominalism was branded
       with a suspicion of heterodoxy, until in the 14th century
       a reaction set in (§ 113, 3), which restored it again to
       honour.


                      § 102. THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

  In the 12th century dialectic and mysticism are seen contending
for the mastery in the department of theology. On the one side
stands Abælard, in whom the sceptical dialectic had its most
eminent representative. Over against him stands St. Bernard as
his most resolute opponent. Theological dialectic afterwards assumed
a pre-eminently dogmatic and ecclesiastical character, entering into
close relationship with mysticism. While this movement was mainly
carried on in France, where the University of Paris attracted teachers
and scholars from all lands, it passed over from thence into Germany,
where Provost Gerhoch and his brother Arno gave it their active support
in opposition to that destructive sort of dialectic that was then
spreading around them. Although the combination of dogmatic dialectic
and mysticism had for a long time no formal recognition, it ultimately
secured the approval of the highest ecclesiastical authorities.

  § 102.1. =The Contest on French Soil.=

    I. =The Dialectic Side of the Gulf.=--=Peter Abælard=, superior
       to all his contemporaries in acuteness, learning, dialectic
       power, and bold freethinking, but proud and disputatious,
       was born at Palais in Brittany in A.D. 1079. His first
       teacher in philosophy was Roscelin. Afterwards he entered
       the school of William of Champeaux at Paris, the most
       celebrated dialectician of his times. Having defeated
       his master in a public disputation, he founded a school at
       Melun near Paris, where thousands of pupils flocked to him.
       In order to be nearer Paris, he moved his school to Corbeil;
       then to the very walls of Paris on Mount St. Genoveva;
       and ceased not to overwhelm William with humiliations,
       until his old teacher retreated from the field. In order
       to secure still more brilliant success, he began to study
       theology under the Schoolman Anselm of Laon. But very soon
       the ambitious scholar thought himself superior also to this
       master. Relying upon his dialectical endowments, he took
       a bet without further preparation to expound the difficult
       prophet Ezekiel. He did it indeed to the satisfaction of
       scholars, but Anselm refused to allow him to continue his
       lectures. Abælard now returned to Paris, where he gathered
       around him a great number of enthusiastic pupils. Canon
       Fulbert appointed him teacher of his beautiful and talented
       niece Heloise. He won her love, and they were secretly
       married. She then denied the marriage in order that he
       might not be debarred from the highest offices of the
       church. Persisting in this denial, her relatives dealt
       severely with her, and Abælard had her placed in the nunnery
       of Argenteuil. Fulbert in his fury had Abælard seized during
       the night and emasculated, so that he might be disqualified
       for ecclesiastical preferment. Overwhelmed with shame, he
       fled to the monastery of St. Denys, and there in A.D. 1119
       took the monastic vow. Heloise took the veil at Argenteuil.
       But even at St. Denys Abælard was obliged by the eager
       entreaties of former scholars to resume his lectures. His
       free and easy treatment of the church doctrine and his
       haughty spirit aroused many enemies against him, who at
       the Synod of Soissons in A.D. 1121 compelled him before the
       papal legate to cast into the fire his treatise _De Unitate
       et Trinitate divina_, and had him committed to a monastic
       prison. By the intercession of some friends he was soon
       again set free, and returned to St. Denys. But when he
       made the discovery that Dionysius at Paris was not the
       Areopagite the persecution of the monks drove him into
       a forest near Troyes. There too his scholars followed him
       and made him resume his lectures. His colony grew up under
       his hands into the famous abbey of the Paraclete. Finding
       even there no rest, he made over the abbey of the Paraclete
       to Heloise, who had not been able to come to terms with
       her insubordinate nuns at Argenteuil. He himself now became
       abbot of the monastery of St. Gildasius at Ruys in Brittany,
       and, after in vain endeavouring for eight years to restore
       the monastic discipline, he again in A.D. 1136 resumed
       his office of teacher and lectured at St. Genoveva near
       Paris with great success. He wrote an ethical treatise,
       “_Scito te ipsum_,” issued a new and enlarged edition of
       his _Theologia christiana_, now extant as the incomplete
       _Introductio ad theologiam_ in three books, and composed
       a _Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judæum et Christianum_, in
       which the heathen philosophers and poets of antiquity are
       ranked almost as high as the prophets and apostles. In _Sic
       et Non_, “Yes and No,” a collection of extracts from the
       Fathers under the various heads of doctrine contradictory
       of one another, the traditional theology was held up to
       contempt.

  § 102.2.

       =Abælard= maintained, in opposition to the
       Augustinian-Anselmian theory, that faith preceded
       knowledge, that only what we comprehend is to be believed.
       He did indeed intend that his dialectic should be used not
       for the overthrow but for the establishment of the church
       doctrine. He proceeded, however, from doubt as the principle
       of all knowledge, regarding all church dogmas as problems
       which must be proved before they can be believed: _Dubitando
       enim ad inquisitionem venimus, inquirendo veritatem
       percipimus_. He thus reduced faith to a mere probability
       and measured the content of faith by the rule of subjective
       reason. This was most glaring in the case of the trinitarian
       doctrine, which with him approached Sabellian modalism. God
       as omnipotent is to be called Father, as all wise the Son,
       as loving and gracious the Spirit; and so the incarnation
       becomes a merely temporal and dynamic immanence of the Logos
       in the man Jesus. The significance of the ethical element
       in Christianity quite overshadowed that of the dogmatic. He
       taught that all fundamental truths of Christianity had been
       previously proclaimed by philosophers and poets of Greece
       and Rome, who were scarcely less inspired than the prophets
       and apostles, the special service of the latter consisting
       in giving currency to these truths among the uncultured. He
       turns with satisfaction from the theology of the Fathers to
       that of the apostles, and from that again to the religion of
       Jesus, whom he represents rather as a reformer introducing
       a pure morality than as a founder of a religious system.
       Setting aside Anselm’s theory of satisfaction, he regards
       the redemption and reconciliation of man as consisting in
       the awakening in sinful man, by means of the infinite love
       displayed by Christ’s teaching and example, by His life,
       sufferings and death upon the cross, a responding love of
       such fulness and power, that he is thereby freed from the
       dominion of sin and brought into the glorious liberty of
       the children of God.[298]--Abælard’s fame and following
       grew in a wonderful manner from day to day; but also
       powerful opponents dragged his heresies into light and
       vigorously combated them. The most important of these were
       the Cistercian monk William of Thierry and St. Bernard, who
       called attention to the dangerous tendency of his teaching.
       St. Bernard dealt personally with the heretic, but when
       he failed in converting him, he appeared in A.D. 1141 at
       the Synod of Sens as his accuser. The synod condemned as
       heretical a series of statements culled from his writings
       by Bernard. Abælard appealed to the pope, but even his
       friends at Rome, among whom was Card. Guido de Castella,
       afterwards Pope Cœlestine II., could not close their
       eyes to his manifest heterodoxies. His friendship for
       Arnold of Brescia also told against him at Rome (§ 108, 7).
       Innocent II. therefore excommunicated Abælard and his
       supporters, condemned his writings to be burnt and himself
       to be confined in a monastery. Abælard found an asylum
       with the abbot Peter the Venerable of Clugny, who not
       only effected his reconciliation with Bernard, but also,
       on the ground of his _Apologia s. Confessio fidei_, in
       which he submitted to the judgment of the church, obtained
       permission from the pope to pass his last days in peace at
       Clugny. During this time he composed his _Hist. calamitatum
       Abælardi_, an epistolary autobiography, which, though
       not free from vanity and bitterness, is yet worthy to be
       ranked with Augustine’s “Confessions” for its unreserved
       self-accusation and for the depth of self-knowledge which
       it reveals. He died in A.D. 1142, in the monastery of
       St. Marcellus at Chalons, where he had gone in quest of
       health. He was buried in the abbey of the Paraclete, where
       Heloise laid on his coffin the letter of absolution of Peter
       of Clugny. Twenty-two years later Heloise herself was laid
       in the same quiet resting place.[299]

  § 102.3.

   II. =The Mystic Side of the Gulf.=--Abælard’s most famous
       opponent was =St. Bernard of Clairvaux= (§ 98, 1), born
       in A.D. 1091 at Fontaines near Dijon in Burgundy, died in
       A.D. 1153, a man of such extraordinary influence on his
       generation as the world seldom sees. Venerated as a miracle
       worker, gifted with an eloquence that carried everything
       before it (_doctor mellifluus_), he was the protector and
       reprover of the Vicar of God, the peacemaker among the
       princes, the avenger of every wrong. His genuine humility
       made him refuse all high places. His enthusiasm for the
       hierarchy did not hinder him from severely lashing clerical
       abuses. It was his word that roused the hearts of men
       throughout all Europe to undertake the second crusade,
       and that won many heretics and schismatics back to the
       bosom of the church. Having his conversation in heaven,
       leading a life of study, meditation, prayer, and ecstatic
       contemplation, he had also dominion over the earth, and by
       counsel, exhortation, and exercise of discipline exerted
       a quickening and healthful influence on all the relations
       of life. His theological tendency was in the direction
       of contemplative mysticism, with hearty submission to the
       doctrine of the church. Like Abælard, but from the opposite
       side, he came into conflict with the theory of Anselm;
       for the ideal of theology with him was not the development
       of faith into knowledge by means of thought, but rather
       the enlightenment of faith in the way of holiness. Bernard
       was not at all an enemy of science, but he rather saw in
       the dialectical hair-splitting of Abælard, which grudged
       not to cut down the main props of saving truth for the
       glorification of its own art, the overthrow of all true
       theology and the destruction of all the saving efficacy of
       faith. Heart theology founded on heart piety, nourished and
       strengthened by prayer, meditation, spiritual illumination
       and holiness, was for him the only true theology. _Tantum
       Deus cognoscitur, quantum diligitur. Orando facilius quam
       disputando et dignius Deus quæritur et invenitur._ The Bible
       was his favourite reading, and in the recesses of the forest
       he spent much time in prayer and study of the Scriptures.
       But in ecstasy (_excessus_) which consists in withdrawal
       from sensible phenomena and becoming temporarily dead to
       all earthly relations, the soul of the pious Christian
       is able to rise into the immediate presence of God, so
       that “_more angelorum_” it reaches a blessed vision and
       enjoyment of the Divine glory and that perfect love which
       loves itself and all creatures only in God. Yet even he
       confesses that this highest stage of abstraction was only
       attained unto by him occasionally and partially through
       God’s special grace. Bernard’s mysticism is most fully set
       forth in his eighty-six Sermons on the first two chapters
       of the Song of Solomon and in the tract _De diligendo Deo_.
       In his controversy with Abælard he wrote his _Tractatus de
       erroribus Petri Abælardi_. To the department of dogmatics
       belongs _De gratia et libero arbitrio_; and to that of
       history, the biography of his friend Malachias (§ 149, 5).
       The most important of his works is _De Consideratione_,
       in 5 bks., in which with the affection of a friend, the
       earnestness of a teacher, and the authority of a prophet,
       he sets before Pope Eugenius III. the duties and dangers
       of his high position. He was also one of the most brilliant
       hymn writers of the Middle Ages. Alexander III. canonized
       him in A.D. 1173, and Pius VIII. in A.D. 1830 enrolled him
       among the _doctores ecclesiæ_ (§ 47, 22 c).--Soon after the
       controversy with Abælard had been brought to a close by the
       condemnation of the church, Bernard was again called upon
       to resist the pretensions of dialectic. Gilbert de la Porrée
       (Porretanus), teacher of theology at Paris, who became
       Bishop of Poitiers in A.D. 1142 and died in A.D. 1154,
       in his commentary on the theological writings of Boëthius
       (§ 47, 23) ascribed reality to the universal term “God”
       in such a way that instead of a Trinity we seemed to have
       a Quaternity. At the Synod of Rheims, A.D. 1148, under
       the presidency of Pope Eugenius III., Bernard appeared as
       accuser of Porretanus. Gilbert’s doctrine was condemned,
       but he himself was left unmolested.[300]

  § 102.4.

  III. =Bridging the Gulf from the Side of Mysticism.=--At the
       school of the monastery of St. Victor in Paris, founded
       by William of Champeaux after his defeat at the hands
       of Abælard, an attempt was made during the first half of
       the 12th century to combine mysticism and dialectic in the
       treatment of theology. The peaceable heads of this school
       would indeed have nothing to do with the speculations of
       Abælard and his followers which tended to overthrow the
       mysteries of the faith. But the mystics of St. Victor
       made an important concession to the dialecticians by
       entering with as much energy upon the scientific study
       and construction of dogmatics as they did upon the devout
       examination of Scripture and mystical theology. They
       exhibited a speculative power and a profundity of thought
       that won the hearty admiration of the subtlest of the
       dialecticians. By far the most celebrated of this school
       was =Hugo of St. Victor=. Descended from the family
       of the Count of Halberstadt, born in A.D. 1097, nearly
       related to St. Bernard, honoured by his contemporaries
       as _Alter Augustinus_ or _Lingua Augustini_, Hugo was one
       of the most profound thinkers of the Middle Ages. Having
       enjoyed a remarkably complete course of training, he was
       enthusiastically devoted to the pursuit of science, and,
       endowed with rich and deep spirituality, he exerted a most
       healthful and powerful influence upon his own and succeeding
       ages, although church and science had to mourn their loss by
       his early death in A.D. 1141. In his _Eruditio didascalica_
       we have in 3 bks. an encyclopædic sketch of all human
       knowledge as a preparation to the study of theology, and
       in other 3 bks. an introduction to the Bible and church
       history.[301] His _Summa sententiarum_ is an exposition of
       dogmatics on patristic lines, an ecclesiastical counterpart
       of Abælard’s _Sic et Non_. The ripest and most influential
       of all his works, and the most independent, is his _De
       sacramentis christ. fidei_, in 2 bks., in which he treats
       of the whole contents of dogmatics from the point of view
       of the Sacraments (§ 104, 2). His exegetical works are less
       important and less original. His mysticism is set forth _ex
       professo_ in his _Soliloquium de arrha animæ_ and in the
       series of three tracts, _De arca morali_, _De arca mystica_,
       and _De vanitate mundi_. He makes Noah’s ark the symbol of
       the church as well as of the individual soul which journeys
       over the billows of the world to God, and, by the successive
       stages of _lectio_, _cogitatio_, _meditatio_, _oratio_,
       and _operatio_ reaches to _contemplatio_ or the vision of
       God.--Hugo’s pupil, and from A.D. 1162 the prior of his
       convent, was the Scotchman =Richard St. Victor=, who died
       in A.D. 1173. With less of the dialectic faculty than
       his master--though this too is shown in his 6 bks. _De
       trinitate_, a scholastic exposition of the _Cognitio_
       or _Fides quæ creditur_--he mainly devoted his energies
       to the development on the mystico-contemplative side of
       the “_Affectus_” or _Fides qua creditur_, which aims at
       the vision and enjoyment of God. This he represents as
       reached by the three stages of contemplation, distinguished
       as _mentis dilatatio_, _sublevatio_, and _alienatio_.
       Among his mystical tracts, mostly mystical expositions
       of Scripture passages, the most important are, _De
       præparatione animæ ad contemplationem, s. de xii.
       patriarchis_, and the 4 bks. _De gratia contemplationis
       s. de arca mystica_. These are also known as _Benjamin
       minor_ and _B. major_. In Richard there appears the first
       indications of a misunderstanding with the dialecticians
       which, among the late Victorines, and especially in the
       case of Walter of St. Victor, took the form of vehement
       hostility.

  § 102.5.

   IV. =Bridging the Gulf from the Side of Dialectics.=--After
       Abælard’s condemnation theological dialectics came more
       and more to be associated with the church doctrine and to
       approach more or less nearly to a friendly alliance with
       mysticism. Hugo’s writings did much to bring this about.
       The following are the most important Schoolmen of this
       tendency.

        1. The Englishman =Robert Pulleyn=, teacher at Oxford
           and Paris, afterwards cardinal and papal chancellor
           at Rome, who died about A.D. 1150. His chief work is
           _Sententiarum Ll. VIII._ Though very famous in its day,
           it was soon cast into the shade by the Lombard’s work.

        2. =Petrus [Peter] Lombardus [Lombard]=, born at Novara
           in Lombardy, a scholar of Abælard, but powerfully
           influenced by St. Bernard and Hugo St. Victor, was
           Bishop of Paris from A.D. 1159 till his death in
           A.D. 1164. He published a dogmatic treatise under
           the title of _Sententiarum Ll. IV._; of which Bk. 1
           treated of God, Bk. 2 of Creatures, Bk. 3 of Redemption,
           Bk. 4 of the Sacraments and the Last Things. For
           centuries this was the textbook in theological
           seminaries and won for its author the designation
           of _Magister Sententiarum_. He himself compared this
           gift laid on the altar of the church to the widow’s
           mite, but the book attained a place of supreme
           importance in mediæval theology, had innumerable
           commentaries written on it and was officially authorized
           as the theological textbook by the Lateran Council of
           A.D. 1215. It is indeed a well arranged collection of
           the doctrinal deliverances of the Fathers, in which
           apparent contradictions are dialectically resolved, with
           great skill, and wrought up together into an articulate
           system, but from want of independence and occasional
           indecision or withholding of any definite opinion, it
           falls behind Hugo’s _Summa_ and Robert’s _Sentences_.
           It had this advantage, however, that it gave freer scope
           to scholars and teachers, and so was more stimulating as
           a textbook for academic use. The Lombard’s works include
           a commentary on the Psalms and _Catenæ_ on the Pauline
           Epistles.

        3. The Frenchman =Peter of Poitiers= (_Pictaviensis_), one
           of the ablest followers of the Lombard, was chancellor
           of the University of Paris toward the end of the century.
           He wrote 5 bks. of Sentences or Distinctions, which in
           form and matter are closely modelled on the work of his
           master.

        4. The most gifted of all the Summists of the 12th
           century was the German =Alanus ab Insulis=, born at
           Lille or Ryssel, lat. _Insulæ_. After teaching long
           at Paris, he entered the Cistercian order, and died
           at an advanced age at Clairvaux in A.D. 1203. A man
           of extensive erudition and a voluminous writer, he was
           called _Doctor universalis_. He wrote an allegorical
           poem _Anticlaudianus_, which describes how reason and
           faith in union with all the virtues restore human nature
           to perfection. His _Regulæ de s. theologia_ give a
           short outline of theology and morals in 125 paradoxical
           sentences which are tersely expounded. A short but able
           summary of the Christian faith is given in the 5 bks.
           _De arte catholicæ fidei_. This work is characterized
           by the use of a mathematical style of demonstration,
           like that of the later school of Wolf, and an avoidance
           of references to patristic authorities, which would have
           little weight with Mohammedans and heretics. He is thus
           rather an opponent than a representative of dialectic
           scholasticism. The _Summa quadripartita c. Hæreticos
           sui temporis_ ascribed to him was written by another
           Alanus.

  § 102.6. =The Controversy on German Soil.=--The provost
  =Gerhoch= and his brother, the dean =Arno= of Reichersberg
  in Bavaria, were representatives of the school of St. Victor
  as mediators between dialectics and mysticism. In A.D. 1150
  Gerhoch addressed a memorial to Eugenius III., _De corrupto
  ecclesiæ statu_, and afterwards he published _De investigatione
  Antichristi_. He found the antichrist in the papal schisms of
  his times, in the ambition and covetousness of popes, in the
  corruptibility of the curia, in the manifold corruptions of the
  church, and especially in the spread of a dialectic destructive
  of all the mysteries of the faith. The controversy in which
  both of these brothers took most interest was that occasioned
  by the revival of Adoptionism in consequence of the teaching
  of French dialecticians, especially Abælard and Gilbert. It
  led to the formulating of the Christological doctrine in such
  a form as prepared the way for the later Lutheran theories
  of the _Communicatio idiomatum_ and the _Ubiquitas corporis
  Christi_ (§ 141, 9).--In South Germany, conspicuously in the
  schools of Bamberg, Freisingen, and Salzburg, the dialectic of
  Abælard, Gilbert, and the Lombard was predominant. Its chief
  representatives were =Folmar of Triefenstein= in Franconia and
  Bishop =Eberhard of Bamberg=. The controversy arose over the
  doctrine of the eucharist. Folmar had maintained like Berengar
  that not the actually glorified body of Christ is present in
  the sacrament, but only the spiritual substance of His flesh
  and blood, without muscles, sinews and bones. Against this gross
  Capernaitic view (John vi. 52, 59) Gerhoch maintained that the
  eucharistic body is the very resurrection body of Christ, the
  substance of which is a glorified corporeity without flesh and
  blood in a carnal sense, without sinews and bones. The bishop
  of Bamberg took offence at his friend’s bold rejection of the
  doctrine approved by the church, and so Folmar modified his
  position to the extent of admitting that there was on the altar
  not only the true, but also the whole body in the perfection
  of its human substance, under the form of bread and wine.
  But nevertheless both he and Abælard adhered to their radical
  error, a dialectical dismemberment of the two natures of Christ,
  according to which the divinity and humanity, the Son of God and
  the Son of man, were two strictly separate existences. Christ,
  they taught, is according to His humanity Son of God in no other
  way than a pious man is, _i.e._ by adoption; but according to His
  Divine nature He is like the Father omnipresent, omnipotent, and
  omniscient. In respect of His human nature it must still be said
  by Him, “My Father is greater than I.” He dwells, however, bodily
  in heaven, and is shut in by and confined to it. Only His Divine
  nature can claim _Latria_ or _adoratio_, worship. Only _Dulia,
  cultus_, reverence, such as is due to saints, images, and relics,
  should be given to His body and blood upon the altar. Gerhoch’s
  doctrine of the Supper, on the other hand, is summed up in
  the proposition: He who receives the flesh of the Logos (_Caro
  Verbi_) receives also therewith the Logos in His flesh (_Verbum
  carnis_). Folmar and Eberhard denounced this as Eutychian heresy.
  A conference at Bamberg in A.D. 1158, where Gerhoch stood alone
  as representative of his views, ended by his opponents declaring
  that he had been convicted of heresy. In A.D. 1162 a Council
  at Friesach in Carinthia, under the presidency of Archbishop
  Eberhard of Salzburg, reached the same conclusion.

  § 102.7. =Theologians of a Pre-eminently Biblical and
  Ecclesiastico-Practical Tendency.=

    1. =Alger of Liège=, teacher of the cathedral school there,
       was one of the most important German theologians in the
       beginning of the 12th century. He resigned his appointment
       in A.D. 1121, to spend his last years in the monastery of
       Clugny, in order to enjoy the company and friendship of
       its abbot, Peter the Venerable; and there he died about
       A.D. 1130. The school of Liège, in which he had himself
       been trained up in the high church Cluniac doctrine there
       prevalent, flourished greatly during his rule of twenty
       years. His chief works are _De Sacramentis corporis et
       sanguinis Domini_ in 3 bks., distinguished by acuteness
       and lucidity, and a controversial tract on the lines of
       Radbert against Berengar’s doctrine condemned by the church.
       In his _De misericordia et justitia_ he treats of church
       discipline with circumspection, clearness, and decision.

    2. =Rupert of Deutz=, more than any mediæval scholar before
       or after, created an enthusiasm for the study of Scripture
       as the people’s book for all times, the field in which the
       precious treasure is hid, to be found by any one whose eyes
       are made sharp by faith. He was a contemporary and fellow
       countryman of Alger, and died in A.D. 1135. Though he
       refers to the Hebrew and Greek texts, he cares less for
       the literal than for the speculative-dogmatic and mystical
       sense discovered by allegorical exegesis. In his principal
       work, _De trinitate et operilus ejus_, he sets forth in
       3 bks. the creation work of the Father, in 30 bks. the
       revealing and redeeming work of the Son, from the fall
       to the death of Christ, and in the remaining 9 books the
       sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, from the resurrection
       of Christ to the general resurrection. He maintains in
       opposition to Anselm (who was afterwards followed by Thomas
       Aquinas) that Christ would have become incarnate even if
       men had not sinned (a view which appears in Irenæus, and
       afterwards in Alexander Hales, Duns Scotus, John Wessel,
       and others). In regard to the Lord’s Supper he maintained
       the doctrine of consubstantiation, and he taught like pope
       Gelasius (§ 58, 2) that the relation of the heavenly and
       earthly in the eucharist is quite analogous to that of the
       two natures in Christ.[302]

    3. The Benedictine =Hervæus= in the cloister of Bourg-Dieu,
       who died about A.D. 1150, was distinguished for deep piety
       and zealous study of Scripture and the fathers. He wrote
       commentaries on Isaiah and on the Pauline Epistles, the
       latter of which was ascribed to Anselm and so published
       among his works.

  § 102.8.

    4. =John of Salisbury=, _Johannes Parvus Sarisberiensis_,
       was a theologian of a thoroughly practical tendency, though
       a diligent student of Abælard and an able classical scholar,
       specially familiar with the writings of Cicero. As the
       trusted friend of Hadrian IV. he was often sent from England
       on embassies to the pope. In Becket’s struggle against the
       encroachments of the Crown upon the rights of the church
       (§ 96, 16) he stood by the primate’s side as his faithful
       counsellor and fellow soldier, wrote an account of his
       life and martyrdom, and laboured diligently to secure his
       canonization. He was made Bishop of Chartres in A.D. 1176,
       and died there in A.D. 1180. His works, distinguished
       by singularly wide reading and a pleasing style, are
       pre-eminently practical. In his _Policraticus s. de
       nugis Curialium et vestigiis Philosophorum_ he combats
       the _nugæ_ of the hangers on at court with theological
       and philosophical weapons in a well balanced system of
       ecclesiastico-political and philosophico-theological
       ethics. His _Metalogicus_ in 4 bks. is a polemic against
       the prostitution of science by the empty formalism of the
       schoolmen. His 329 Epistles are of immense importance for
       the literary and scientific history of his times.

    5. =Walter of St. Victor=, Richard’s successor as prior
       of that monastery, makes his appearance about A.D. 1130,
       as the author of a vigorous polemic against dialectic
       scholasticism, in which he combats especially Christological
       heresies and spares the idolized Lombard just as little
       as the condemned Abælard.[303] He combats with special
       eagerness a new heresy springing from Abælard and developed
       by the Lombard which he styles “Nihilism,” because by
       denying the independence of the human nature of Christ
       it teaches that Christ in so far as He is man is not an
       _Aliquid_, _i.e._ an individual.

    6. =Innocent III.= is deserving of a place here both on
       account of his rich theological learning and on account
       of the earnestness and depth of the moral and religious
       view of life which he presents in his writings. The most
       celebrated of these are _De contemtu mundi_ and 6 bks.
       _Mysteria evang. legis ac sacramenti Eucharistitæ_, and
       during his pontificate, his epistles and sermons.

  § 102.9. =Humanist Philosophers.=--While Abælard was striving
  to prove Christianity the religion of reason, and for this was
  condemned by the church, his contemporary =Bernard Sylvester=,
  teacher of the school of Chartres, a famous nursery of classical
  studies, was seeking to shake himself free of any reference to
  theology and the church. Satisfied with Platonism as a genuinely
  spiritual religion, and feeling therefore no personal need of the
  church and its consolations, he carefully avoided any allusion
  to its dogmas, and so remained in high repute as a teacher
  and writer. His treatise, _De mundi universitates. Megacosmus
  et Microcosmus_, in dialogue form discussing in a dilettante,
  philosophizing style natural phenomena, half poetry, half prose,
  was highly popular in its day. It fared very differently with
  his accomplished and like-minded scholar =William of Conches=.
  The vehemence with which he declared himself a Catholic Christian
  and not a heathen Academic aroused suspicion. Though in his
  _Philosophia mundi_, sometimes erroneously attributed to Honorius
  of Autun, he studiously sought to avoid any contradiction of the
  biblical and ecclesiastical theory of the world, he could not
  help in his discussion of the origin of man characterizing the
  literal interpretation of the Scripture history of creation as
  peasant faith. The book fell into the hands of the abbot William
  of Thierry, who accused its author to St. Bernard. The opposition
  soon attained to such dimensions that he was obliged to publish
  a formal recantation and in a new edition to remove everything
  objectionable.


                     § 103. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

  Scholasticism took a new departure in the beginning of the
13th century, and by the middle of the century it reached its climax.
Material for its development was found in the works of Aristotle and
his Moslem expositors, and this was skilfully used by highly gifted
members of the Franciscan and Dominican orders so that all opposition
to the scholastic philosophy was successfully overborne. The Franciscans
Alexander of Hales and Bonaventura stand side by side with the brilliant
Dominican teachers Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. As reformers
of the scholastic philosophy from different points of view we meet with
Raimund Lull and Roger Bacon. There were also numerous representatives
of this simple biblical and practical tendency devoted to Scripture
study and the pursuit of the Christian life; and during this period we
find the first developments of German mysticism properly so called.

  § 103.1. =The Writings of Aristotle and his Arabic
  Interpreters.=--Till the end of the 12th century Aristotle was
  known in the Christian West only through Porphyry and Boëthius.
  This philosophy, however, from the 9th century was diligently
  studied in Arabic translations of the original text (§ 72) by
  Moslem scholars of Bagdad and Cordova, who wrote expositions and
  made original contributions to science. The most distinguished
  of these, besides the logicians Alkindi in the 9th, and Alfarabi
  in the 10th century, were the supernaturalistic Avicenna of
  Bokhara, † A.D. 1037 Algazel of Bagdad, inclined to mysticism or
  sufism, † A.D. 1111, and the pantheistic-naturalistic Averroes
  of Cordova, † A.D. 1198. The Moors and Spanish Jews were also
  devoted students of the peripatetic philosophy. The most famous
  of these was Maimonides, † A.D. 1204, who wrote the rationalistic
  work _More Nebochim_. On the decay of Arabic philosophy in Spain,
  Spanish Jews introduced the study of Aristotle into France.
  Dissatisfied with Latin translations from the Arabic, they
  began in A.D. 1220 to make translations directly from the Greek.
  Suspicions were now aroused against the new gospel of philosophy.
  At a Synod in Paris A.D. 1209 (§ 108, 4) the physical writings
  of Aristotle were condemned and lecturing on them forbidden.
  This prohibition was renewed in A.D. 1215 by the papal legate
  and the metaphysics included. But no prohibition of the church
  could arrest the scientific ardour of that age. In A.D. 1231
  the definitive prohibition was reduced to a measure determining
  the time to be devoted to such studies, and in A.D. 1254 we
  find the university prescribing the number of hours during
  which Aristotle’s physics and metaphysics should be taught.
  Some decades later the church itself declared that no one should
  obtain the degree of master who was not familiar with Aristotle,
  “_the precursor of Christ in natural things as John Baptist was
  in the things of grace_.” This change was brought about by the
  belief that not Aristotle but Erigena was the author of all the
  pantheistic heresies of the age (§§ 90, 7; 108, 4), and also
  by the need felt by the Franciscans and Dominicans for using
  Aristotelian methods of proof in defence of the doctrine of the
  church. Philosophy, however, was now regarded by all theologians
  as only the handmaid of theology. Even in the 11th century Petrus
  [Peter] Damiani had indicated the mutual relation of the sciences
  thus: _Debet velut ancilla dominæ quodam famulatus obsequio
  subservire, ne si præcedit, oberret_.[304]

  § 103.2. On account of their characteristic tendencies Avicenna
  was most popular with the Schoolmen and after him Algazel, while
  Averroes, though carefully studied and secretly followed by
  some, was generally regarded with suspicion and aversion. Among
  his secret admirers was Simon of Tournay, about A.D. 1200, who
  boasted of being able with equal ease to prove the falseness
  and the truth of the church doctrines, and declared that Moses,
  Christ, and Mohammed were the three greatest deceivers the world
  had ever seen. The Parisian scholars ascribed to Averroes the
  =Theory of a twofold Truth=. A positive religion was required
  to meet the religious needs of the multitude, but the philosopher
  might reach and maintain the truth independently of any revealed
  religion. In the Christian West he put this doctrine in a less
  offensive form by saying that one and the same affirmation might
  be theologically true and philosophically false, and _vice versa_.
  Behind this, philosophical scepticism as well as theological
  unbelief sought shelter. Its chief opponents were Thomas Aquinas
  and Raimund Lull, while at a later time Duns Scotus and the
  Scotists were inclined more or less to favour it.

  § 103.3. =The Appearance of the Mendicant Orders.=--The
  Dominican and Franciscan orders competed with one another in
  a show of zeal for the maintenance of the orthodox doctrine,
  and each endeavoured to secure the theological chairs in the
  University of Paris, the principal seat of learning in those
  days. They were vigorously opposed by the university corporation,
  and especially by the Parisian doctor William of St. Amour,
  who characterized them in his tract _De periculis novissimorum
  temporum_ of A.D. 1255 as the precursors of antichrist. But
  he was answered by learned members of the orders, Albert the
  Great, Aquinas, and Bonaventura, and finally, in A.D. 1257, all
  opposition on the part of the university was checked by papal
  authority and royal command. The Augustinians, too, won a seat
  in the University of Paris in A.D. 1261.--The learned monks gave
  themselves with enthusiasm to the new science and applied all
  their scientific gains to polemical and apologetical purposes.
  They diligently conserved all that the earlier Fathers down to
  Gregory the Great had written in exposition of the doctrine and
  all that the later Fathers down to Hugo St. Victor and Peter
  the Lombard had written in its defence. But what had been simply
  expressed before was now arranged under elaborate scientific
  categories. The Summists of the previous century supplied
  abundant material for the work. Their _Summæ sententiarum_,
  especially that of the Lombard, became the theme of innumerable
  commentaries, but besides these, comprehensive original works
  were written. These were no longer to be described as _Summæ
  sententiarum_, but assumed with right the title of _Summæ
  theologiæ_ or _theologicæ_.

  § 103.4. =Distinguished Franciscan Schoolmen.=--=Alexander
  of Hales=, trained in the English cloister of Hales, _doctor
  irrefragabilis_, was the most famous teacher of theology in
  Paris, where in A.D. 1222 he entered the Seraphic Order. He
  died in A.D. 1245. As the first church theologian who, without
  the excessive hair-splitting of later scholastics, applied the
  forms of the peripatetic philosophy to the scientific elaboration
  of the doctrinal system of the church, he was honoured by his
  grateful order with the title of _Monarcha theologorum_, and is
  still regarded as the first scholastic in the strict sense of the
  word. His _Summa theologica_, published at Nuremberg in A.D. 1482
  in 4 folio vols. was accepted by his successors as the model of
  scientific method and arrangement. The first two vols. treat of
  God and His Work, the Creature; the third, of the Redeemer and
  His Work; the fourth, of the Sacraments of the O. and N.T. The
  conclusion, which is not extant, treated of _Præmia salutis
  per futuram gloriam_. Each of these divisions was subdivided
  into a great number of _Quæstiones_, these again into _Membra_,
  and these often into _Articuli_. The question at the head of
  the section was followed by several answers affirmative and
  negative, some of which were entitled _Auctoritates_ (quotations
  from Scripture, the Fathers, and the teachers of the church),
  some _Rationes_ (dictates of the Greek, Arabian, and Jewish
  philosophers), and finally, his own conclusion. Among the
  authorities of later times, Hugo’s dogmatic works (§ 102, 4)
  occupy with him the highest place, but he seems to have had no
  appreciation of his mystical speculations.--His most celebrated
  disciple =John Fidanza=, better known as =Bonaventura=, had a
  strong tendency to mysticism. Born at Bagnarea in the district
  of Florence in A.D. 1221, he became teacher of theology in
  Paris in A.D. 1253, general of his order in A.D. 1257, was made
  Cardinal-bishop of Ostia by Gregory X. in A.D. 1273, and in the
  following year was a member of the Lyons Council, at which the
  question of the reunion of the churches was discussed (§ 67, 4).
  He took an active part in the proceedings of that council,
  but died before its close in A.D. 1274. His aged teacher
  Alexander had named him a _Verus Israelita, in quo Adam non
  peccasse videtur_. Later Franciscans regarded him as the noblest
  embodiment of the idea of the Seraphic Order next to its founder,
  and celebrated the angelic purity of his personality by the
  title _doctor seraphicus_. Sixtus IV. canonized him in A.D. 1482,
  and Sixtus V. edited his works in 8 fol. vols. in A.D. 1588, and
  gave him in A.D. 1587 the sixth place in the rank of _Doctores
  ecclesiæ_ as the greatest church teacher of the West. Like
  Hugo, he combined the mystical and doctrinal sides of theology,
  but like Richard St. Victor inclined more to the mystical. His
  greatest dogmatic work is his commentary in 2 vols. fol. on the
  Lombard. His able treatise, _De reductione artium ad theologiam_,
  shows how theology holds the highest place among all the sciences.
  In his _Breviloquium_ he seeks briefly but with great expenditure
  of learning to prove that the church doctrine is in accordance
  with the teachings of reason. In the _Centiloquium_, consisting
  of 100 sections, he treats summarily of the doctrines of Sin,
  Grace, and Salvation. In the _Pharetra_ he gives a collection
  of the chief authorities for the conclusions reached in the
  two previously named works. The most celebrated of his mystical
  treatises are the _Diætæ salutis_, describing the nine days’
  journey (_diætæ_) in which the soul passes from the abyss of
  sin to the blessedness of heaven, and the _Itinerarium mentis
  in Deum_, in which he describes as a threefold way to the
  knowledge of God a _theologia symbolica_ (=_extra nos_),
  _propria_ (=_intra nos_) and _mystica_ (=_supra nos_), the
  last and highest of which alone leads to the beatific vision
  of God.

  § 103.5. =Distinguished Dominican Schoolmen.=--(1) =Albert
  the Great=, the oldest son of a knight of Bollstadt, born in
  A.D. 1193, at Laningen in Swabia, sent in A.D. 1212, because too
  weak for a military career, to the University of Padua, where he
  devoted himself for ten years to the diligent study of Aristotle,
  entered then the Dominican order, and at Bologna pursued with
  equal diligence the study of theology in a six years’ course.
  He afterwards taught the regular curriculum of the liberal arts
  at Cologne and in the cloisters of his order in other German
  cities; and after taking his doctor’s degree at Paris, he taught
  theology at Cologne with such success that the Cologne school,
  owing to the crowds attracted to his lectures, grew to the
  dimensions of a university. In A.D. 1254 he became provincial of
  his order in Germany, was compelled in A.D. 1260 by papal command
  to accept the bishopric of Regensburg, but returned to Cologne in
  A.D. 1262 to resume teaching, and died there in A.D. 1280, in his
  87th year. His amazing acquirements in philosophical, theological,
  cabalistic, and natural science won for him the surname of the
  Great, and the title of _doctor universalis_. Since the time
  of Aristotle and Theophrastus there had been no investigator in
  natural science like him. Traces of mysticism may be discovered
  in his treatise _Paradisus animæ_, and in his commentary on
  the Areopagite. Indeed from his school proceeded the greatest
  master of speculative mysticism (§ 114, 1). His chief work in
  natural science is the _Summa de Creaturis_, the fantastic and
  superstitious character of which may be seen from the titles
  of its several books: _De virtutibus herbarum, lapidum, et
  animalium_, _De mirabilibus mundi_, and _De secretis mulierum_.
  He wrote three books of commentaries on the Lombard, and
  two books of an independent system of dogmatics, the _Summa
  theologica_. The latter treatise, which closely follows the
  work of Alexander of Hales, is incomplete.[305]

  § 103.6. The greatest and most influential of all the Schoolmen
  was the _Doctor angelicus_, =Thomas Aquinas=. Born in A.D. 1227,
  son of a count of Aquino, at his father’s castle of Roccasicca,
  in Calabria, he entered against his parents’ will as a novice
  into the Dominican monastery at Naples. Removed for safety to
  France, he was followed by his brothers and taken back, but two
  years later he effected his escape with the aid of the order, and
  was placed under Albert at Cologne. Afterwards he taught for two
  years at Cologne, and was then sent to win his doctor’s degree at
  Paris in A.D. 1252. There he began along with his intimate friend
  Bonaventura his brilliant career. It was not until A.D. 1257,
  after the opposition of the university to the mendicant orders
  had been overcome, that the two friends obtained the degree of
  doctor. Urban IV. recalled him to Italy in A.D. 1261, where he
  taught successively in Rome, Bologna, Pisa, and Naples. Ordered
  by Gregory to take part in the discussions on union at the Lyons
  Council, he died suddenly in A.D. 1274, soon after his return
  to Naples, probably from poison at the hand of his countryman
  Charles of Anjou, in order that he might not appear at the
  council to accuse him of tyranny. John XXII. canonized him in
  A.D. 1323, and Pius V. gave him the fifth place among the Latin
  _doctores ecclesiæ_.--Thomas was probably the most profound
  thinker of the century, and was at the same time admired as
  a popular preacher. He had an intense veneration for Augustine,
  an enthusiastic appreciation of the church doctrine and the
  philosophy which are approved and enjoined by this great Father.
  He had also a vein of genuine mysticism, and was distinguished
  for warm and deep piety. He was the first to give the papal
  hierarchical system of Gregory and Innocent a regular place
  in dogmatics. His _Summa philosophiæ contra Gentiles_, is a
  Christian philosophy of religion, of which the first three books
  treat of those religious truths which human reason of itself may
  recognise, while the fourth book treats of those which, because
  transcending reason though not contrary to it, _i.e._ doctrines
  of the incarnation and the trinity, can be known only by Divine
  revelation. He wrote two books of commentaries on the Lombard.
  By far the most important work of the Middle Ages is his _Summa
  theologica_, in three vols., in which he gives ample space to
  ethical questions. His polemic against the Greeks is found in
  the section in which he defines and proves the primacy of the
  pope, basing his arguments on ancient and modern fictions and
  forgeries (§ 96, 23), which he, ignorant of Greek and deriving
  his knowledge of antiquity wholly from Gratian’s decree, accepted
  _bona fide_ as genuine. His chief exegetical work is the _Catena
  aurea_ on the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, translated into
  English by Dr. Pusey, in 8 vols., Oxf., 1841, ff. In commenting
  on Aristotle Thomas, unlike Albert, neglected the treatises on
  natural science in favour of those on politics.--The Dominican
  order, proud of having in it the greatest philosopher and
  theologian of the age, made the doctrine of Thomas in respect
  of form and matter the authorized standard among all its members
  (§ 113, 2), and branded every departure from it as a betrayal
  not only of the order but also of the church and Christianity.
  The other monkish orders, too, especially the Augustinians,
  Cistercians, and Carmelites, recognised the authority of the
  Angelical doctor. Only the Franciscans, moved by envy and
  jealousy, ignored him and kept to Alexander and Bonaventura,
  until the close of the century, when, in Duns Scotus (§ 113, 1),
  they obtained a brilliant teacher within their own ranks, whom
  they proudly thought would prove a fair rival in fame to the
  great Dominican teacher.[306]

  § 103.7. =Reformers of the Scholastic Method.=--=Raimund Lull=,
  a Catalonian nobleman of Majorca, born in A.D. 1234, roused
  from a worldly life by visions, gave himself to fight for Christ
  against the infidels with the weapons of the Spirit. Learning
  Arabic from a Saracen slave, he passed through a full course of
  scholastic training in theology and entered the Franciscan order.
  Constrained in the prosecution of his mission to seek a simpler
  method of proof than that afforded by scholasticism, he succeeded
  by the help of visions in discovering one by which as he and
  his followers, the Lullists, thought, the deepest truths of all
  human sciences could be made plain to the untutored human reason.
  He called it the _Ars Magna_, and devoted his whole life to its
  elaboration in theory and practice. Representing fundamental
  ideas and their relations to the objects of thought by letters
  and figures, he drew conclusions from their various combinations.
  In his missionary travels in North Africa (§ 93, 16) he used his
  art in his disputations with the Saracen scholars, and died in
  A.D. 1315 in consequence of ill treatment received there, in
  his 81st year. Of his writings in Latin, Catalonian, and Arabic,
  numbering it is said more than a thousand, 282 were known in
  A.D. 1721 to Salzinger of Mainz, but only 45 were included in
  his edition of the collected works.

  § 103.8. =Roger Bacon=, an English monk, contemporary with
  Lull, worked out his reform in a sounder manner by going back
  to the original sources and thus obtaining deliverance from
  the accumulated errors of later times. He appealed on matters
  of natural science not to corrupt translations but to the
  original works of Aristotle, and on matters of theology, not
  to the Lombard but to the Greek New Testament. He prosecuted
  his studies laboriously in mathematics and the Greek language.
  Roger was called by his friends _Doctor mirabilis_ or _profundus_.
  He was a prodigy of learning for his age, more in the department
  of physics than in those of philosophy and theology. He was
  regarded, however, by his own order as a heretic, and imprisoned
  as a trafficker in the black arts. Born in A.D. 1214 at Ilchester,
  he took his degree of doctor of theology at Paris, entered
  the Franciscan order, and became a resident at Oxford. Besides
  diligent study of languages, which secured him perfect command
  of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, he busied himself with
  researches and experiments in physics (especially optics),
  chemistry, and astronomy. He made several important discoveries,
  _e.g._ the principle of refraction, magnifying glasses, the
  defects of the calendar, etc., while he also succeeded in making
  a combustible material which may be regarded as the precursor
  of gunpowder. He maintained the possibility of ships and land
  vehicles being propelled most rapidly without sails, and without
  the labour of men or animals. Yet he was a child of his age, and
  believed in the philosopher’s stone, in astrology, and alchemy.
  Thoroughly convinced of the defects of scholasticism, he spoke
  of Albert the Great and Aquinas as boys who taught before they
  learnt, and especially reproached them with their ignorance
  of Greek. With an amount of brag that smacks of the empiric
  he professed to be able to teach Hebrew in three days and Greek
  in the same time, and to give a full course of geometry in seven
  days. With fearless severity he lashed the corruptions of the
  clergy and the monks. Only one among his companions seems to
  have regarded Roger, notwithstanding all his faults, as a truly
  great man. That was Clement IV. who, as papal legate in England,
  had made his acquaintance, and as pope liberated him from
  prison. To him Roger dedicated his _Opus majus s. de emendandis
  scientiis_. At a later period the general of the Franciscan order,
  with the approval of Nicholas IV., had him again cast into prison,
  and only after that pope’s death was he liberated through the
  intercession of his friends. He died soon after in A.D. 1291.[307]

  § 103.9. =Theologians of a Biblical and Practical Tendency.=

    1. =Cæsarius of Heisterbach= near Bonn was a monk, then prior
       and master of the novices of the Cistercian monastery there.
       He died in A.D. 1230. His _Dialogus magnus visionum et
       miraculorum_ in 12 bks., one of the best specimens of the
       finest culture and learning of the Middle Ages, in the
       form of conversation with the novices, gives an admirable
       and complete sketch of the morals and manners of the times
       illustrated from the history and legends of the monks,
       clergy, and people.

    2. His younger contemporary the Dominican =William Peraldus=
       (Perault), in his _Summa virtutum_ and _Summa vitiorum_,
       presents a summary of ethics with illustrations from life
       in France. He died about A.D. 1250, as bishop of Lyons.

    3. =Hugo of St. Caro= (St. Cher, a suburb of Vienne),
       a Dominican and cardinal who died in A.D. 1263, gives
       evidence of careful Bible study in his _Postilla in univ.
       Biblia juxta quadrupl. sensum_ (a commentary accompanying
       the text) and his _Concordantiæ Bibliorum_ (on the Vulgate).
       To him we are indebted for our division of the Scriptures
       into chapters. At the request of his order he undertook a
       correction of the Vulgate from the old MSS.

    4. =Robert of Sorbon= in Champagne, who died in A.D. 1274, was
       confessor of St. Louis and teacher of theology at Paris. He
       urged upon his pupils the duty of careful study of the Bible.
       In A.D. 1250 he founded the Sorbonne at Paris, originally
       a seminary for the education and support of the poorer
       clergy who aspired to the highest attainments in theology.
       Its fame became so great that it rose to the rank of a full
       theological faculty, and down to its overthrow in the French
       Revolution it continued to be the highest tribunal in France
       for all matters pertaining to religion and the church.

    5. =Raimund Martini=, Dominican at Barcelona, who died after
       A.D. 1284, was unweariedly engaged in the conversion of Jews
       and Mohammedans. He spoke Hebrew and Arabic as fluently as
       Latin, and wrote _Pugio fidei contra Mauros et Judæos_.[308]

  § 103.10. =Precursors of the German Speculative Mystics.=--=David
  of Augsburg=, teacher of theology and master of the novices in
  the Franciscan monastery at Augsburg, deserves to be named first,
  as one who largely anticipated the style of speculative mysticism
  that flourished in the following century (§ 114). His writings,
  partly in Latin, partly in German, are merely ascetic directories
  and treatises of a contemplative mystical order, distinguished
  by deep spirituality and earnest, humble piety. The German works
  especially are models of a beautiful rhythmical style, worthy of
  ranking with the finest creations of any century. He is author
  of the important tract, _De hæresi pauperum de Lugduno_, in which
  the pious mystic shows himself in the less pleasing guise of a
  relentless inquisitor and heresy hunter.--A brilliant and skilful
  allegory, =The Daughter of Zion=, the human soul, who, having
  become a daughter of Babylon, went forth to see the heavenly
  King, and under the guidance of the virgins Faith, Hope, Love,
  Wisdom, and Prayer attained unto this end, was first written in
  Latin prose; but afterwards towards the close of the 13th century
  a free rendering of it in more than 4,000 verses was published
  by the Franciscan Lamprecht of Regensburg. Its mysticism is like
  that of St. Bernard and Hugo St. Victor.--In speculative power
  and originality the Dominican =Theodorich of Freiburg=, _Meister
  Dietrich_, a pupil of Albert the Great, far excelled all the
  mystics of this century. About A.D. 1280 he was reader at Treves,
  afterwards prior at Würzburg, took his master’s degree and taught
  at Paris, A.D. 1285-1289. About A.D. 1320, however, along with
  Meister Eckhart (§ 114, 1), he fell under suspicion of heresy,
  and nothing further is known of him. Among his still unpublished
  writings, mostly on natural and religious philosophy, the most
  important is the book _De beatifica visione Dei per essentiam_,
  which marks him out as a precursor of the Eckhart speculation.--On
  Female Mystics, see § 107.




                     IV. The Church and the People.


                     § 104. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.

  Public worship had for a long time been popularly regarded as
a performance fraught with magical power. The ignorant character of
the priests led to frequent setting aside of preaching as something
unessential, so that the service became purely liturgical. But now
popes and synods urged the importance of rearing a race of learned
priests, and the carefully prepared and eloquent sermons of Franciscans
and Dominicans found great acceptance with the people. The Schoolmen
gave to the doctrine of the sacraments its scientific form. The
veneration of saints, relics, and images became more and more the
central point of worship. Besides ecclesiastical architecture, which
reached its highest development in the 13th century, the other arts
began to be laid under contribution to beautify the ceremonial, the
dresses of the celebrants, and the inner parts of the buildings.

  § 104.1. =The Liturgy and the Sermon.=--The Roman =Liturgy= was
  universally adopted except in Spain. When it was proposed at
  the Synod of Toledo in A.D. 1088 to set aside the old Mozarabic
  liturgy (§ 88, 1), the people rose against the proposal, and the
  ordeals of combat and fire decided in favour of retaining the
  old service. From that time both liturgies were used side by
  side. The Slavic ritual was abandoned in Moravia and Bohemia
  in the 10th century. The language of the church services
  everywhere was and continued to be the Latin. The quickening
  of the monkish orders in the 11th century, especially the
  Cluniacs and Cistercians, but more particularly the rise of
  the Franciscans and Dominicans in the 13th century, gave a great
  impulse to preaching. Almost all the great monks and schoolmen
  were popular preachers. The crowds that flocked around them
  as they preached in the vernacular were enormous. Even in the
  regular services the preaching was generally in the language
  of the people, but quotations from Scripture and the Fathers,
  as a mark of respect, were made in Latin and then translated.
  Sermons addressed to the clergy and before academic audiences
  were always in Latin.--As a preacher of repentance and of the
  crusades, Fulco of Neuilly, † A.D. 1202, regarded by the people
  as a saint and a miracle worker, had a wonderful reputation
  (§ 94, 4). Of all mediæval preachers, however, none can be
  compared for depth, spirituality, and popular eloquence with
  the Franciscan =Berthold of Regensburg=, pupil and friend of
  David of Augsburg (§ 103, 10), one of the most powerful preachers
  in the German tongue that ever lived. He died in A.D. 1272. He
  wandered from town to town preaching to crowds, often numbering
  100,000 men, of the grace of God in Christ, against the abuse
  of indulgences and false trust in saints, and the idea of the
  meritoriousness of pilgrimages, etc. His sermons are of great
  value as illustrations of the strength and richness of the old
  German language. Roger Bacon too (§ 103, 8), usually so chary
  of praise, eulogises _Frater Bertholdus Alemannus_ as a preacher
  worth more than the two mendicant orders together.

  § 104.2. =Definition and Number of the Sacraments=
  (§§ 58; 70, 2).--Radbert acknowledged only two: Baptism
  including confirmation, and the Lord’s Supper. Rabanus Maurus
  by separately enumerating the bread and the cup, and counting
  confirmation as well as baptism, made four. Hugo St. Victor again
  held them to be an indefinite number. But he distinguished three
  kinds: those on which salvation depends, Baptism, Confirmation,
  and the Supper; those not necessary and forming important aids
  to salvation, sprinkling with holy water, confession, extreme
  unction, marriage, etc.; those necessary for particular callings,
  the ordination of priests, sacred vestments. Yet he prepared the
  way for the final ecclesiastical conception of the sacraments,
  by placing its _Elementa Corporalia_ under the threefold
  category as _divinam gratiam ex similitudine repræsentantia_,
  _ex institutione significantia_, and _ex consecratione
  continentia_. Peter the Lombard took practically the same
  view, but fixed the number of the Sacraments at seven: Baptism,
  Confirmation (§ 35, 4), the Supper, Penance, Extreme Unction,
  Marriage, and Ordination (§ 45, 1). This number was first
  officially sanctioned by the Florentine Council of A.D. 1439
  (§ 67, 6). Alexander of Hales gave a special rank to Baptism
  and the Supper, as alone instituted by Christ, while Aquinas
  gave this rank to all the seven. All the ecclesiastical
  consecrations and benedictions were distinguished from the
  sacraments as _Sacramentalia_.--The Schoolmen distinguished
  the sacraments of the O.T., as _ex opera operante_, _i.e._
  efficacious only through faith in a coming Redeemer, from
  the sacraments of the N.T. as _ex opera operato_, _i.e._ as
  efficacious by mere receiving without the exercise of positive
  faith on the part of all who had not committed a mortal sin.
  Against old sectaries (§§ 41, 3; 63, 1) and new (§§ 108, 7, 12)
  the scholastic divines maintained that even unworthy and
  unbelieving priests could validly dispense the sacraments,
  if only there was the _intentio_ to administer it in the form
  prescribed by the church.[309]

  § 104.3. =The Sacrament of the Altar.=--At the fourth Lateran
  Council of A.D. 1215 the doctrine of Transubstantiation was
  finally accepted (§ 101, 2). The fear lest any of the blood
  of the Lord should be spilt led to the withholding from the
  12th century of the cup from the laity, and its being given
  only to the priests. If not the cause, then the consequence,
  of this was that the priests were regarded as the only full and
  perfect partakers of the Lord’s table. Kings at their coronation
  and at the approach of death were sometimes by special favour
  allowed to partake of the cup. The withdrawal of the cup from
  the laity was dogmatically justified, specially by Alex. of
  Hales, by the doctrine of _concomitantia_, _i.e._ that in the
  body the blood was contained. Fear of losing any fragment also
  led to the substitution of wafers, _the host_, for the bread
  that should be broken.--A consecrated host is kept in the
  _Tabernaculum_, a niche in the wall on the right of the high
  altar, in the so-called _liburium_ or _Sanctissimum_, _i.e._
  a gold or silver casket, often ornamented with rich jewels. It
  is taken forth, touched only by the priests, and exhibited to
  the kneeling people during the service and in solemn processions.

  § 104.4. =Penance.=--Gratian’s decree (§ 99, 5) left it to
  the individual believer’s decision whether the sinner could
  be reconciled to God by heart penitence without confession. But
  in accordance also with the teaching of the Lombard, confession
  of mortal sins (Gal. v. 19 ff. and Cor. v. 9 f.), or, in case
  that could not be, the desire at heart to make it, was declared
  indispensable. The forgiveness of sins was still, however,
  regarded as God’s exclusive prerogative, and the priest could
  bind and loose only in regard to the fellowship of the church
  and the enjoyment of the sacraments. Before him, however,
  Hugo St. Victor had begun to transcend these limits; for he,
  distinguishing between the guilt and the punishment of the
  sinner, ascribed indeed to God alone the absolution from the
  guilt of sin on the ground of sincere repentance, but ascribed
  to the exercise of the priestly function, the absolution from the
  punishment of eternal death, in accordance with Matthew xviii. 18
  and John xx. 23. Richard St. Victor held that the punishment
  of eternal death, which all mortal sins as well as venial sins
  entail, can be commuted into temporal punishment by priestly
  absolution, atoned for by penances imposed by the priests, _e.g._
  prayers, fastings, alms, etc.; whereas without such satisfaction
  they can be atoned for only by the pains of purgatory (§ 61, 4).
  Innocent III., at the fourth Lateran Council of A.D. 1215, had
  the obligation of confession of all sins raised into a dogma,
  and obliged all believers under threat of excommunication to
  make confession at least once a year, as preparation for the
  Easter communion. The Provincial Synod at Toulouse in A.D. 1229
  (§ 109, 2) insisted on compulsory confession and communion three
  times a year, at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The three
  penitential requirements, enforced first by Hildebert of Tours,
  and adopted by the Lombard, _Contritio cordis_, _Confessio oris_,
  and _Satisfactio operis_ continued henceforth in force. But
  Hugo’s and Richard’s theory of absolution displaced not only
  that of the Lombard, but, by an extension of the sacerdotal
  idea to the absolution of the sinner from guilt, led to the
  introduction of a full-blown theory of indulgence (§ 106, 2).
  As the ground of the scientific construction given it by the
  Schoolmen of the 13th century, especially by Aquinas, the
  Catholic Church doctrine of penance received its final shape
  at the Council of Florence in A.D. 1439. Penance as the fourth
  sacrament consists of hearty repentance, auricular confession,
  and satisfaction; it takes form in the words of absolution,
  _Ego te absolvo_; and it is efficacious for the forgiveness of
  sins. Any breach of the secrecy of the confessional was visited
  by the fourth Lateran Council with excommunication, deposition,
  and lifelong confinement in a monastery. The exaction of a
  confessional fee, especially at the Easter confession, appears
  as an increment of the priest’s income in many mediæval documents.
  Its prohibition by several councils was caused by its simoniacal
  abuse. By the introduction of confessors, separate from the local
  clergy, the custom fell more and more into disuse.

  § 104.5. =Extreme Unction.=--Although as early as A.D. 416
  Innocent I. had described anointing of the sick with holy oil
  (Mark vi. 13; Jas. v. 14) as a _Genus Sacramenti_ (§ 61, 3),
  extreme unction as a sacrament made little progress till the
  9th century. The Synod of Chalons in A.D. 813 calls it quite
  generally a means of grace for the weak of soul and body. The
  Lombard was the first to give it the fifth place among the seven
  sacraments as _Unctio extrema_ and _Sacramentum exeuntium_,
  ascribing to it _Peccatorum remissio et corporalis infirmitatio
  alleviatus_. Original sin being atoned for by baptism, and actual
  sins by penance, Albert the Great and Aquinas describe it as the
  purifying from the _Reliquiæ peccatorum_ which even after baptism
  and penance hinder the soul from entering into its perfect rest.
  Bodily healing is only a secondary aim, and is given only if
  thereby the primary end of spiritual healing is not hindered.
  It was long debated whether, in case of recovery, it should be
  repeated when death were found approaching, and it was at last
  declared to be admissible. The Council of Trent defines _Extreme
  Unction_ as _Sacr. pœnitentiæ totius vitæ consummativum_. The
  form of its administration was finally determined to be the
  anointing of eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hands, as well as
  (except in women) the feet and loins, with holy oil, consecrated
  by the bishop on Maundy Thursday. Confession and communion
  precede anointing. The three together constitute the _Viaticum_
  of the soul in its last journey. After receiving extreme unction
  recipients are forbidden again to touch the ground with their
  bare feet or to have marital intercourse.

  § 104.6. =The Sacrament of Marriage= (§ 89, 4).--When marriage
  came generally to be regarded as a sacrament in the proper sense,
  the laws of marriage were reconstructed and the administration
  of them committed to the church. It had long been insisted upon
  by the church with ever-increasing decidedness, that the priestly
  benediction must precede the marriage ceremonial, and that bridal
  communion must accompany the civil action. Hence marriage had to
  be performed in the immediate vicinity of a church, _ante ostium
  ecclesiæ_. As another than the father often gave away the bride,
  this position of sponsor was claimed by the church for the priest.
  Marriage thus lost its civil character, and the priest came to
  be regarded as performing it in his official capacity not in name
  of the family, but in name of the church. Christian marriage in
  the early times required only mutual consent of parties (§ 39, 1),
  but the Council of Trent demanded a solemn agreement between
  bride and bridegroom before the officiating priest and two or
  three witnesses. In order to determine more exactly hindrances
  to marriage (§ 61, 2) it was made a law at the second Lateran
  Council in A.D. 1139, and confirmed at the fourth in A.D. 1215,
  that the parties proposing to marry should be proclaimed in
  church. To each part of the sacrament the _character indelibilis_
  is ascribed, and so divorce was absolutely forbidden, even
  in the case of adultery (in spite of Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9),
  though _separatio a mensa et toro_ was allowed. Innocent III.
  in A.D. 1215 reduced the prohibited degrees from the seventh
  to the fourth in the line of blood relationship (§ 61, 2).

  § 104.7. =New Festivals.=--The worship of Mary (§ 57, 2)
  received an impulse from the institution of the Feast of the
  Birth of Mary on 8th of September. To this was added in the
  south of France in the 12th century, the Feast of the =Immaculate
  Conception= on the 8th December. Radbert (§ 91, 4) by his
  doctrine of _Sanctificatio in utero_ gave basis to the theory
  of the Virgin’s freedom from original sin in her conception
  and bearing. Anselm of Canterbury, however, taught in _Cur Deus
  Homo?_ ii. 16, that Mary was conceived and born in sin, and that
  she like all others had sinned in Adam. Certain canons of Lyons,
  in A.D. 1140, revived Radbert’s theory, but raised the _Sanctif.
  in utero_ into the _Immaculata conceptio_. St. Bernard protested
  against the doctrine and the festival; sinless conception is a
  prerogative of the Redeemer alone. Mary like us all was conceived
  in sin, but was sanctified before the birth by Divine power,
  so that her whole life was faultless; if one imagines that Mary’s
  sinless conception of her Son had her own sinless conception
  as a necessary presupposition, this would need to be carried
  back _ad infinitum_, and to festivals of Immaculate Conceptions
  there would be no end. This view of a _Sanctificatio in utero_,
  with repudiation of the _Conceptio immaculata_, was also
  maintained by Alex. of Hales, Bonaventura, Albert the Great,
  and Aquinas. The feast of the Conception, with the predicate
  “immaculate” dropped, gradually came to be universally observed.
  The Franciscans adopted it in this limited sense at Pisa, in
  A.D. 1263, but when, beginning with Duns Scotus (§§ 113, 112),
  the doctrine of the immaculate conception came to be regarded
  as a distinctive dogma of the order, the Dominicans felt
  called upon to offer it their most strenuous opposition.[310]
  (Continuation, § 112, 4.)--To the feast of All Saints, on
  1st November, the Cluniacs added in A.D. 998, the feast of
  =All Souls= on 2nd November, for intercession of believers
  on behalf of the salvation of souls in purgatory. In the
  12th century the =Feast of the Trinity= was introduced on
  the Sunday after Pentecost. Out of the transubstantiation
  doctrine arose the =Corpus Christi Festival=, on the Thursday
  after Trinity. A pious nun of Liège, Juliana, in A.D. 1261,
  saw in a vision the full moon with a halo around it, and an
  inward revelation interpreted this phenomenon to indicate that
  the festal cycle of the church still wanted a festival in honour
  of the eucharist. Urban IV. gave effect to this suggestion in
  A.D. 1264, avowedly in consequence of the miracle of the mass
  of Bolsena. A priest of Bolsena celebrating mass spilt a drop
  of consecrated wine, which left a blood-red stain on the corporal
  or pall (§ 60, 5), in the form of a host. The festival did not
  come into favour till Clement V. renewed its institution at
  the Council of Vienne, in A.D. 1311. The church, by order
  of John XXIII. in A.D. 1316, celebrated it by a magnificent
  procession, in which the _liburium_ was carried with all pomp.

  § 104.8. =The Veneration of Saints= (§ 88, 4).--The numerous
  =Canonizations=, from the 12th century exclusively in the
  hands of the popes, gave an impulse to saint worship. It was
  the duty of _Advocatus diaboli_ to try to disprove the reports
  of virtues and miracles attributed to candidates. The proofs
  of holiness adduced were generally derived from thoroughly
  fabulous sources. The introduction of the name of accepted
  candidates into the canon of the mass gave rise to the term
  canonization. =Beatification= was a lower degree of honour,
  often a preliminary to canonization at a later period. It
  carried with it the veneration not of the whole church, but
  of particular churches or districts. The Dominican Jacobus
  a Voragine, who died in A.D. 1298, in his _Legenda aurea_
  afforded a pattern for numerous late legends of the saints.
  A Parisian theologian who styled it _Legenda ferrea_, was
  publicly expelled from his office. The =Veneration of Mary=,
  to whom were rendered _Hyperdoulia_ in contradistinction from
  the _Doulia_ of the saints, not only among the people, but with
  the most cultured theologians, publicly and privately, literally
  and figuratively, in prose and poetry, was almost equal to the
  worship rendered to God, and indeed often overshadowed it. The
  angel’s salutation (Luke i. 28) was in every prayer. Its frequent
  repetition led to the use of the _Rosary_, a rose wreath for the
  most blessed of women. The great rosary attributed to St. Dominic
  has fifteen decades, or 150 smaller pearls of Mary, each of which
  represents an _Ave Maria_, and after every ten there is a greater
  Paternoster pearl. The small or common rosary has only five
  decades of beads of Mary with a Paternoster bead for each decade.
  Thrice repeated it forms the so-called _Psalter of Mary_. The
  first appearance of the rosary in devotion was with the monk
  Macarius in the 4th century, who took 300 stones in his lap,
  and after every Paternoster threw one away. The rosary devotion
  is also practised by Moslems and Buddhists. In cloisters,
  Saturday was usually dedicated to the Mother of God, and
  was begun by a special _Officium S. Mariæ_. May was called
  the month of Mary.--In the 11th century no further trace is
  found of the Frankish opposition to =Image Worship= (§ 92, 1).
  But this in no way hindered the growth of =Relic Worship=.
  Returning crusaders showered on the West innumerable relics,
  which notwithstanding many sceptics were received generally
  with superstitious reverence. Castles and estates were
  often bartered for pretended relics of a distinguished
  saint, and such treasures were frequently stolen at the
  risk of life. No story of a trafficker in relics was too
  absurd to be believed.--=Pilgrimages=, especially to Rome
  and Palestine, were no less in esteem among the Western
  Christians of the 10th century during the Roman pornocracy
  (§ 96, 1) or the tyranny of the Seljuk dynasty in Palestine
  (§ 94). The expectation of the approaching end of the world,
  rather gave them an impulse during this century, which reached
  its fullest expression in the crusades.--Continuation, § 115, 9.

  § 104.9. The earliest trace of a commemoration of =St. Ursula
  and her 11,000 Virgins= is met with in the 10th century.
  Excavations in the _Ager Ursulanus_ near Cologne in A.D. 1155
  led to the discovery of some thousand skeletons, several of
  them being those of males, with inscribed tablets, one of the
  fictitious inscriptions referring to an otherwise unknown pope
  Cyriæus. St. Elizabeth of Schönau (§ 107, 1) at the same time
  had visions in which the Virgin gave her authentic account of
  their lives. Ursula, the fair daughter of a British king of
  the 3rd century, was to have married a pagan prince; she craved
  three years’ reprieve and got from her father eleven ships, each
  with an equipment of a thousand virgins, with which she sailed
  up the Rhine to Basel, and thence with her companions travelled
  on foot a pilgrimage to Rome. On her return, in accordance with
  the Divine instruction, Pope Cyriæus accompanied her, whose
  name was on this account struck out of the list by the offended
  cardinals; for as Martinus Polonus says, _Credebant plerique
  eum non propter devotionem sed propter obtectamenta virginum
  papatum dimississe_. Near Cologne they met the army of the Huns,
  by whom they were all massacred, at last even Ursula herself
  on her persistent refusal to marry the barbaric chief.--In
  the absence of any historical foundations for this legend,
  an explanation has been attempted by identifying Ursula with
  a goddess of the German mythology. An older suggestion is
  that perhaps an ancient inscription may have given rise to
  the legend.[311]

  § 104.10. =Hymnology.=--The Augustan age of scholasticism
  was that also of the composition of Latin hymns and sequences
  (§ 88, 2). The most distinguished sacred poets were Odo of
  Clugny, king Robert of France (_Veni, sancte Spiritus, et
  emitte_), Damiani, Abælard, Hildebert of Tours, St. Bernard,
  Adam of St. Victor,[312] Bonaventura, Aquinas, the Franciscan
  Thomas of Celano, A.D. 126O (_Dies iræ_), and Jacopone da Todi,
  † A.D. 1306 (_Stabat mater dolorosa_). The latter, an eccentric
  enthusiast and miracle-working saint, called himself “_Stultus
  propter Christum_.” Originally a wealthy advocate, living a life
  of revel and riot, he was led by the sudden death of his young
  wife to forsake the world. He courted the world’s scorn in the
  most literal manner, appearing in the public market bridled like
  a beast of burden and creeping on all fours, and at another time
  appearing naked, tarred and feathered at the marriage of a niece.
  But he glowed with fervent love for the Crucified and a fanatical
  veneration for the blessed Virgin. He also fearlessly raised his
  voice against the corruption of the clergy and the papacy, and
  vigorously denounced the ambition of Boniface VIII. For this he
  was imprisoned and fed on bread and water. When tauntingly asked,
  “When wilt thou come out?” he answered in words that were soon
  fulfilled, “So soon as thou shall come down.” =Sacred Poetry= in
  the vernacular was used only in extra-ecclesiastical devotions.
  The oldest German Easter hymn belongs to the 12th century.[313]
  The Minnesingers of the 13th century composed popular songs
  of a religious character, especially in praise of Mary; there
  were also sacred songs for travellers, sailors, soldiers, etc.
  Heretics separated from the church and its services spread their
  views by means of hymns. St. Francis wrote Italian hymns, and
  among his disciples Fra Pacifico, Bonaventura, Thomas of Celano,
  and Jacopone followed worthily in his footsteps.

  § 104.11. =Church Music= (§ 88, 2).--The Gregorian _Cantus
  firmus_ soon fell into disfavour and disuetude. The rarity,
  costliness, and corruption of the antiphonaries, the difficulty
  of their notation and of their musical system, and the want of
  accurately trained singers, combined to bring this about. Singers
  too had often made arbitrary alterations. Hence alongside of the
  _Cantus firmus_ there gradually grew up a _Discantus_ or _Cantus
  figuratus_, and instead of singing in unison, singing in harmony
  was introduced. Rules of harmony, concord, and intervals were
  now elaborated by the monk Hucbald of Rheims about A.D. 900,
  while the German monk Reginus about A.D. 920 and the abbot Opo
  of Clugny did much for the theory and practice of music. In place
  of the intricate Gregorian notation the Tuscan Benedictine Guido
  of Arezzo, A.D. 1000-1050, introduced the notation that is still
  used, which made it possible to write the harmony along with
  the melody, counterpoint, _i.e._ _punctum contra punctum_. The
  discoverer of the measure of the notes was Franco of Cologne
  about A.D. 1200. The organ was commonly used in churches. The
  Germans were the greatest masters in its construction and in
  the playing of it.--Continuation, § 115, 8.

  § 104.12. =Ecclesiastical Architecture.=--Church building, which
  the barbarism of the 10th century, and the widespread expectation
  of the coming end of the world had restrained, flourished during
  the 11th century in an extraordinary manner. The endeavour to
  infuse the German spirit into the ancient style of architecture
  gave rise to the =Romance Style of Architecture=, which prevailed
  during the 12th century. It was based upon the structure of
  the old basilicas, the most important innovation being the
  introduction of the vaulted in place of the flat wooden roof,
  which made the interior lighter and heightened the perspective
  effect. The symbolical and fanciful ornamentation was also richly
  developed by figures from the plants and animals of Germany, from
  native legends. Towers were also added as fingers pointing upward,
  sometimes over the entrance to the middle aisle or at both sides
  of the entrance, sometimes over the point where the nave and
  transepts intersected one another, or on both sides of the choir.
  The finest specimens of this style were the cathedrals of Spires,
  Mainz, and Worms. But alongside of this appeared the beginnings
  of the so-called =Gothic Architecture=, which reached its height
  in the 13th and 14th centuries. Here the German ideas shook
  themselves free from the bondage of the old basilica style.
  Retaining the early ground plan, its pointed arch admitted
  of development in breadth and height to any extent. The pointed
  arch was first learnt from the Saracens, but its application to
  the Gothic architecture was quite original, because it was not as
  with the Saracens decorative, but constructive. The blank walls
  were changed into supporting pillars, and became a magnificent
  framework for the display of ingenious window architecture. A
  rich stone structure rose upon the cruciform ground plan, and
  the powerful arches towered up into airy heights. Tall tapering
  pillars symbolized the heavenward strivings of the soul. The
  rose window over the portal as the symbol of silence teaches that
  nothing worldly has a voice there. The gigantic peaked windows
  send through their beautifully painted glass a richly coloured
  light full on the vast area. Everything in the structure points
  upward, and this symbolism is finally expressed in the lofty
  towers, which lose themselves in giddy heights. The victory over
  the kingdom of darkness is depicted in the repulsive reptiles,
  demonic forms, and dragon shapes which are made to bear up the
  pillars and posts, and to serve as water carriers. The wit of
  artists has made even bishops and popes perform these menial
  offices, just as Dante condemned many popes to the infernal
  regions.[314]

  § 104.13. The most famous architects were Benedictines. The
  master builder along with the scholars trained by him formed
  independent corporations, free from any other jurisdiction.
  They therefore called themselves “=Free Masons=,” and erected
  “=Lodges=,” where they met for consultation and discussion. From
  the 13th century these lodges fell more and more into the hands
  of the laity, and became training schools of architecture. To
  them we are largely indebted for the development of the Gothic
  style. Their most celebrated works are the Cologne cathedral
  and the Strassburg minster. The foundation of the former was
  laid under Archbishop Conrad of Hochsteden in A.D. 1248; the
  choir was completed and consecrated in A.D. 1322 (§ 174, 9).
  Erwin of Steinbach began the building of the Strassburg minster
  in A.D. 1275.

  § 104.14. =Statuary and Painting.=--Under the Hohenstaufens
  =statuary=, which had been disallowed by the ancient church,
  rose into favour. Its first great master in Italy was Nicola
  Pisano, who died in A.D. 1274. Earlier indeed a statuary school
  had been formed in Saxony, of which no names but great works
  have come down to us. The goldsmith’s craft and metallurgy were
  brought into the service of the church by the German artists,
  and show not only wonderful technical skill, but also high
  attainment in ideal art. In =Painting= the Byzantines taught
  the Italians, and these again the Germans. At the beginning
  of the 13th century there was a school of painting at Pisa and
  Siena, claiming St. Luke as its patron, and seeking to impart
  more life and warmth to the stiff figures of the Byzantines.
  Their greatest masters were Guido of Siena and Giunta of Pisa,
  and the Florentine Cimabue, † A.D. 1300. Mosaic painting mostly
  on a golden ground was in favour in Italy. Painting on glass
  is first met with in the beginning of the 11th century in the
  monastery of Tegernsee in Bavaria, and soon spread over Germany
  and all over Europe.[315]--Continuation, § 115, 13.


          § 105. NATIONAL CUSTOMS AND THE NATIONAL LITERATURE.

  It was an age full of the most wonderful contradictions and
anomalies in the life of the people, but every phenomenon bore
the character of unquestionable power, and the church applied the
artificer’s chisel to the unhewn marble block. In club law the most
brutal violence prevailed, but bowed itself willingly or unwillingly
before the might of an idea. The basest sensuality existed alongside
of the most simple self-denial and renunciation of the world, the most
wonderful displays of self-forgetting love. The most sacred solemnities
were parodied, and then men turned in awful earnest to manifest the
profoundest anxiety for their soul’s salvation. Alongside of unmeasured
superstition we meet with the boldest freethinking, and out of the
midst of widespread ignorance and want of culture there radiated forth
great thoughts, profound conceptions, and suggestive anticipations.

  § 105.1. =Knighthood and the Peace of God.=--Notwithstanding
  its rude violence there was a deep religious undertone in
  knighthood, which came out in Spain in the war with the Saracens,
  and throughout Europe in the crusades. What princes could not do
  to check savagery was to some extent accomplished by the church
  by means of the injunction of the Peace of God. In A.D. 1034
  the severity of famine in France led to acts of cannibalism
  and murder, which the bishops and synods severely punished. In
  A.D. 1041 the bishops of Southern France enjoined the Peace of
  God, according to which under threat of anathema all feuds were
  to be suspended from Wednesday evening to Monday morning, as the
  days of the ascension, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
  At a later council at Narbonne in A.D. 1054, Advent to Epiphany,
  Lent to eight days after Easter, from the Sunday before Ascension
  to the end of the week of Pentecost, as well as the ember days
  and the festivals of Mary and the Apostles, were added. Even on
  other days, churches, cloisters, hospitals, and churchyards, as
  well as priests, monks, pilgrims, merchants, and agriculturists,
  in short, all unarmed men, and, by the Council of Clermont,
  A.D. 1095, even all crusaders, were included in the peace of
  God. Its healthful influence was felt even outside of France,
  and at the 3rd Lateran Council in A.D. 1179 Alexander III. raised
  it to the rank of a universally applicable law of the church.

  § 105.2. =Popular Customs.=--Superstition resting on old
  paganism introduced a Christian mythology. In almost all
  the popular legends the devil bore a leading part, and he
  was generally represented as a dupe who was cheated out of
  his bargain in the end. The most sacred things were made the
  subjects of blasphemous parodies. On =Fool’s Festival= on New
  Year’s day in France, mock popes, bishops, and abbots were
  introduced and all the holy actions mimicked in a blasphemous
  manner. Of a similar nature was the _Festum innocentum_ (§ 57, 1)
  enacted by schoolboys at Christmas. Also at Christmas time the
  so-called =Feast of Asses= was celebrated. At Rouen dramatic
  representation of the prophecies of Christ’s birth were given;
  at Beauvais, the flight into Egypt. This relic of pagan license
  was opposed by the bishops, but encouraged by the lower clergy.
  After bishops and councils succeeded in banishing these fooleries
  from consecrated places they soon ceased to be celebrated. Under
  the name of =Calends=, because their gatherings were on the
  Calends of each month, brotherhoods composed of clerical and
  lay members sprang up in the beginning of the 13th century
  throughout Germany and France, devoting themselves to prayer
  and saying masses for living and deceased members and relatives.
  This pious purpose was indeed soon forgotten, and the meetings
  degenerated into riotous carousings.

  § 105.3. =Two Royal Saints.=--=St. Elizabeth=, daughter of
  Andrew II. of Hungary, married in her 14th year to St. Louis IV.,
  Landgrave of Thuringia, was made a widow in her 20th year
  by the death of her husband in the crusade of Frederick II.
  in A.D. 1227, and thereafter suffered many privations at the
  hand of her brother-in-law. Her father confessor inspired her
  with a fanatical spirit of self denial. She assumed in Marburg
  the garb of the Franciscan nuns, took the three vows, and retired
  into a house of mercy, where she submitted to be scourged by
  her confessor. There she died in her 24th year in A.D. 1231.
  Her remains are credited with the performance of many miracles.
  She was canonized by Gregory IX., in A.D. 1235, and in the
  14th century the order of Elizabethan nuns was instituted for
  ministering to the poor and sick.[316]--=St. Hedwig=, aunt of
  Elizabeth, married Henry duke of Silesia, in her 12th year.
  After discharging her duties of wife, mother, and princess
  faithfully, she took along with her husband the vow of chastity,
  and out of the sale of her bridal ornaments built a nunnery at
  Trebnitz, where she died in A.D. 1243 in her 69th year. Canonized
  in A.D. 1268, her remains were deposited in the convent church,
  which became on that account a favourite resort of pilgrims.

  § 105.4. =Evidences of Sainthood.=

    1. =Stigmatization.= Soon after St. Francis’ death in A.D. 1226,
       the legend spread that two years before, during a forty days’
       fast in the Apennines, a six-winged seraph imprinted on his
       body the nail prints of the wounded Saviour. The saint’s
       humility, it was said, prevented him speaking of the miracle
       except to those in closest terms of intimacy. The papal bull
       canonizing the saint, however, issued in A.D. 1228, knows
       nothing of this wonderful occurrence. What was then told of
       the great saint was subsequently ascribed to about 100 other
       ascetics, male and female. Some sceptical critics attributed
       the phenomenon to an impressionable temperament, others
       again accounted for all such stories by assuming that they
       were purely fabulous, or that the marks had been deceitfully
       made with human hands. Undoubtedly St. Francis had made
       those wounds upon his own body. That pain should have been
       felt on certain occasions in the wounds may be accounted for,
       especially in the case of females, who constituted the great
       majority of stigmatized individuals, on pathological grounds.

    2. =Bilocation.= The Catholic Church Lexicon, published in
       A.D. 1882 (II. 840), maintains that it is a fact universally
       believed that saints often appeared at the same time at
       places widely removed from one another. Examples are given
       from the lives of Anthony of Padua, Francis Xavier, Liguori,
       etc. This is explained by the supposition that either God
       gives this power to the saint or sends angels to assume his
       form in different places.

  § 105.5. =Religious Culture of the People.=--Unsuccessful
  attempts were made by the Hohenstaufens to institute a public
  school system and compulsory education. Waldensians and such
  like (§ 108) obtained favour by spreading instruction through
  vernacular preaching, reading, and singing. The Dominicans took
  a hint from this. The Council of Toulouse, A.D. 1229 (§ 109, 2),
  forbade laymen to read the Scriptures, even the Psalter and
  Breviary, in the vulgar tongue. Summaries of the Scripture
  history were allowed. Of this sort was the =Rhyming Bible=
  in Dutch by Jacob of Maërlant, † A.D. 1291, which gives in
  rhyme the O.T. history, the Life of Jesus, and the history of
  the Jews to the destruction of Jerusalem. In the 13th century
  =Rhyming Legends= gave in the vernacular the substance of the
  Latin Martyrologies. The oldest German example in 3 bks. by
  an unknown author contains 100,000 rhyming lines, on Christ
  and Mary, the Apostles and the saints in the order of the
  church year. Still more effectively was information spread
  among the people during the 11th and subsequent centuries
  by the performance of =Sacred Plays=. From simple responsive
  songs they were developed into regular dramas adapted to
  the different festivals. Besides historical plays which were
  called =Mysteries==_ministeria_ as representations of the
  _Ministri eccl._, there were allegorical and moral plays called
  =Moralities=, in which moral truths were personified under the
  names of the virtues and vices. The numerous pictures, mosaics,
  and reliefs upon the walls helped greatly to spread instruction
  among the people.[317]

  § 105.6. =The National Literature= (§ 89, 3).--_Walter v. d.
  Vogelweide_, † A.D. 1230, sang the praises of the Lord, the
  Virgin, and the church, and lashed the clerical vices and
  hierarchical pretensions of his age. The 12th century editor
  of the pagan _Nibelungenlied_ gave it a slightly Christian
  gloss. _Wolfram of Eschenbach_, however, a Christian poet
  in the highest sense, gave to the pagan legend of Parcival
  a thoroughly Christian character in the story of the Holy
  Grail and the Knights of the Round Table of King Arthur. His
  antipodes as a purely secular poet was _Godfrey of Strassburg_,
  whose Tristan and Isolt sets forth a thoroughly sensual picture
  of carnal love; yet as the sequel of this we have a strongly
  etherealized rhapsody on Divine love conceived quite in the
  spirit of St. Francis.--The sprightly songs of the _Troubadours_
  of Southern France were often the vehicle of heretical sentiments
  and gave expression to bitter hatred of the Romish Babylon.[318]


         § 106. CHURCH DISCIPLINE, INDULGENCES, AND ASCETICISM.

  The ban, directed against notorious individual sinners and foes
of the church, and the interdict, directed against a whole country,
were formidable weapons which rarely failed in accomplishing their
purpose. Their foolishly frequent use for political ends by the popes
of the 13th century was the first thing that weakened their influence.
The penitential discipline of the church, too (§ 104, 4), began to
lose its power, when outward works, such as alms, pilgrimages, and
especially money fines in the form of indulgences were prescribed as
substitutes for it. Various protests against prevailing laxity and
formality were made by the Benedictines and by new orders instituted
during the 11th century. Strict asceticism with self-laceration and
mortification was imposed in many cloisters, and many hermits won
high repute for holiness. The example and preaching of earnest monks
and recluses did much to produce a revival of religion and awaken
a penitential enthusiasm. Not satisfied with mortifying the body by
prolonging fasts and watchings, they wounded themselves with severe
scourgings and the wearing of sackcloth next the skin, and sometimes
also brazen coats of mail, heavy iron chains, girdles with pricks, etc.

  § 106.1. =Ban and Interdict.=--From the 9th century a
  distinction was made between _Excommunicatio major_ and
  _minor_. The latter, inflicted upon less serious offences
  against the canon law, merely excluded from participation in
  the sacrament. The former, called =Anathema=, directed against
  hardened sinners with solemn denunciation and the church’s
  curse, involved exclusion from all ecclesiastical communion
  and even refusal of Christian burial. Zealots who slew such
  excommunicated persons were declared by Urban II. not to be
  murderers. Innocent III., at the 4th Lateran Council A.D. 1215,
  had all civil rights withdrawn from excommunicates and their
  goods confiscated. Rulers under the ban were deposed and
  their subjects released from their oath of allegiance. Bishops
  exercised the right of putting under ban within their dioceses,
  and the popes over the whole church.--The =Interdict= was first
  recognised as a church institution at the Synod of Limoges in
  A.D. 1031. While it was in force against any country all bells
  were silenced, liturgical services were held only with closed
  doors, penance and the eucharist administered only to the dying,
  none but priests, mendicant friars, strangers, and children
  under two years of age received Christian burial, and no one
  could be married. Rarely could the people endure this long. It
  was therefore a terrible weapon in the hands of the popes, who
  not infrequently exercised it effectually in their struggles
  with the princes of the 12th and 13th centuries.

  § 106.2. =Indulgences.=--The old German principle of
  composition (§ 89, 5), and the Gregorian doctrine of purgatory
  (§ 61, 4), formed the bases on which was reared the ordinance
  of indulgences. The theory of the monks of St. Victor of the
  12th century regarding penitential satisfaction (§ 104, 4),
  gave an impetus to the development of this institution of
  the church. It copestone was laid in the 13th century by the
  formulating of the doctrine of the superabundant merit of
  Christ and the saints (_Thesaurus supererogationis Christi
  et perfectorum_) by Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, and
  Aquinas. The members of the body of Christ could suffer and
  serve one for another, and thus Aquinas thought the merits of
  one might lessen the purgatorial pains of another. Innocent III.,
  in A.D. 1215, allowed to bishops the right of limiting the pains
  of purgatory to forty days, but claimed for the pope exclusively
  the right of giving full indulgence (_Indulgentia plenaria_).
  Clement VI. declared that the pope as entrusted with the keys
  was alone the dispenser of the _Thesaurus supererogationis_.
  Strictly indulgence was allowed only to the truly penitent,
  as an aid to imperfect not a substitute for non-existent
  satisfaction. This was generally ignored by preachers of
  indulgences. This was specially the case in the times of the
  crusaders. Popes also frequently gave indulgences to those who
  simply visited certain shrines.

  § 106.3. =The Church Doctrine of the Hereafter.=--All who
  had perfectly observed every requirement of the penances
  and sacraments of the church to the close of their lives
  had the gates of =Heaven= opened to them. All others passed
  into the =Lower World= to suffer either positively=_sensus_,
  inexpressible pains of fire, or negatively=_damnum_, loss of
  the vision of God. There are four degrees corresponding to
  four places of punishment. =Hell=, situated in the midst
  of the earth, _abyssus_ (Rev. xx. 1), is place and state of
  eternal punishment for all infidels, apostates, excommunicates,
  and all who died in mortal sin. The next circle is the purifying
  fire of =Purgatory=, or a place of temporary punishment positive
  or negative for all believing Christians who did not in life
  fully satisfy the three requirements of the sacrament of penance
  (§ 104, 4). The =Limbus infantum= is a side chamber of purgatory,
  where all unbaptized infants are kept for ever, only deprived
  of blessedness in consequence of original sin. Then above this
  is the =Limbus Patrum=, “Abraham’s bosom,” where the saints of
  the Old Covenant await the second coming of Christ.

  § 106.4. =Flagellation.=--From the 8th century discipline was
  often exercised by means of scourging, administered by the
  confessor who prescribed it. In the 11th century voluntary
  =Self-Flagellation= was frequently practised not only as
  punishment for one’s own sin, but, after the pattern of Christ
  and the martyrs, as atonement for sins of others. It originated
  in Italy, had its great patron in Damiani (§ 97, 4), and was
  earnestly commended by Bernard, Norbert, Francis, Dominic,
  etc. It is reported of St. Dominic that he scourged himself
  thrice every night, first for himself, and then for his living
  companions, and then for the departed in purgatory. The zealous
  Franciscan preachers were mainly instrumental in exerting an
  enthusiasm for self-mortification among the people (§ 98, 4).
  About A.D. 1225, Anthony of Padua attracted crowds who went
  about publicly lashing themselves while singing psalms. Followers
  of Joachim of Floris (§ 108, 5) as =Flagellants= rushed through
  all Northern Italy in great numbers during A.D. 1260, preaching
  the immediate approach of the end of the world.[319]


                         § 107. FEMALE MYSTICS.

  Practical mysticism which concerned itself only with the
salvation of the soul, had many representatives among the women of
the 12th and 13th centuries. Among them it was specially characterized
by the prevalence of ecstatic visions, often deteriorating into
manifestations of nervous affections which superstitious people
regarded as exhibitions of miraculous power. Examples are found
in all countries, but especially in the Netherlands, and the Rhine
provinces, in France, Alsace and Switzerland, in Saxony and Thuringia.
Those whose visions pointed to the inauguration of reforms are of
particular interest to us, as they often had a considerable influence
on the subsequent history of the church.

  § 107.1. =Two Rhenish Prophetesses of the 12th
  Century.=--=St. Hildegard= was founder and abbess of a
  cloister near Bingen on the Rhine, where she died in A.D. 1178
  in her 74th year. Grieving over clerical and papal corruptions,
  she had apocalyptic visions of the antichrist, and travelled
  far and engaged in an extensive correspondence in appealing for
  radical reforms. St. Bernard and pope Eugenius III. who visited
  Treves in A.D. 1147 acknowledged her prophetic vocation, and
  the people ascribed to her wonderful healing power.--Hildegard’s
  younger contemporary was the like-minded =St. Elizabeth
  of Schönau=, abbess of the neighbouring convent of Schönau,
  who died in A.D. 1165. Her prophecies were mostly of the
  apocalyptic-visionary order, and in them with still greater
  severity she lashed the corruptions of the clergy. She also
  gave currency to the legend of St. Ursula (§ 104, 9).

  § 107.2. =Three Thuringian Prophetesses of the
  13th Century.=--=Mechthild of Magdeburg=, after thirty years
  of Beguine life, wrote in a beautiful rhythmical style in German
  her “Light of Deity,” setting forth the sweetness of God’s love,
  the blessedness of glorified saints, the pains of purgatory and
  hell, and denouncing with great moral earnestness the corruptions
  of the clergy and the church, and depicting with a poet’s or
  prophet’s power the coming of the last day. Influenced by the
  apocalyptic views of Joachim of Floris (§ 108, 5), she also gives
  expression to a genuinely German patriotism. With her it is a new
  preaching order that leads to victory against antichrist, and the
  founder of this order, who meets a martyr’s death in the conflict,
  is a son of the Roman king. In contrast with Joachim, she thus
  makes the German empire not a foe but the ally of the church.
  Mechthild’s prophecies largely influenced Dante, and even
  her name appears in that of his guide Matilda.--=Mechthild of
  Hackeborn=, who died in A.D. 1310, in her _Speculum spiritualis
  gratiæ_ published her visions of a reformatory and eschatological
  prophetic order, more subjective and personal than those of the
  former.--=Gertrude the Great=, who died in A.D. 1311, is more
  decidedly a reformer than either of the Mechthilds or any other
  woman of the Middle Ages. A diligent inquirer into the depths
  of Scripture, she renounced the veneration usually shown to Mary,
  the saints, and relics, repudiated all the ideas of her age
  regarding merits, ceremonial exercises, and indulgences, and
  in the exercise of simple faith trusted only to the grace of
  God in Christ. She seems to belong to the 16th rather than to
  the 13th century. Her visions, too, are more of a spiritual kind.




          V. Heretical Opposition to Ecclesiastical Authority.


               § 108. THE PROTESTERS AGAINST THE CHURCH.

  Mediæval endeavours after reform, partly proceeded from within the
church itself in attempts to restore apostolic purity and simplicity,
partly from without on the part of those who despaired of any good
coming out of the church, and who therefore warred bitterly against
it. Such attempts were often lost amid the vagaries of fanaticism and
heresy, which soon threatened the foundation of the social fabric, and
often came into collision with the State. Most widely spread and most
radical were the numerous dualistic sects of the Cathari. Montanist
fanaticism was revived in apocalyptic prophesyings. There were
also pantheistic sects, and among the Pasagians a sort of Ebionism
reappeared. Another group of sects originated through reformatory
endeavours of individual men, who perceiving the utter corruption
of the church of their day, sought salvation in a revolutionary
overthrow of all ecclesiastical institutions and repudiated often
the truth with the error which was the object of their hate. The only
protesting church of a thoroughly sensible evangelical sort was that
of the Waldensians.

  § 108.1. =The Cathari.=--Opposition to hierarchical pretensions
  led to the spread of sects, especially in Northern Italy and
  France, from the 11th century. Hidden remnants of Old Manichæan
  sects got new courage and ventured into the light during the
  period of the crusades. In France they were called Tisserands,
  because mostly composed of weavers. In Italy they were called
  Patareni or Paterini, either from the original meaning of
  the word, rabble, riff-raff (§ 97, 5), or because they so
  far adopted the attitude of the Pasaria of Milan, as to offer
  lay opposition to the local clergy, or because of the frequent
  use of the Paternoster. Of later origin are the names Publicani
  and Bulgări, given as opprobrious designations to the Paulicians.
  The most widely current name of Cathari, from early times a
  favourite title assumed by rigorist sects (§ 41, 3), had its
  origin in the East. In France they were called Albigensians,
  from the province of Albigeois, which was their chief seat in
  Southern France.--Of the =Writings of the Cathari= we possess
  from the end of the 13th century a Provençal translation of the
  N.T., free from all falsification in favour of their sectarian
  views. Their tenets are to be learnt only from the polemical
  writings of their opponents, Alanus ab Insulis (§ 102, 5), the
  Dominican Joh. Moneta, about A.D. 1240, and Rainerius, Sacchoni,
  Dominican and inquisitor, about A.D. 1250.

  § 108.2. Besides their opposition to the hierarchy, all these
  sects had in common a dualistic basis to their theological
  systems. They held in a more or less extreme form the following
  doctrines: The good God who is proclaimed in the N.T. created
  in the beginning the heavenly and invisible world, and peopled
  it with souls clothed in ethereal bodies. The earthly world, on
  the other hand, is the work of an evil spirit, who is held up
  as object of worship in the O.T. Entering the heavenly world
  he succeeded in seducing some of its inhabitants, whom he, when
  defeated by the archangel Michael, took with him to earth, and
  there imprisoned in earthly bodies, so as to make return to their
  heavenly home impossible. Yet they are capable of redemption,
  and may, on repentance and submission to purificatory ordinances,
  be again freed from their earthly bonds and brought home again
  to heaven. For this redemption the good God sent “the heavenly
  man” Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 47) to earth in the appearance of man to
  teach men their heavenly origin and the means of restoration.
  The Cathari rejected the O.T., but accepted the N.T., which they
  read in the vernacular. Marriage they regarded as a hindrance to
  Christian perfection. They treated with contempt water baptism,
  the Supper, and ordination, as well as all veneration of saints
  and relics, and tolerated no images, crosses, or altars. Prayer,
  abstinence, and baptism of the Spirit were regarded as the only
  means of salvation. Preaching was next to prayer most prominent
  in their public services. They also laid great stress upon
  fasting, genuflection, and repetitions of stated formulæ,
  especially the Lord’s Prayer. Their members were divided into
  _Cregentz_ (_credentes_ or catechumens) and _Bos homes_ or
  _Bos crestias_ (_boni homines, boni Christiani_=_perfecti_ or
  _electi_). A lower order of the catechumens were the _Auditores_.
  These were received as _Credentes_ after a longer period of
  training amid various ceremonies and repetition of the Lord’s
  prayer, etc. The order of the _Perfecti_ was entered by spiritual
  baptism, the _Consolamentum_ or communication of the Holy Spirit
  as the promised Comforter, without which no one can enjoy eternal
  life. Even opponents such as St. Bernard admit that there was
  great moral earnestness shown by some of them, and many met a
  martyr’s death with true Christian heroism. Symptoms of decay
  appeared in the spread among them of antinomian practices. This
  moral deterioration showed itself as a radical part of this
  system in the so-called =Luciferians= or devil worshippers,
  whose dualism, like that of the Euchites and Bogomils (§ 71),
  led to the adoption of two Sons of God. Lucifer the elder,
  wrongly driven from heaven, is the creator and lord of this
  earthly world, and hence alone worshipped in it. His expulsion
  (Isa. xiv. 12) is carried out by the younger son, Michael, who
  will, however, on this account, whenever Lucifer regains heaven,
  be sent with all his company into eternal punishment. Of an
  incarnation of God, even of a docetic kind, they know nothing.
  They regarded Jesus as a false prophet who was crucified on
  account of the evil he had done.--Catharist sects suspected
  of Manichæan tendencies were discovered here and there during
  the 11th century. In the following century their number had
  increased enormously, and they spread over Lombardy and Southern
  France, but were also found in Southern Italy, in Germany,
  Belgium, Spain, and even in England. They had a pope residing
  in Bulgaria, twelve magistri and seventy-two bishops, each with
  a _Filius major_ and _minor_ at his side. In A.D. 1167 they
  were able to muster an œcumenical Catharist Council at Toulouse.
  Neither clemency nor severity could put them down. St. Bernard
  prevailed most by the power of his love, and subsequently learned
  Dominicans had more effect with their preaching and disputations.
  They found abundant opportunity of displaying their hatred of
  the papacy during the struggles of the Guelphs and Ghibellines.
  In spite of terrible persecution, which reached its height in
  the beginning of the 13th century in the Albigensian crusade
  (§ 109, 1), remnants of them were found down into the 14th century.

  § 108.3. The small sect of the =Pasagians= in Lombardy during
  the 12th century, protesting against the Manichæan depreciation
  of the O.T. of the Catharists, adopted views of a somewhat
  Ebionite character. With the exception of sacrifice, they
  enforced all the old ceremonial observances, even circumcision,
  and held an Arian or Ebionite theory of the Person of Christ.
  Their name meaning “passage,” seems to refer to pilgrimages to
  the Holy Land, and possibly from this a clue to their origin may
  be obtained.

  § 108.4. =Pantheistic Heretics.=

    1. =Amalrich of Bena= taught first philosophy, then theology,
       at Paris in the end of the 12th century. In A.D. 1204
       Innocent III. called him to account for his proposition,
       Christian in sound, but probably pantheistically intended,
       that no one could be saved who is not a member in Christ’s
       body, and obliged him to retract. His death occurred soon
       after, and some years later we find traces of a pantheistic
       sect founded on the alleged doctrines of Amalrich vigorously
       propagated by his disciple William the goldsmith. God had
       previously appeared as Father incarnate in Abraham, and
       as Son in Christ, and now henceforth as the Holy Spirit
       in every believer, who therefore in the same sense as Christ
       is God. As such, too, he is without sin, and what to others
       would be sin is not so to him. In the age of the Son the
       Mosaic law lost its validity, and in that of the Spirit,
       the sacraments and services of the new covenant. God has
       always been all in all. We find him in Ovid as well as in
       Augustine, and the body of Christ is in common bread as well
       as in the consecrated wafer on the altar. Saint worship is
       idolatry. There is no resurrection; heaven and hell exist
       only in the imagination of men. Rome is Babylon, and the
       pope is antichrist; but to the king of France, after the
       overthrow of antichrist, shall the kingdoms of the earth
       be subject, etc. A synod at Paris in A.D. 1209 condemned
       William and nine priests to be burnt, and four other priests
       to imprisonment for life, and ordered that Amalrich’s
       bones should be exhumed and scattered over an open field.
       Regarding the physical works of Aristotle as the source of
       this heresy, the council also prohibited all lectures upon
       these (§ 103, 1). This was seen to be a mistake, and so
       in A.D. 1225 Honorius III. fixed on the true culprit and
       condemned the _De divisione naturæ_ of Erigena (§ 90, 6).
       The penalties inflicted did not by any means lead to the
       rooting out of the sect. During the whole 13th century it
       continued to spread from Paris over all eastern France as
       far as Alsace, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and in
       the 14th century reached its highest development in the
       pantheistic-libertine doctrines of the Brothers and Sisters
       of the Free Spirit (§ 116, 5). We never again meet with the
       name of Amalrich, and the sects were never called after him.

    2. =David of Dinant= at the same time with Amalrich taught
       philosophy and theology in the University of Paris. He
       also lived for a long while at the papal court in Rome,
       high in favour with Innocent III. as a subtle dialectician.
       The Synod of Paris of A.D. 1209, which passed judgment on
       the Amalricians, pronounced David a heretic and ordered his
       works to be burnt. He avoided personal punishment by flight.
       The central point of his system was the assumption of a
       single eternal substance without distinctions, from which
       God, spirit (νοῦς), and matter (ὕλη) sprang as the three
       principles of all later forms of existences (_corpora_,
       _animæ_, and _substantiæ æternæ_). God is regarded as the
       _primum efficiens_, matter as the _primum suscipiens_, and
       spirit as the medium between the two. David’s scholars never
       formed a sect and never had any connection apparently with
       the followers of Amalrich.

    3. =The Ortlibarians= were a sect condemned by Innocent III.,
       followers of a certain Ortlieb of Strassburg about A.D. 1212.
       They held the world to be without beginning. They looked
       upon Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary, sinless like all
       other children, but raised to be son of God only through
       illumination from the doctrines of their sect, which had
       existed from the earliest times. They admitted the gospel
       story of Christ’s life, sufferings, and resurrection, not,
       however, in a literal but only in a moral and mystical
       acceptation. The consecrated host was but common bread,
       and in it was the body of the Lord. A Jew entering their
       sect needed not to be baptized, and fellowship with them
       was sufficient to secure salvation. There is no resurrection
       of the flesh; man’s spirit alone is immortal. After the
       last judgment, which will come when pope and emperor are
       converted to their views and all opposition is overcome,
       the world will last for ever, and men will be born and die
       just as now. They professed a strictly ascetic life, and
       many of them fasted every second day.

  § 108.5. =Apocalyptic Heretics.=--The Cistercian abbot =Joachim
  of Floris=, who died in A.D. 1202, with his notions of the so
  called “_Everlasting Gospel_,” as a reformer and as one inclined
  to apocalyptic prophecy, followed in the footsteps of Hildegard
  of Bingen and Elizabeth of Schönau (§ 107, 1). His prophetic
  views spread among the Franciscans and were long unchallenged.
  In A.D. 1254 the University of Paris, warning against the begging
  monks (§ 103, 3), got Alexander IV. to condemn these views as set
  forth in commentaries on Isaiah and Jeremiah ascribed to Joachim,
  but now found to be spurious. Preger doubts but, Reuter maintains
  the genuineness of the three tracts grouped under the title of
  the _Evangelium æternum_. The main points in his theory seem
  to have been these: There are three ages, that of the Father
  in the O.T., of the Son in the N.T., and of the Holy Spirit in
  the approaching fulness of the kingdom of God on earth. Of the
  apostles, Peter is representative of the first age, Paul of the
  second, and John of the third. They may also be characterized as
  the age of the laity, the clergy, and the monks, and compared in
  respect of light with the stars, the moon, and the sun. The first
  six periods of the N.T. age are divided (after the pattern of
  the forty-two generations of Matt. i. and the forty-two months
  or 1260 days of Rev. xi. 2, 3) into forty-two shorter periods of
  thirty years each, so that the sixth period closes with A.D. 1260,
  and then shall dawn the Sabbath period of the New Covenant as the
  age of the Holy Spirit. This will be preceded by a short reign
  of antichrist as a punishment for the corruptions of the church
  and clergy. By the labours of the monks, however, the church is
  at last purified and brought forth triumphant, and the life of
  holy contemplation becomes universal. The germs of antichrist
  were evidently supposed to lie in the Hohenstaufen empire of
  Frederick I. and Henry VI. The commentaries on Isaiah and
  Jeremiah went so far as to point to the person of Frederick II.
  as that of the antichrist.

  § 108.6. =Ghibelline Joachites= in Italy, mostly recruited
  from the Franciscans, sided with the emperor against the pope
  and adopted apocalyptic views to suit their politics, and
  regarded the papacy as the precursor of antichrist. One of
  their chiefs, Oliva, who died in A.D. 1297, wrote a _Postilla
  super Apoc._, in which he denounced the Roman church of his
  day as the Great Whore of Babylon, and his scholar Ubertino of
  Casale saw in the beast that rose out of the sea (Rev. xiii.)
  a prophetic picture of the papacy.--In Germany these views
  spread among the Dominicans during the 13th century, especially
  in Swabia. The movement was headed by one Arnold. who wrote an
  _Epistola de correctione ecclesiæ_ about A.D. 1246. He finds in
  Innocent IV. the antichrist and in Frederick II. the executioner
  of the Divine judgment and the inauguration of the reformation.
  Frederick’s death, which followed soon after in A.D. 1250, and
  the catastrophe of A.D. 1268 (§ 96, 20), must have put an end
  to the whole movement.

  § 108.7. =Revolutionary Reformers.=

    1. The =Petrobrusians=, whose founder, =Peter of Bruys=,
       was a pupil of Abælard and a priest in the south of France,
       repudiated the outward or visible church and sought the
       true or invisible church in the hearts of believers. He
       insisted on the destruction of churches and sanctuaries
       because God could be worshipped in a stable or tavern, burnt
       crucifixes in the cooking stove, eagerly opposed celibacy,
       mass, and infant baptism, and after a twenty years’ career
       perished at the stake about A.D. 1126 at the hands of a
       raging mob. One of Peter’s companions, =Henry of Lausanne=,
       whose fiery eloquence had been influential in inciting to
       reform, succeeded to the leadership of the Petrobrusians,
       who from him were called =Henricians=. St. Bernard succeeded
       in winning many of them back. Henry was condemned to
       imprisonment for life, and died in A.D. 1149.

    2. =Arnold of Brescia=, who died in A.D. 1155, a preacher
       of great moral and religious earnestness, addressed himself
       to attack the worldliness of the church and the papacy.
       Except in maintaining that sacraments dispensed by unworthy
       priests have no efficacy, he does not seem to have deviated
       from the church doctrine. Officiating as reader in his
       native town, his bishop complained of him as a heretic
       to the second Lateran Council of A.D. 1139. His views
       were condemned, and he himself was banished and enjoined
       to observe perpetual silence. He now went to his teacher
       Abælard in France. Here St. Bernard accused him at the synod
       convened against Abælard at Sens in A.D. 1141 (§ 102, 2) as
       “the armour-bearer” of this “Goliath-heretic,” and obtained
       the condemnation of both. He was then excommunicated
       by Innocent II. and imprisoned in a cloister. Arnold,
       however, escaped to Switzerland, where he lived and taught
       undisturbed in Zürich for some years, till Bishop Hermann
       of Constance, at the instigation of the Saint of Clairvaux,
       threatened him with imprisonment or exile. He was now taken
       under the protection of Guido de Castella, Abælard’s friend
       and patron, and accompanied him to Bohemia and Moravia.
       On Guido’s elevation as Cœlestine II. to the papal chair
       in A.D. 1143, Arnold returned to his native land. From
       A.D. 1146 we find him in Rome at the head of the agitation
       for political and ecclesiastical freedom. For further
       details of his history, see § 96, 13, 14. A party of
       so-called Arnoldists occupied itself long after his death
       with the carrying out of his ecclesiastico-political ideal.

  § 108.8.

    3. The so called =Pastorelles= were roused to revolution by
       the miseries following the crusades. An impulse was given
       to the sect by the news of the imprisonment of St. Louis
       (§ 94, 6). A Cistercian =Magister Jacob= from Hungary
       appeared in A.D. 1251 with the announcement that he had
       seen the Mother of God, who gave him a letter calling upon
       the pastors to rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Those who have
       heard the Christmas message are called of God to undertake
       the great work which neither the corrupt hierarchy nor the
       proud, ambitious nobles were able to perform; but before
       them, the poor shepherds, the sea will open a way, so that
       they may hasten with dry feet to the release of king Louis.
       His fanatical harangues soon gathered immense crowds of
       common people around him, estimated at about 100,000 men.
       But instead of going to the Holy Land, they first gave
       vent to their wrath against the clergy, monks, and Jews
       at home by murdering, plundering, and ill treating them
       in all manner of ways. The queen-mother Blanca, favourable
       at first, now used all her power against them. Jacob was
       slain at Bourges, his troops scattered, and their leaders
       executed.

    4. In the =Apostolic Brothers= we have a blending of Arnoldist
       and Joachist tendencies. Their founder, =Gerhard Segarelli=,
       an artisan of Parma, was moved about A.D. 1260 by the sight
       of a picture of the apostles in their poverty to go about
       preaching repentance and calling on the church to return to
       apostolic simplicity. He did not question the doctrine of
       the church. Only when Honorius in A.D. 1286 and Nicholas IV.
       in A.D. 1290 took measures against them did they openly
       oppose the papacy and denounce the Roman church as the
       apocalyptic Babylon. Segarelli was seized in A.D. 1294
       and perished in the flames with many of his followers in
       A.D. 1300. =Fra Dolcino=, a younger priest, now took the
       leadership, and roused great enthusiasm by his preaching
       against the Roman antichrist. He bravely held his ground
       with 2,000 followers for two years in the recesses of the
       mountains, but was reduced at last in A.D. 1307 by hunger,
       and died like his predecessor at the stake. He distinguished
       four stages in the historical development of the kingdom
       of God on earth. The first two are those of the Father
       and the Son in the O.T. and the N.T. The third begins
       with Constantine’s establishment of the Christian empire,
       advanced by the Benedictine rule and the reforms of the
       Franciscans and Dominicans, but afterwards falling into
       decay. The fourth era of complete restoration of the
       apostolic life is inaugurated by Segarelli and Dolcino.
       A new chief sent of God will rule the church in peace, and
       the Holy Spirit will never leave the restored communion of
       His saints. Remnants of the sect were long in existence in
       France and Germany, where they united with the Fraticelli
       and Beghards. Even in A.D. 1374 we find a synod at Narbonne
       threatening them with the severest punishments.

  § 108.9. =Reforming Enthusiasts.=

    1. A certain =Tanchelm= about A.D. 1115 preached in the
       Netherlands against the corruptions of the church. He
       claimed like honour with Christ as being assisted by the
       same Spirit, is said to have betrothed himself to the
       Virgin Mary, and to have been killed at last in A.D. 1124
       by a priest.

    2. A Frenchman, =Eon de Stella= of Brittany, hearing in
       a church the words “_per =Eum= qui venturus est judicare
       vivos et mortuos_,” and understanding it of his own name,
       went through the country preaching, prophesying, and working
       miracles. He secured many followers, and when persecuted,
       fled to the woods. He denied the Divine institution of
       the hierarchy, denounced the Roman church as false because
       of the wicked lives of the priests, rejected the doctrine
       of a resurrection of the body, denied that marriage was
       a sacrament, and regarded the communication of the Spirit
       by imposition of hands the only true baptism. In A.D. 1148
       troops were sent against him, and he and many of his
       followers were taken prisoners. His adherents were burnt,
       but Eon was brought before a synod at Rheims, where he
       answered the question of the pope Eugenius III., “Who art
       thou?” by saying _Is qui venturus est_, etc. He was then
       pronounced deranged and delivered over to the custody of
       the archbishop.

  § 108.10. =The Waldensians.=

    1. =Their Origin.=--A citizen of Lyons, named Valdez
       (Valdesius, Waldus, the Christian name of Peter, given
       to him first 120 years later, is quite unsupported), who
       had become rich by the practice of usury, an occupation
       condemned by the church, was about A.D. 1173 deeply
       impressed by reading the legend of St. Alexius, and was
       in his spiritual anxiety directed by a theologian to the
       words of Christ to the rich young ruler in Matthew xix. 21.
       Making over to his wife only his landed property, and
       distributing all the rest of his possessions among the
       poor, and then, for further instruction in regard to the
       imitation of Christ required of him, having applied himself
       to the study of the gospels, the Psalter, and other biblical
       books, and a selection of classical passages translated for
       his use by two friendly priests out of the writings of the
       Fathers into the Romance dialect, he founded in A.D. 1177,
       in company with certain men and women, who were prepared
       like himself to abandon the world and all its goods,
       a society for preaching the gospel among the people. In
       accordance with the Lord’s command to the seventy disciples
       (Luke x. 1-4), they went forth two and two in apostolic
       costume, in woollen penitential garments, without staff
       or scrip, their feet protected with merely wooden sandals
       (_sabatas, sabots_), preaching repentance, and proclaiming
       the gospel message of salvation throughout the land, in
       order to bring back again among the people the Christian
       life in its purity and simplicity. The Archbishop of
       Lyons prohibited their preaching; but they referred to
       Acts v. 29, and appealed, praying for a confirmation of
       their association, to the Third Lateran Council of A.D. 1179,
       under Alexander III., which, however, scornfully dismissed
       their appeal. As they nevertheless still continued to preach,
       Pope Lucius III., at the Council of Verona, in A.D. 1184,
       laid them under the ban. They had hitherto no intention
       of offering any sort of opposition to the doctrine,
       worship, or constitution of the Catholic church. Even the
       Catholic authorities did not so much take offence at what
       they preached but rather only at this, that they without
       ecclesiastical call and authority had assumed the function
       of preaching. Innocent III., also, admitted the imprudence
       of his predecessor, and favoured the plan of a Waldensian
       who had left his brethren to transform the association of
       the _Pauperes de Lugduno_ into the monastic-like lay union
       of _Pauperes Catholici_, to which in A.D. 1208 he assigned
       the duties of preaching, expounding Scripture, and holding
       meetings for edification under episcopal supervision. But
       this concession came too late. Since the church had itself
       broken off the fetters which had previously bound them to
       the traditional faith of the Catholic church, the Leonists
       had gone too far upon the path of evangelical freedom to
       be satisfied with any such terms. Innocent now renewed the
       ban against them at the Fourth Lateran Council of A.D. 1215.
       Of the later life and work of the founder we know with
       certainty only this, that he made extensive journeys in
       the interests of his cause. Even during his lifetime (he
       died probably about A.D. 1217) the members (_socii_) of
       the society (_Societas Valdesiana_) founded by him had
       spread themselves in great numbers over the whole of the
       south of France, the east of Spain, the north of Italy,
       and the south of Germany, and had even crossed the Channel
       into England. They were named, in accordance with their
       fundamental principle, as well as from the starting
       point of their apostolic mission, _Pauperes de Lugduno_
       or _Leonistæ_=from Lyons, also from the covering of
       their feet, _Sabatati_; but they styled themselves among
       one another _fratres_ and _sorores_, and their adherents
       among the people _amici_ and _amicæ_; while the Catholic
       polemical writers, who for a similar class among the
       Cathari had employed the distinctive terms _Perfecti_
       and _Credentes_, made use of these designations in
       treating of the Waldensians. The latter continue “in
       the world,” that is, in the exercise of their family
       duties, and the discharge of civil obligations, and all
       the positions and entanglements connected therewith;
       while the former devoted themselves to a celibate life,
       to absolute poverty, to incessant preaching from place to
       place, and to unconditional refusal of all oathtaking, and
       a literal acceptance of all the precepts of the Sermon on
       the Mount, involving the rejection of any sort of fixed
       residence, and on the basis of Luke x. 7, 8, any handiwork
       that would earn for them the necessaries of life. They
       had their own _ministri_ for the administration of the
       sacraments; but these were elected only _ad tempus_,
       namely once a year, simply for the discharge of that duty.
       At the head of the whole community down to his death stood
       the founder himself. He led the entire movement, received
       new members into the _societas_, and chose and ordained
       the _ministri_.--The two most important sources for the
       primitive history of the Waldensian movement, mutually
       supplementing one another, are, the _Chronicon Laudunense_
       of an unnamed canon of Laon in the _Mon. Germ. Scrr._
       xxvi. 447, and the tract _De Septem Donis Spir. S._ of the
       inquisitor Stephen de Borbone, who died A.D. 1261, which is
       given in full in _de la Marche, Anecdotes historiques_, etc.,
       Paris, 1877.

  § 108.11.

    2. =Their Divisions.=--One of the oldest, most important,
       and most reliable sources of information regarding the
       affairs of the old Waldensians was first published by
       Preger in 1875, in his _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Waldensier
       im MA._, namely, an epistle embodied by the “_anonymous
       writer of Passau_” in his heretic catalogue, from the
       “Poor Men of Italy” to their fellow believers in Germany,
       _ad Leonistas in Alamannia_, in which they give a report of
       the proceedings at a convention held at Bergamo in A.D. 1218,
       with the deputies from “_the ultramontane_,” that is, the
       French, “Poor Men.” On the basis of this communication
       Preger has contested the view that the “Poor Men of Italy”
       were the Waldensians, and traces their origin rather to
       the working men’s association of the _Humiliati_ that
       had already sprung up in the eleventh century (§ 98, 7),
       which having even before this, by adopting Arnoldist ideas,
       become estranged from the Catholic church, came also into
       connection with Valdez, appropriated many of his opinions,
       and then entered into fraternal relations with the French
       Waldesians. This theory, as also no less the explanations
       connected therewith of the constitutional and doctrinal
       differences of the two parties, has been proved by Carl
       Müller in his _Die Waldensier u. ihre einzelne Gruppen
       bis Auf d. 14. Jhd._ to be in many particulars untenable,
       and he has shown that the Waldensian origin of “the Poor
       Men of Lombardy” is witnessed to even by this epistle.
       The results of his researches are in the main as follows:
       The movement set on foot in A.D. 1177 by Valdez of Lyons
       in the direction of an apostolic walk and conversation was
       transplanted at a very early period into northern Italy,
       and found there a favourable reception, especially in the
       ranks of the Humiliati. These, too, as well as Valdez, in
       A.D. 1179, approached Alexander III. with the prayer to
       authorize their entering on such a vocation, but were also
       immediately repulsed, attached themselves then to the “Poor
       Men of Lyons,” submitting to the monarchical rule of their
       founder, and along with them, in A.D. 1184, fell under the
       papal ban. Yet among the Lombards a strong craving after
       greater independence and freedom soon found expression,
       which asserted itself most decidedly in the claim to the
       right of their own independent choice and ordination of
       lifelong organs of government for their society, as well
       as for priestly services, which, however, Valdez, fearing
       a dissolution of the whole society from the granting of
       such partial independence, answered with a decided refusal.
       With equal decision did he insist upon the disbanding of
       those workmen’s associations for common production, which
       the Lombards, as formerly the Humiliati, formed from the
       laymen belonging to them, and forbade them even engaging
       in any handicraft which they had hitherto pursued alongside
       of their spiritual vocations, as inconsistent with the
       apostolic life according to the prescriptions of Christ in
       Luke x. Thus it came about, in consequence of the unyielding
       temper of both parties, that there was a formal split; for
       the Lombards appointed their own independent _præpositus_,
       who, just like their _ministri_ charged with the conduct
       of worship, held office for life. In the course of the year
       the split widened through the adoption of other divergences
       on the part of the Lombards. Yet after the death of the
       founder, about A.D. 1217 they entered upon negotiations
       about a reunion, which found a hearty response also among
       the French. By means of epistolary explanations a basis
       for union in regard to those questions which had occasioned
       the separation had already been attained unto. The French
       granted to the Lombards independent election and ordination
       of their ministers for church government and worship, and
       allowed the appointment to be for life, while they also
       agreed to the continuance of their workmen’s associations.
       In May, A.D. 1218, six brethren from the two parties were
       at Bergamo appointed to draw up definite terms of peace,
       and to secure a verbal explanation of other less important
       differences, which was also accomplished without difficulty.
       The whole peace negotiations, however, were ultimately
       shattered over two questions, which first came to the front
       during the verbal explanations: (i.) Over the question of
       the felicity of the deceased founder, which the Lombards
       were disposed to affirm only conditionally, _i.e._ in case
       he had been penitent before his death for the sins of which
       he had been guilty through his intolerant treatment of them,
       while the French would have it affirmed unconditionally;
       and (ii.) over the controversy about the validity of the
       dispensation of the sacrament of the altar by an unworthy
       person. On both sides they were thoroughly agreed in
       saying that not the priest, but the omnipotence of God,
       changed bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper into the body
       and blood of Christ. But while the French drew from this
       the conclusion that even an unworthy and wicked priest
       could truly and effectually administer the sacrament, the
       Italians persisted in the contrary opinion, and quoted
       Scripture and the writings of the Fathers to prove the
       correctness of their views.

  § 108.12.

    3. =Attempts at Catholicizing.=--On the origin, character,
       and task of the _Pauperes Catholici_ referred to above,
       the epistles of Pope Innocent III. regarding them afford
       us pretty accurate and detailed information. The first
       impulse toward their formation was given by a disputation
       with the French Waldensians held by Bishop Diego of Osma
       at Pamiers in A.D. 1206, by means of which he succeeded,
       aided by the powerful co-operation of his companion
       St. Dominic, in persuading a number of the heretics to
       return to the obedience of the Catholic church. Among
       those converted on that occasion was the Spaniard Durandus
       of Osca (Huesca), who now laid before the pope the plan
       of forming from among the converted Waldensians a society
       of Catholic Poor Men under the oversight of the bishops,
       which, by appropriating and carrying out all the fundamental
       principles of the Waldensian system--apostolic poverty,
       apostolic dress, apostolic life, and apostolic vocation,
       according to Luke x.--would not only paralyse or outbid
       the ministry of the heretical Poor Men among the people,
       but would also open up the way for their own return and
       attachment again to the church. The pope approved of his
       plan, and confirmed the union founded by him in A.D. 1208.
       The undertaking of Durandus seems to have been from the
       first not altogether without success in the direction
       intended. At least we find that Bernard Primus was
       encouraged one and a half years later to found a second
       similar society on essentially the same basis, which
       Innocent III. approved and confirmed. This later association
       was distinguished from the earlier only in this, that it
       allowed its members, besides their itinerant preaching
       and pastoral work, to engage also in their own handicraft.
       We are now led, by this difference, to the conclusion that,
       as the institution of Durandus issued from the bosom of the
       French Waldensians, that of Bernard had its origin among
       the groups of the Poor Men of Lombardy. This supposition
       is further confirmed when we observe that the latter, in
       drawing up its Catholic confession of faith, expressly
       abjures the formerly cherished conviction of the inefficacy
       of sacramental actions performed by unworthy priests.
       But the reason why both these unions, notwithstanding
       papal approval and support, failed to exert any permanent
       influence is to be sought pre-eminently in this, that,
       tainted as their reputation was with the memory of their
       former heresy, they were soon far outrun and overshadowed
       by the two great mendicant orders, which wrought with
       ampler means and appliances in the same direction.

  § 108.13.

    4. =The French Societies.=--What these found fault with
       in the Catholic church was, not its dogmatics, to which,
       with the single exception of the doctrine of purgatory
       and all therewith connected, indulgence, masses for souls,
       foundations, alms, and works of piety on behalf of the dead,
       they firmly adhered; nor yet its liturgical institutions,
       which, with the exception of masses for souls, they left
       untouched; nor yet its hierarchical constitutions _per
       se_, for they transferred its leading principles into
       their own organization: but it was simply this, that its
       clergy had become guilty of the deadly sin of assuming and
       exercising the apostolic prerogative without undertaking
       the obligations of apostolic poverty, the apostolic life,
       and the apostolic vocation, which alone warranted such
       assumption. But as they thus, nevertheless, firmly adhered
       to the Catholic principle of the validity of a sacrament
       administered even by an unworthy person, if only he had
       authority for doing so from the church, they could allow
       themselves, and specially their lay adherents, to take
       part in all Catholic services and acts of worship, without
       regarding themselves or their followers as under obligation
       to yield obedience to the pope and the bishops, or to
       recognise their spiritual jurisdiction, authority to
       inflict punishment, and right of arbitrary legislation
       in regard to fasts, festivals, impediments to marriage,
       etc.--As to the organization of the society, it is now
       perfectly clear that there was a threefold division of
       offices: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Reception into
       the _Societas Fratrum_ was consummated by the imparting
       of the ordination of deacon. This, however, was preceded
       by a longer or shorter novitiate, _i.e._ a period of trial
       and preparation for the apostolic vocation of preaching.
       The entrance into this novitiate (_conversio_) required
       the surrender of all property for the benefit of the poor,
       and on the part of those already married the abandonment
       of every form of marital relationship; and on reception
       into the brotherhood the vow of obedience to the superiors
       was exacted, as well as a vow of celibacy and chastity.--To
       the bishop, who as such was also called _minister_ and
       _major_ or _majoralis_, belonged the right to administer
       the sacraments of penance and ordination, as well as the
       consecration of the eucharistic elements; he might preach
       wherever he chose, and he assigned to presbyters and deacons
       their spheres of labour. The presbyters, in addition to
       preaching, also heard confessions, imposed penance, and
       granted absolution, but did not administer the punishments
       imposed, for this was the exclusive function of the
       bishop.--The deacons were only to preach, but not to
       hear confession, and their special duty consisted in
       collecting contributions for the support of the brethren.
       That also women, on the basis of Titus ii. 3, 4, were
       admitted into these societies is an undoubted fact. Their
       position was essentially the same as that of the deacons;
       but the number of preaching sisters continued always
       relatively small.--After the death of the founder the
       society once a year chose from among the existing bishops
       two _rectores_, who now together administered that supreme
       government and high priesthood which had previously been
       exercised by the founder alone. It was, however, by-and-by
       found desirable to revert to the older monarchical
       constitution, but all through the 13th century this
       office was held only by a yearly tenure. The retiring
       bishops, however, received for life the rank and title
       of _major_. But even over the rector stood the _commune_
       or _congregatio_; _i.e._ the general chapter assembled
       once or twice in the year, in which the brethren of all
       the three orders had a seat and vote. The obligation
       to wear the apostolic dress, persistence in which would
       have in a very short time thrown all the brethren into
       the Moloch arms of the Inquisition, was abandoned soon
       after the erection of that tribunal in A.D. 1232.--The
       lay adherents attracted by the preaching and pastoral
       activity of the brethren, the so-called _Amici, Fautores,
       Receptatores_, were not organized as exclusive and
       independent communities, because their continued
       participation in the services and sacraments of the
       Catholic church was regarded as permissible. On the
       other hand, they maintained, as far as possible, regular
       intercourse with the brethren, who in various styles of
       dress visited them secretly, preached to them, exhorted
       and instructed them, prayed with them and said grace at
       their tables, heard their confessions, imposed penances
       and granted absolution, uttering the formula of absolution,
       however, not in the language of an absolute judicial
       proclamation, but as a supplication and fervent desire.
       The _Amici_ were allowed to make their Easter confession
       and observance of the Supper at the Catholic service. The
       brethren had of course also an independent celebration
       of the Lord’s Supper, which occurred only once a year,
       on Maundy Thursday, but was confined as a rule to the
       brothers and sisters there assembled. The profound
       acquaintance with Holy Scripture, especially the New
       Testament, not only among the preaching “brothers,” but
       also among their “friends,” many of whom knew by heart
       a large portion of the New Testament, was the subject of
       general remark and the occasion of astonishment. Besides
       Holy Scripture, the selection of patristic passages used
       by Valdez and the _Moralia_ of Gregory the Great were in
       high repute as means of instruction and edification.--The
       systematic efforts put forth from A.D. 1232 for the
       uprooting and extirpating of heresy wrought effectually
       among the French Waldensian “brethren” and “friends.” The
       remnants of them that survived the persecution were driven
       farther and farther into the remotest valleys of the western
       and eastern spurs of the Cottian Alps, into Dauphiné
       and Provence on the French side, and into Piedmont on
       the Italian side.--The most important sources are: _Adv.
       Valdens. sectam_, of Bernard Abbot of Fonscalidus, who
       died in A.D. 1193; _Doctrina de Moda Procedendi a Hæret._
       of the Inquisition at Carcassone and Toulouse of A.D. 1280;
       the _consultatio_ of Arch. Peter Amelius of Narbonne and
       the provincial synods held under him in A.D. 1243, 1244;
       and the recently published _Practica Inquisition._ of the
       inquisitor Bernard Guidonis of A.D. 1321.--Continuation,
       § 119, 9A.

  § 108.14.

       A representation of the origin and character of the old
       Waldensian movement completely different from that given
       in the sources mentioned and used in the preceding sections,
       especially in reference to the French societies, has
       been current since the middle of the 16th century in the
       modern Waldensian tradition, and by means of falsified or
       misunderstood documents has been repeated by most Protestant
       historians down to and including U. Hahn. The investigations
       of Dieckhoff and Herzog first demolished for ever those
       fabulous creations of Waldensian mythology, though more
       recent Waldensian writers, _e.g._ Hudry-Ménos, but not
       Comba, seek still tenaciously to assert their truth.
       According to these traditions, long before the days of
       Waldus of Lyons there were Waldensian, _i.e._ Vallensian
       communities in the valleys of Piedmont, the “Israel of
       the Alps,” the bearers of pure gospel truth, whose origin
       was to be traced back at least to Claudius of Turin, while
       others fondly carried it back to the Apostle Paul, who on
       his journey to Spain (Rom. xv. 24) may have also visited
       the Piedmontese valleys. It was to them that Peter of
       Lyons owed his spiritual awakening and his surname of
       Waldus, _i.e._ the Waldensian. For proof of this assertion
       we are referred to a pretty copious manuscript literature
       said to be old Waldensian, written in a peculiar Romance
       dialect, deposited in the libraries of Geneva, Dublin,
       Cambridge, Zürich, Grenoble, and Paris. Upon close and
       unprejudiced examination of these literary pieces, of
       which the oldest portion cannot possibly claim an earlier
       date than the beginning of the 14th century, it has become
       quite apparent that these, in so far as they are not
       fabrications or interpolations, do not afford the least
       grounds for justifying those Waldensian fantasies. This
       view is further corroborated by the fact, that the most
       careful and thorough investigator in this department, Carl
       Müller, confidently maintains the conviction and shows
       the basis on which it rests, “that the whole so-called
       Waldensian literature of the pre-Hussite period has been
       without exception derived from Catholic and not from
       Waldensian sources.” The falsifications in this reputed
       old Waldensian group of writings referred to, by means
       of interpolation, omission, and alteration in the tracts
       belonging to that collection, as well as the forging
       of new writings, and that simply for the purpose of
       vindicating for their society the mythical fame of
       a primitive, independent, and ever pure evangelical
       church, first found place after the Protestantizing
       of the Romance or Piedmontese Waldensians, and were
       thereafter successfully turned to account _bona_ or
       _mala fide_ by their historians, Perrin, Leger, Muston,
       Monastier, etc. In the _Nobla laiczon_ (=_lectio_),
       _e.g._ a religious doctrinal poem, in the statement of
       _vv._ 6, 7, that since the origin of the New Testament
       writings 1,400 years had passed (mil e 4 cent anz) the
       figure 4 was erased, so that it might appear to be an
       ascertained fact that in A.D. 1100, seventy years before
       the appearance of Waldus, there were already Waldensian
       communities in existence. But when, in A.D. 1862, the
       Morland manuscripts, which had been lost for 200 years,
       were again discovered in Cambridge library, there was
       found among them a copy of the _Nobla laiczon_, in which
       before the word _cent_ an erasure was observable, in
       which the outlines of the loop of the Arabic numeral 4
       were still clearly discernible. In another piece contained
       in this collection the passage referred to was quoted
       as “mil e CCCC anz.” Hussite writings translated from
       the Bohemian were also palmed off as genuine Waldensian
       works of the earlier centuries, and were in addition
       provided with the corresponding date. A manuscript of the
       New Testament at Zürich was assigned to the 12th century;
       but on more careful scrutiny it was shown that the writer
       must have had before him the Greek Testament of Erasmus.
       But the most glaring case of falsification is seen in
       the “Waldensian Confession of Faith,” first adduced by
       Perrin as evidence of the faith of the old Waldensians,
       to which a later hand had ascribed as the date of its
       composition the year 1120. It copies almost word for
       word the utterances of Bucer as given in Morel’s report
       of his negotiations with that divine and Œcolampadius.
       In this way a new stamp has been put upon the doctrinal
       articles of the old Waldensians.[320]

  § 108.15.

    5. =The Lombard-German Branch.=--In regard to the Lombards
       themselves, since the epistle of Bergamo we have only
       scanty reports, and these are found in the treatise of
       Monata, of 1240, _Adv. Catharos et Valdenses_, and in
       the _Summa de Catharis et Leonistis_ of the Dominican
       inquisitor Rainerius Sacchoni, of 1250. We have ampler
       accounts, however, from their German mission-field, which
       had already extended so far as to stretch from the Rhine
       provinces into Austria. From the time of the unsuccessful
       endeavours at Bergamo to effect a union between the two
       principal groups, there was, so far as we are aware, no
       further intercourse between the two. On the other hand,
       the German Waldensians during the 13th and 14th centuries
       maintained a pretty regular communication with their
       Italian brethren.--In general, too, the Lombards continued,
       along with their German offspring, to hold firmly by the
       fundamental tenets of the primitive Waldensian faith. Their
       preaching brothers and sisters were also called in Germany
       _Meister_ (_magistri_) and _Meïsterinnen_, the men also
       _Apostles_ and _Twelve-Apostles_, or, since also there,
       next to preaching, they had as their most essential and
       important spiritual function the administration of the
       sacrament of penance, _Beichtiger_ (_bihter_), confessors.
       The view that had been already so vigorously maintained
       at Bergamo, that a priest guilty of mortal sin, and
       such in their eyes were all Catholic priests, could not
       efficaciously administer any sacrament, led them naturally
       to assume a much freer attitude toward the Catholic church,
       which summed itself up in the radical principle, that
       everything connected with that church which cannot be shown
       from the New Testament to have been expressly taught and
       enjoined by Christ or His apostles, is to be set aside as
       an unevangelical human addition. This position however was
       insisted upon by them less in criticism and confutation of
       the church doctrine than in opposition to the practices of
       the church as a whole. In consequence of this criticism,
       they, transcending far the mere negations of the French,
       rejected not only all church festivals, beyond the simple
       Sunday festival, not only all processions and pilgrimages,
       all ceremonies, candles, incense, holy water, images,
       liturgical dress and cloths, all consecrations and blessing
       of churches, bells, burying grounds, candles, ashes, palms,
       robes, salt, water, etc., but also the centre and climax
       of all Catholic worship, the mass; not only of purgatory
       and everything in church practice that had sprung from it,
       not only ban and interdict, but also invocation of saints,
       image and relic worship, etc. Yet all the masters did
       not go equally far in this negative direction. Especially
       during the second half of the 13th century a remarkable
       reaction set in against the severity and exclusiveness
       of that negation, because increasing persecution obliged
       them to withdraw into secrecy as much as possible with
       their confession and their specifically Waldensian forms
       of worship, or to suspend their services altogether, and
       indeed, to save themselves from the suspicion of heresy,
       to allow to themselves and their lay adherents liberty
       to engage in the services of the Catholic church, and to
       submit to the indispensable demands of the church, such
       as the attendance at mass, making confession, and taking
       the communion at Easter. They held indeed firmly by the
       principle, _Quod sacerdos in mortali peccato sacramentum
       non possit conficere_, but they comforted themselves by
       the assurance already expressed at Bergamo, that the Lord
       Himself directly gives to the worthy communicant who, in
       case of need, receives the sacrament from the hand of an
       unworthy priest, what by him cannot be communicated, for
       the transubstantiation is effected not _in manu indigne
       conficientis_, but _in ore digne sumentis_. Thus during
       the times of oppression they kept their own observance of
       the supper quite in abeyance, the dispensation of which
       was not among them, as among the French, restricted to
       the masters; but on this account they laid all the greater
       weight on the necessity of confession to their own clergy as
       those who could alone give absolution. Also the prohibition
       of all oaths as well as bloodshedding, therefore also of
       military service, and the acceptance of magisterial and
       judicial offices, was strictly adhered to.--A peculiar
       adaptation of the Roman Catholic tradition of the baptism
       and donation of Constantine, which seems to have found
       no acceptance among the French, became a favourite legend
       among all the Lombard and German Waldensians. According
       to it the ancient church had existed for three hundred
       years in apostolic humility, simplicity, and poverty.
       But when the Roman bishop Sylvester was endowed by the
       emperor Constantine the Great with such superabundance of
       worldly might, riches, and honour, the period of general
       decline from the apostolic pattern set in. Only one of
       his fellow clergy protested, and was, when all enticements
       and threatenings proved of no avail, driven away along
       with his adherents. The latter increased and spread
       by-and-by over the earth. After a violent persecution,
       which had almost cut off all of them, Peter Waldus made
       his appearance with his companion, John of Lyons, as
       the restorer of the apostolic life and calling, etc. To
       this there was subsequently attached another legend. The
       brethren had previously based their right to discharge
       all priestly functions with the greatest confidence simply
       on their apostolic life, and so they could not conceal
       from themselves at a later period the fact that the want
       of continued apostolic succession, on which the Catholic
       church rested the claims of their priests, would place the
       Waldensian masters very much in the shade as compared with
       the Catholics. They began, therefore, not only to claim that
       their founder Waldus had been previously a Roman presbyter,
       but also to devise the fable of a bishop or even a cardinal
       of the Romish church, through whose favour that defect had
       been overcome.--Continuation, § 119, 9.

  § 108.16.

    6. =Relations between the Waldensians and Older and
       Contemporary Sects.=--Owing to the extraordinarily lively
       and zealous propagandist activity of the sects at the
       time of the origin and early development of the Waldensian
       movement, there can scarcely be a doubt that the latter,
       after it had freed itself from all obligation of obedience
       to the pope and bishops, and had been driven out by them,
       must at various points have come into close relations with
       the other sects which, like it, had risen in rebellion
       against the papacy and the hierarchy, and like it had been
       persecuted by these. The numerous sect of the Cathari holds
       a conspicuous position in this connection. That Waldus and
       his companions must have decidedly repudiated the dualistic
       principles which all these otherwise greatly diverging
       Catharist sects had in common is indeed quite self-evident;
       but this by no means prevented them from recognising
       and appropriating such particular institutions, forms
       of organization or modes of worship, peculiar moral
       requirements, etc., practised by them as might seem fitted
       to further their own ends. And that this actually was done,
       many noticeable points of agreement between the two plainly
       indicate. Thus on both sides we find a similar division of
       members, the _Perfecti_ and _Credentes_ corresponding to
       the _Fratres_ and _Amici_, and the kind of spiritual care
       which the former took of the latter, the grace at table
       said by the itinerant preachers, the importance attached to
       the possession and use of bread that had been blessed by the
       brethren, the frequent use by both of the Lord’s Prayer, the
       rejection of purgatory and everything connected therewith,
       also the prohibition of swearing and of military service,
       the refusal of the magisterial _jus gladii_, etc. On the
       other hand, however, it is more than probable that at last
       the remnants of the Cathari which escaped the Inquisition
       in great part had found refuge among the Waldensians in the
       valleys of the Cottian Alps, and there became assimilated
       and amalgamated with them (§ 119, 9A).--Further, the
       assumption that the Lombard Waldensians had first reached
       the principle by which they are distinguished from their
       French brethren, about the incapacity of unworthy priests
       for dispensing the sacraments, from outside influences,
       perhaps from the Arnoldists, is raised almost to a certainty
       by the statement made by their deputies at Bergamo in
       A.D. 1218, that they had even themselves in earlier times
       held the opposite view.--Even the pantheistic tendency of
       an Amalrich and the Brethren of the New Spirit may have
       found entrance among the German Waldensians, and have there
       given origin to the sect of the Ortlibarians.


               § 109. THE CHURCH AGAINST THE PROTESTERS.

  The church was by no means indifferent to the spread of those
heresies of the 11th and 12th centuries, which called in question
its own very existence. Even in the 11th century she called in the
aid of the stake as a type of the fire of hell that would consume
the heretics, and against this only one voice, that of Bishop Wazo
of Liège († A.D. 1048), was raised. In the 12th century protesting
voices were more numerous: Peter the Venerable (§ 98, 1), Rupert of
Deutz, St. Hildegard, St. Bernard, declared sword and fire no fit
weapons for conversion. St. Bernard showed by his own example how by
loving entreaty and friendly instruction more might be done than by
awakening a fanatical enthusiasm for martyrdom. But hangmen and stakes
were more easily produced than St. Bernards, of whom the 12th and
13th centuries had by no means a superabundance. By-and-by Dominic
sent out his disciples to teach and convert heretics by preaching and
disputation; as long as they confined themselves to these methods they
were not without success. But even they soon found it more congenial
or more effective to fight the heretics with tortures and the stake
rather than with discussion and discourse. The Albigensian crusade
and the tribunal of the Inquisition erected in connection therewith
at last overpowered the protesters and drove the remnants of their
sects into hiding. In the administration of punishment the church
made no distinction between the various sects; all were alike who
were at war with the church.

  § 109.1. =The Albigensian Crusade, A.D. 1209-1229.=--Toward the
  end of the 12th century sects abounded in the south of France.
  Innocent III. regarded them as worse than the Saracens, and in
  A.D. 1203 sent a legate, Peter of Castelnau, with full powers to
  secure their extermination. But Peter was murdered in A.D. 1208,
  and suspicion fell on Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse. A crusade
  under Simon de Montfort was now summoned against the sectaries,
  who as mainly inhabiting the district of Albigeois were now
  called =Albigensians=. A twenty years’ war was carried on with
  mad fanaticism and cruelty on both sides, in which guilty and
  innocent, men, women, and children were ruthlessly slain. At
  the sack of Beziers with 20,000 inhabitants the papal legate
  cried, “Slay all, the Lord will know how to seek out and save
  His own.”[321]

  § 109.2. =The Inquisition.=--Every one screening a heretic
  forfeited lands, goods, and office; a house in which such a
  one was discovered was levelled to the ground; all citizens
  had to communicate thrice a year, and every second year to
  renew their oath of attachment to the church, and to refuse
  all help in sickness to those suspected of heresy, etc. The
  bishops not showing themselves zealous enough in enforcing
  these laws, Gregory IX. in A.D. 1232 founded the Tribunal of
  the Inquisition, and placed it in the hands of the Dominicans.
  These as _Domini canes_ subjected to the most cruel tortures all
  on whom the suspicion of heresy fell, and all the resolute were
  handed over to the civil authorities, who readily undertook their
  execution.[322]--Continuation § 117, 2.

  § 109.3. =Conrad of Marburg and the Stedingers.=--The first
  Inquisitor of Germany, the Dominican =Conrad of Marburg=, also
  known as the severe confessor of St. Elizabeth (§ 105, 3), after
  a three years’ career of cruelty was put to death by certain
  of the nobles in A.D. 1233. _Et sic_, say the Annals of Worms,
  _divino auxilio liberata est Teutonia ab isto judicio enormi
  et inaudito_. He was enrolled by Gregory IX. among the martyrs.
  Perhaps wrongly he has been blamed for Gregory’s crusade of
  A.D. 1234 against the =Stedingers=. These were Frisians of
  Oldenburg who revolted against the oppression of nobles and
  priests, refused socage and tithes, and screened Albigensian
  heretics. The first crusade failed; the second succeeded and
  plundered, murdered, and burned on every hand. Thousands of the
  unhappy peasants were slain, neither women nor children were
  spared, and all prisoners were sent to the stake as heretics.




                            _THIRD SECTION._

              HISTORY OF THE GERMANO-ROMANIC CHURCH IN THE
               14TH AND 15TH CENTURIES (A.D. 1294-1517).




                  I. The Hierarchy, Clergy, and Monks.


                        § 110. THE PAPACY.[323]

  From the time of Gelasius II. (§ 96, 11) it had been the custom of
the popes whenever Italy became too hot for them to fly to France, and
from France they had obtained help to deliver Italy from the tyranny of
the latest representatives of the Hohenstaufens. But when Boniface VIII.
dared boldly to assert the universal sovereignty of the papacy even
over France itself, this presumption wrought its own overthrow. The
consequence was a seventy years’ exile of the papal chair to the
banks of the Rhone, with complete subjugation under French authority.
Under the protection of the French court, however, the popes found
Avignon a safe asylum, and from thence they issued the most extravagant
hierarchical claims, especially upon Germany. The return of the papal
court to Rome was the occasion of a forty years’ schism, during which
two popes, for a time even three, are seen hurling anathemas at one
another. The reforming Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel sought
to put an end to this scandal and bring about a reformation in the head
and the members. The fathers in these councils, however, in accordance
with the prevalent views of the age, maintained the need of one visible
head for the government of the church, such as was afforded by the
papacy. But the corruptions of the papal chair led them to adopt the
old theory that the highest ecclesiastical authority is not the pope
but the voice of the universal church expressed in the œcumenical
councils, which had jurisdiction over even the popes. The successful
carrying out of this view was possible only if the several national
churches which had come now more decidedly than ever to regard
themselves as independent branches of the great ecclesiastical
organism, should heartily combine against the corrupt papacy. But
this they did not do. They were contented with making separate attacks,
in accordance with their several selfish interests. Hence papal craft
found little difficulty in rendering the strong remonstrances of these
councils fruitless and without result. The papacy came forth triumphant,
and during the 15th century, the age of the Renaissance, reached a
degree of corruption and moral turpitude which it had not approached
since the 10th century. The vicars of God now used their spiritual
rank only to further their ambitious worldly schemes, and by the most
scandalous nepotism (the so-called nephews being often bastards of the
popes, who were put into the highest and most lucrative offices) as
well as by their own voluptuousness, luxury, revelry, and love of war,
brought ruin upon the church and the States of the Church.

  § 110.1. =Boniface VIII. and Benedict XI.,
  A.D. 1294-1304.=--=Boniface VIII.=, A.D. 1294-1303 (§ 96, 22),
  was not inferior to his great predecessor in political talents
  and strength of will, but was destitute of all spiritual
  qualities and without any appreciation of the spiritual
  functions of the papal chair, while passionately maintaining
  the most extravagant claims of the hierarchy. The opposition
  to the pope was headed by two cardinals of the powerful Colonna
  family, who maintained that the abdication of Cœlestine V.
  was invalid. In A.D. 1297 Boniface stripped them of all their
  dignities, and then they appealed to an œcumenical council as
  a court of higher jurisdiction. The pope now threatened them
  and their supporters with the ban, fitted out a crusade against
  them, and destroyed their castles. At last after a sore struggle
  Palæstrina, the old residence of their family, capitulated. Also
  the Colonnas themselves submitted. Nevertheless in A.D. 1299 he
  had the famous old city and all its churches and palaces levelled
  to the ground, and refused to restore to the outlawed family
  its confiscated estates. Then again the Colonnas took up arms,
  but were defeated and obliged to fly the country, while the
  pope forbade under threat of the ban any city or realm to give
  refuge or shelter to the fugitives. But neither his anathema
  nor his army was able to keep the rebellious Sicilians under
  papal dominion. Even in his first contest with the French king,
  =Philip IV. the Fair=, A.D. 1285-1314, he had the worst of
  it. The pope had vainly sought to mediate between Philip and
  Edward I. of England, when both were using church property in
  carrying on war with one another, and in A.D. 1295 he issued
  the bull _Clericis laicos_, releasing subjects from their
  allegiance and anathematizing all laymen who should appropriate
  ecclesiastical revenues and all priests who should put them to
  uses not sanctioned by the pope. Philip then forbade all payment
  of church dues, and the pope finding his revenues from France
  withheld, made important concessions in A.D. 1297 and canonized
  Philip’s grandfather, Louis IX. His hierarchical assumptions
  in Germany gave promise of greater success. After the first
  Hapsburger’s death in A.D. 1291, his son Albert was set aside,
  and Adolf, Count of Nassau, elected king; but he again was
  overthrown and Albert I. crowned in A.D. 1298. Boniface summoned
  Albert to his tribunal as a traitor and murderer of the king,
  and released the German princes from their oaths of allegiance
  to him. Meanwhile, during A.D. 1301, Boniface and Philip were
  quarrelling over vacant benefices in France. The king haughtily
  repudiated the pretensions of the papal legate and imprisoned
  him as a traitor. Boniface demanded his immediate liberation,
  summoned the French bishops to a council at Rome, and in the
  bull _Ausculta fili_ showed the king how foolish, sinful, and
  heretical it was for him not to be subject to the pope. The
  bull torn from the messenger’s hands was publicly burnt, and
  a version of it probably falsified published throughout the
  kingdom along with the king’s reply. All France rose in revolt
  against the papal pretensions, and a parliament at Notre Dame in
  Paris A.D. 1302, at which the king assembled the three estates of
  the empire, the nobles, the clergy, and (for the first time) the
  citizens, it was unanimously resolved to support Philip and to
  write in that spirit to Rome, the bishops undertaking to pacify
  the pope, the nobles and citizens making their complaint to the
  cardinals. The king expressly forbade his clergy taking any part
  in the council that had been summoned, which, however, met in the
  Lateran, in Nov., 1302. From it Boniface issued the famous bull
  _Unam Sanctam_, in which, after the example of Innocent III.
  and Gregory IX., he set forth the doctrine of the two swords,
  the spiritual wielded _by_ the church and the temporal _for_
  the church, by kings and warriors indeed, but only according
  to the will and by the permission of the spiritual ruler. That
  the temporal power is independent was pronounced a Manichæan
  heresy; and finally it was declared that no human being could
  be saved unless he were subject to the Roman pontiff. King and
  parliament now accused the pope of heresy, simony, blasphemy,
  sorcery, tyranny, immorality, etc., and insisted that he should
  answer these charges before an œcumenical council. Meanwhile, in
  A.D. 1303, Boniface was negotiating with king Albert, and got him
  not only to break his league with Philip, but also to acknowledge
  himself a vassal of the papal see. The pope had all his plans
  laid for launching his anathema against Philip, but their
  execution was anticipated by the king’s assassins. His chancellor
  Nogaret and Sciarra, one of the exiled Colonnas, who, with the
  help of French gold, had hatched a conspiracy among the barons,
  attacked the papal palace and took the pope prisoner while he
  sat in full state upon his throne. The people indeed rescued
  him, but he died some weeks after in a raging fever in his
  80th year. Dante assigns him a place in hell. In the mouth of
  his predecessor Cœlestine V. have been put the prophetic words,
  _Ascendisti ut vulpes, regnatis ut leo, morieris ut canis_.[324]
  His successor =Benedict XI.=, A.D. 1303, 1304, would have
  willingly avenged the wrongs of Boniface, but weak and
  unsupported as he was he soon found himself obliged, not
  only to withdraw all imputations against Philip, who always
  maintained his innocence, but also to absolve those of the
  Colonnas who were less seriously implicated.

  § 110.2. =The Papacy during the Babylonian Exile,
  A.D. 1305-1377.=--After a year’s vacancy the papal chair
  was filled by Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux,
  a determined supporter of Boniface, who took the name of
  =Clement V.=, A.D. 1305-1314. He refused to go to be enthroned
  at Rome, and forced the cardinals to come to Lyons, and finally,
  in A.D. 1309, formally removed the papal court to Avignon, which
  then belonged to the king of Naples as Count of Provence. At
  this time, too, Clement so far yielded to Philip’s wish to have
  Boniface condemned and struck out of the list of popes, as to
  appoint two commissions to consider charges against Boniface,
  one in France and the other in Italy. Most credible witnesses
  accused the deceased pope of heresies, crimes, and immoralities
  committed in word and deed mostly in their presence, while the
  rebutting evidence was singularly weak. A compromise was effected
  by Clement surrendering the Templars to the greedy and revengeful
  king. In the bull _Rex gloriæ_ of A.D. 1311 he expressly declares
  that Philip’s proceeding against Boniface was _bona fide_,
  occasioned by zeal for church and country, cancels all Boniface’s
  decrees and censures upon the French king and his servants, and
  orders them to be erased from the archives. =The 15th œcumenical
  Council of Vienne in A.D. 1311= was mainly occupied with the
  affairs of the Templars, and also with the consideration of the
  controversies in the Franciscan order (§ 112, 2).--=Henry VII.=
  of Luxemburg was raised to the German throne on Albert’s death
  in A.D. 1208 in opposition to Philip’s brother Charles. Clement
  supported him and crowned him emperor, hoping to be protected by
  him from Philip’s tyranny. At Milan in A.D. 1311 Henry received
  the iron crown of Lombardy; but at Rome the imperial coronation
  was effected in A.D. 1312, not in St. Peter’s, the inner city
  being held by Robert of Naples, papal vassal and governor of
  Italy, but only in the Lateran at the hands of the cardinals
  commissioned to do so. The emperor now, in spite of all papal
  threats, pronounced the ban of the empire against Robert,
  and in concert with Frederick of Sicily entered on a campaign
  against Naples, but his sudden death in A.D. 1313 (according
  to an unsupported legend caused by a poisoned host) put an end
  to the expedition. Clement also died in the following year; and
  to him likewise has Dante assigned a place in hell.

  § 110.3. After two years’ murderous strife between the Italian
  and French cardinals, the French were again victorious, and
  elected at Lyons =John XXII.=, A.D. 1316-1334, son of a shoemaker
  of Cahors in Gascony, who was already seventy-two years old.
  He is said to have sworn to the Italians never to use a horse
  or mule but to ride to Rome, and then to have taken ship
  on the Rhone for Avignon, where during his eighteen years’
  pontificate he never went out of his palace except to go into
  the neighbouring cathedral. Working far into the night, this
  seemingly weak old man was wont to devote all his time to his
  studies and his business. The weight of his official duties
  will be seen from the fact that 60,000 minutes, filling 59 vols.
  in the papal archives, belong to his reign.--In Germany, after
  the death of Henry VII. there were two rivals for the throne,
  =Louis IV. the Bavarian=, A.D. 1314-1347, and Frederick III.
  of Austria. The pope, maintaining the closest relations with
  Robert of Anjou, his feudatory as king of Naples and his
  protector as Count of Provence, and esteeming his wish as
  a command, refused to acknowledge either, declared the German
  throne still vacant, and assumed to himself the administration
  of the realm during the vacancy. At Mühldorf in A.D. 1322
  Louis conquered his opponent and took him prisoner. He sent
  a detachment of Ghibellines over the Alps, while he made himself
  master of Milan and put an end to the papal administration
  in Northern Italy. The pope in A.D. 1323 ordered him within
  three months to cease discharging all functions of government
  till his election as German king should be acknowledged and
  confirmed by the papal chair. Louis first endeavoured to come to
  an understanding with the pope, but soon employed the sharp pens
  of the Minorites, who in May, 1324, drew up a solemn protest
  in which the king, basing his claims to royalty solely on the
  election of the princes and treating the pope as one who had
  forfeited his chair in consequence of his heresies (§ 112, 2),
  appealed from this false pope to an œcumenical council and a
  future legitimate pope. John now thundered an anathema against
  him, declared that he was deprived of all his dignities, freed
  his subjects from their allegiance, forbade them, under pain
  of anathema, to obey him, and summoned all European potentates
  to war against the excommunicated monarch. Louis now sought
  Frederick’s favour, and in A.D. 1325 shared with him the royal
  dignity. In Milan in A.D. 1327 he was crowned king of Lombardy,
  and in A.D. 1328 in Rome he received the imperial crown from
  the Roman democracy. Two bishops of the Ghibelline party gave
  him consecration, and the crown was laid on his head by Sciarra
  Colonna in the name of the Roman people. In vain did the pope
  pronounce all these proceedings null and void. The king began a
  process against the pope, deposed him as a heretic and antichrist,
  and finally condemned him to death as guilty of high treason,
  while the mob carried out this sentence by burning the pope
  in effigy upon the streets. The people and clergy of Rome, in
  accordance with an old canon, elected a new pope in the person
  of a pious Minorite of the sect of the Spirituales (§ 112, 2),
  who took the name of Nicholas V. Louis with his own hand placed
  the tiara on his head, and was then himself crowned by him. All
  this glory, however, was but short lived. An unsuccessful and
  inglorious war against Robert of Naples and a consequent revolt
  in Rome caused the emperor in A.D. 1328, with his army and his
  pope, amid the stonethrowing of the mob, to quit the eternal city,
  which immediately became subject to the curia. He did not fare
  much better in Tuscany or Lombardy; and thus the Roman expedition
  ended in failure. Returning to Munich, Louis endeavoured in vain
  amid many humiliations to move the determined old man at Avignon.
  But Nicholas V., the most wretched of all the anti-popes, went
  to Avignon with a rope about his neck in A.D. 1328, cast himself
  at the pope’s feet, was absolved, and died a prisoner in the
  papal palace in A.D. 1333. Next year John died. Notwithstanding
  the expensive Italian wars 25,000,000 gold guldens was found in
  the papal treasury at his death.--Roused by his opposition to
  the stricter party among the Franciscans (§ 112, 2), its leaders
  lent all their influence to the Bavarian and supported the charge
  of heresy against the pope. Against John’s favourite doctrine
  that the souls of departed saints attain to the vision of God
  only after the last judgment, these zealots cited the opinions
  of the learned world (§ 113, 3), with the University of Paris
  at its head. Philip VI. of France was also in the controversy
  one of his bitterest opponents, and even threatened him with
  the stake. Pressed on all sides the pope at last in A.D. 1333
  convened a commission of scholars to decide the question, but
  died before its judgment was given. His successor hasted to
  still the tumult by issuing the story of a deathbed recantation,
  and gave ecclesiastical sanction to the opposing view.

  § 110.4. =Benedict XII.=, A.D. 1334-1342, would probably have
  yielded to the urgent entreaties of the Romans to return to Rome
  had not his cardinals been so keenly opposed. He then built a
  palace at Avignon of imposing magnitude, as though the papacy
  were to have an eternal residence there. Louis the Bavarian
  retracted his heretical sentiments in order to get the ban
  removed and to obtain an orderly coronation. The first diet of
  the electoral union was held at Rhense near Mainz, in A.D. 1338,
  where it was declared that the election of a German king and
  emperor was, by God’s appointment, the sole privilege of the
  elector-princes, and needed not the confirmation or approval
  of the pope. This encouraged Louis to assert anew his imperial
  pretensions. Benedict’s successor =Clement VI.=, A.D. 1342-1352,
  added by purchase in A.D. 1348 the city of Avignon to the county
  of Venaissin, which Philip III. had gifted to the papal chair in
  A.D. 1273. Both continued in the possession of the Roman court
  till A.D. 1791 (§ 165, 13). Louis, now at feud with some of the
  powerful German nobles, sought to make terms of peace with the
  new pope. But Clement was not conciliatory, and made the unheard
  of demand that Louis should not only annul all his previous
  ordinances, but also should in future issue no enactment in
  the empire without permission of the papal see; and on Maunday
  Thursday, A.D. 1346, he pronounced him without title or dignity
  and called upon the electors to make a new choice, which, if
  they failed to do, he would proceed to do himself. As fittest
  candidate he recommended Charles of Bohemia, who was actually
  chosen by the five electors who answered the summons, under the
  title of =Charles IV.=, A.D. 1346-1378, and had his election
  confirmed by the pope. The new emperor solemnly promised never
  to set foot on the domains of the Roman church without express
  papal permission, and to remain in Rome only so long as was
  required for his coronation. Louis died before he was able to
  engage in war with his rival, and when, six months later, the
  next choice of Louis’ party also died, Charles was acknowledged
  without a dissentient voice. He was crowned emperor in Rome
  by a cardinal appointed by Innocent VI., in A.D. 1355. Without
  doing anything to restore the imperial prestige in Italy, Charles
  went back like a fugitive to Germany, despised by Guelphs and
  Ghibellines. But in the following year, at the Diet of Nuremberg,
  he passed a new imperial law in the so called Golden Bull of
  A.D. 1356, according to which the election of emperor was to
  be made at Frankfort, by three clerical electors (Mainz, Cologne,
  and Treves) and four temporal princes (Bohemia, the Palatine of
  the Rhine, Saxony, and Brandenburg), and he appeased the pope’s
  wrath by various concessions to the curia and the clergy.

  § 110.5. The famous Rienzi was made apostolic notary by
  Clement VI. in A.D. 1343, and as tribune of the people headed
  the revolt against the barons in A.D. 1347. Losing his popularity
  through his own extravagances he was obliged to flee, and being
  taken prisoner by Charles at Prague, he was sent to Avignon in
  A.D. 1350. Instead of the stake with which Clement had threatened
  him, =Innocent VI.=, A.D. 1352-1362, bestowed senatorial rank
  upon him, and sent him to Rome, hoping that his demagogical
  talent would succeed in furthering the interests of the papacy.
  He now once more, amid loud acclamations, entered the eternal
  city, but after two months, hated and cursed as a tyrant, he was
  murdered in A.D. 1354, while attempting flight.--By A.D. 1367
  things had so improved in Rome that, notwithstanding the
  opposition of king and court and the objections of luxurious
  cardinals unwilling to quit Avignon, =Urban V.=, A.D. 1362-1370,
  in October of that year made a triumphal entrance into Rome
  amid the jubilations of the Romans. Charles’ Italian expedition
  of the following year was inglorious and without result. The
  disquiet and party strifes prevailing through the country made
  the position of the pope so uncomfortable, that notwithstanding
  the earnest entreaty of St. Bridget (§ 112, 8), who threatened
  him with the Divine judgment of an early death in France, he
  returned in A.D. 1370 to Avignon, where in ten weeks the words
  of the northern prophetess were fulfilled. His successor was
  =Gregory XI.=, A.D. 1370-1378. Rome and the States of the Church
  had now again become the scene of the wildest anarchy, which
  Gregory could only hope to quell by his personal presence. The
  exhortations of the two prophetesses of the age, St. Bridget and
  St. Catherine (§ 112, 4), had a powerful influence upon him, but
  what finally determined him was the threat of the exasperated
  Romans to elect an anti-pope. And so in spite of the renewed
  opposition of the cardinals and the French court, the curia
  again returned to Rome in A.D. 1377; but though the rejoicing
  at the event throughout the city was great, the results were by
  no means what had been expected. Sick and disheartened, the pope
  was already beginning to speak of going back to Avignon, when
  his death in A.D. 1378 put an end to his cares and sufferings.

  § 110.6. =The Papal Schism and the Council of Pisa.=--Under
  pressure from the people the cardinals present in Rome almost
  unanimously chose the Neapolitan archbishop of Bari, who took
  the name of =Urban VI.=, A.D. 1378-1389. His energies were
  mainly directed to the emancipating of the papal chair from
  French interference and checking the abuses introduced into
  the papal court during the Avignon residence; but the impatience
  and bitterness which he showed in dealing with the greed, pomp,
  and luxury of the cardinals roused them to choose another pope.
  After four months, they met at Fundi, declared that the choice
  of Urban had been made under compulsion, and was therefore
  invalid. In his place they elected a Frenchman, Robert, cardinal
  of Geneva, who was enthroned under the name of Clement VII.,
  A.D. 1378-1394. The three Italians present protested against
  this proceeding and demanded, but in vain, the decision of a
  council. Thus began the greatest and most mischievous =papal
  schism=, A.D. 1378-1417. France, Naples, and Savoy at once, and
  Spain and Scotland somewhat later, declared in favour of Clement;
  while the rest of Western Europe acknowledged Urban. The two
  most famous saints of the age, St. Catherine and St. Vincent
  Ferrér (§ 115, 2), though both disciples of Dominic, took
  different sides, the former as an Italian favouring Urban,
  the latter as a Spaniard favouring Clement. Failing to secure
  a footing in Italy, Clement took possession of the papal castle
  at Avignon in A.D. 1379. The schism lasted for forty years,
  during which time =Boniface IX.=, A.D. 1389-1404, =Innocent VII.=,
  A.D. 1404-1406, and =Gregory XII.=, A.D. 1406-1415, elected
  by the cardinals in Rome, held sway there in succession, while
  at Avignon on Clement’s death his place was taken by the Spanish
  cardinal Pedro de Luna as Benedict XIII., A.D. 1394-1424. The
  Council of Paris of A.D. 1395 recommended the withdrawal of both
  popes and a new election, but Benedict insisted upon a decision
  by a two-thirds majority in favour of one or other of the two
  rivals. An =œcumenical council at Pisa=, in A.D. 1409, dominated
  mainly by the influence of Gerson (§ 118, 4), who maintained that
  the authority of the councils is superior to that of the pope,
  made short work with both contesting popes, whom it pronounced
  contumacious and deposed. After the cardinals present had bound
  themselves by an oath that whosoever of them might be chosen
  should not dissolve the council until a reform of the church
  in its head and members should be carried out, they elected
  a Greek of Candia in his seventieth year, Cardinal Philangi,
  who was consecrated as =Alexander V.=, A.D. 1409-1410, and for
  three years the council continued to sit without effecting any
  considerable reforms. The consequence was that the world had the
  edifying spectacle of three contemporary popes anathematizing
  one another.

  § 110.7. =The Council of Constance and Martin V.=--Alexander V.
  died after a reign of ten months by poison administered, as
  was supposed, by Balthasar Cossa, resident cardinal legate
  and absolute military despot, suspected of having been in
  youth engaged in piracy. Cossa succeeded, as =John XXIII.=,
  A.D. 1410-1415. He was acknowledged by the new Roman king,
  =Sigismund=, A.D. 1411-1437, and soon afterwards, in A.D. 1412,
  by Ladislas [Ladislaus] of Naples, so that Gregory XII. was thus
  deprived of his last support. The University of Paris continued
  to demand the holding of a council to effect reforms. Sigismund,
  supported by the princes, insisted on its being held in a
  German city. Meanwhile Ladislas [Ladislaus] had quarrelled
  with the pope, and had overrun the States of the Church and
  plundered Rome in A.D. 1413, and John was obliged to submit
  to Sigismund’s demands, He now summoned the =16th œcumenical
  Council of Constance=, A.D. 1414-1418 (§ 119, 5). It was the
  most brilliant and the most numerously attended council ever
  held. More than 18,000 priests and vast numbers of princes,
  counts, and knights, with an immense following; in all about
  100,000 strangers, including thousands of harlots from all
  countries, and hordes of merchants, artisans, showmen, and
  players of every sort. Gerson and D’Ailly, the one representing
  European learning, the other the claims of the Gallican church
  (§ 118, 4), were the principal advisers of the council. The
  decision to vote not individually but by nations (Italian,
  German, French, and English) destroyed the predominance of
  the Italian prelates, who as John’s creatures were present
  in great numbers. Terrified by an anonymous accusation, which
  charged the pope with the most heinous crimes, he declared
  himself ready to withdraw if the other two popes would also
  resign, but took advantage of the excitement of a tournament
  to make his escape disguised as an ostler. Sigismund could with
  difficulty keep the now popeless council together. John, however,
  was captured, seventy-two serious charges formulated against
  him, and on 26th July, A.D. 1415, he was deposed and condemned
  to imprisonment for life. He was given up to the Count Palatine
  Louis of Baden, who kept him prisoner in Mannheim, and afterwards
  in Heidelberg. Meanwhile the leader of an Italian band making use
  of the name of Martin V. purchased his release with 3,000 ducats.
  He now submitted himself to that pope, and was appointed by him
  cardinal-bishop of Tuscoli, and dean of the sacred college, but
  soon afterwards died in Florence, in A.D. 1419. Gregory XII. also
  submitted in A.D. 1415, and was made cardinal-bishop of Porto.
  Benedict, however, retired to Spain and refused to come to
  terms, but even the Spanish princes withdrew their allegiance
  from him as pope. The cardinals in conclave elected the crafty
  Oddo Colonna, who was consecrated as =Martin V.=, A.D. 1417-1431.
  There was no more word of reformation. With great pomp the
  council was closed, and indulgence granted to its members. As
  the whole West now recognised Martin as the true pope the schism
  may be said to end with his accession, though Benedict continued
  to thunder anathemas from his strong Spanish castle till his
  death in A.D. 1424, and three of his four cardinals elected as
  his successor Clement VIII. and the fourth another Benedict XIV.
  Of the latter no notice was taken, but Clement submitted in
  A.D. 1429, and received the bishopric of Majorca.--Martin V.
  on entering Rome in A.D. 1420 found everything in confusion
  and desolate. By his able administration a change was soon
  effected, and the Rome of the Renaissance rose on the ruins
  of the mediæval city.[325]

  § 110.8. =Eugenius IV. and the Council of Basel.=--Martin V.
  commissioned Cardinal Julian Cesarini to look after the
  Hussite controversy in the =Basel Council=, A.D. 1431-1449.
  His successor =Eugenius IV.=, A.D. 1431-1447, confirmed this
  appointment. After thirteen months he ordered the council to
  meet at Bologna, finding the heretical element too strong in
  Germany. The members, however, unanimously refused to obey.
  Sigismund, too, protested, and the council claimed to be
  superior to the pope. The withdrawal of the bull within sixty
  days was insisted upon. As a compromise, the pope offered to
  call a new council, not at Bologna, but at Basel. This was
  declined and the pope threatened with deposition. A rebellion,
  too, broke out in the States of the Church; and in A.D. 1433
  Eugenius was completely humbled and obliged to acquiesce in the
  demands of the council. One danger was thus averted, but he was
  still threatened by another. In A.D. 1434 Rome proclaimed itself
  a republic and the pope fled to Florence. The success of the
  democracy, however, was now again of but short duration. In
  five months Rome was once more under the dominion of the pope.
  Negotiations for union with the Greeks were begun by the pope
  at =Ferrara= A.D. 1438. A small number of Italians under the
  presidency of the pope here assumed the offices of an œcumenical
  council, those at Basel being ordered to join them, the Basel
  Council being suspended, and the continuance of that council
  being pronounced schismatical. Julian, now styled “_Julianus
  Apostata II._,” with almost all the cardinals, betook himself
  to Ferrara. Under the able cardinal Louis d’Aleman (§ 118, 4),
  archbishop of Arles, some still continued the proceedings of
  the council at Basel, but in consequence of a pestilence they
  moved, in A.D. 1439, to =Florence=. A union with the Greeks was
  here effected, at least upon paper. The Basel Council banned by
  the pope, deposed him, and in A.D. 1439 elected a new pope in
  the person of Duke Amadeus of Savoy, who on his wife’s death
  had resigned his crown to his son and entered a monkish order.
  He called himself Felix V. Princes and people, however, were
  tired of rival papacies. Felix got little support, and the
  council itself soon lost all its power. Its ablest members one
  after another passed over to the party of Eugenius. In A.D. 1449
  Felix resigned, and died in the odour of sanctity two years
  afterwards.[326]

  § 110.9. Only =Charles VII.= of France took advantage of the
  reforming decree of Basel for the benefit of his country. He
  assembled the most distinguished churchmen and scholars of his
  kingdom at Bourges, and with their concurrence published, in
  A.D. 1438, twenty-three of the conclusions of Basel that bore on
  the Gallican liberties under the name of the =Pragmatic Sanction=,
  and made it a law of his realm. For the rest he maintained an
  attitude of neutrality towards both popes, as also shortly before
  the electors convened at Frankfort had done. Those assembled at
  the Diet of Mainz in A.D. 1439 recognised the reforming edicts
  of Basel as applying to Germany. =Frederick IV.=, A.D. 1439-1493,
  who as emperor is known as Frederick III., under the influence of
  the cunning Italian Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini (§ 118, 6), though
  at first in the opposition, went over to the side of Eugenius IV.
  in A.D. 1446 upon receiving 100,000 guldens for the expenses of
  an expedition to Rome and certain ecclesiastical privileges for
  his Austrian subjects. Some weeks later the electors of Frankfort
  took the same steps, stipulating that Eugenius should recognise
  the decrees of the Council of Constance and the reforming decrees
  of Basel, and should promise to convene a new free council in
  a German city to bring the schism to an end, which if he failed
  to do they would quit him in favour of Basel. But at the diet,
  held in September of that year at Frankfort, the legates of the
  pope and of the king succeeded by diplomatic arts in coming to
  an understanding with the electors met at Mainz. Thus it happened
  that in the so-called =Frankfort Concordat of the Princes= a
  compromise was effected, which Eugenius confirmed in A.D. 1447,
  with a careful explanation to the effect that none of these
  concessions in any way infringed upon the rights and privileges
  of the Holy See. In the following year Frederick in name of the
  German nation concluded with Eugenius’ successor, Nicholas V.,
  the =Concordat of Vienna=, A.D. 1448. The advantages gained by
  the German church were quite insignificant. Frederick received
  imperial rank as reward for the betrayal of his country, and was
  crowned in Rome, in A.D. 1452, as the last German emperor.

  § 110.10. =Nicholas V., Calixtus III., and Pius II.,
  A.D. 1447-1464.=--With =Nicholas V.=, A.D. 1447-1455, a
  miracle of classical scholarship and founder of the Vatican
  Library, the Roman see for the first time became the patron of
  humanistic studies, and under this mild and liberal pope the
  secular government of Rome was greatly improved. The conquest of
  Constantinople by the Turks, in A.D. 1453, produced excitement
  throughout the whole of Europe. The eloquence of the pope
  roused the crusading spirit of Christendom, and oratorical
  appeals were thundered from the pulpits of all churches and
  cathedrals. But the princes remained cold and indifferent.
  After Nicholas, a Spaniard, the cardinal Alphonso Borgia, then
  in his seventy-seventh year, was raised to the papal chair as
  =Calixtus III.=, A.D. 1455-1458. Hatred of Turks and love of
  nephews were the two characteristics of the man. Yet he could
  not rouse the princes against the Turks, and the fleet fitted out
  at his own cost only plundered a few islands in the Archipelago.
  Calixtus’ successor was Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, the able and
  accomplished apostate from the Basel reform party, who styled
  himself, with intended allusion to Virgil’s “_pius Æneas_,”
  =Pius II.=, A.D. 1458-1464. The pope’s Ciceronian eloquence
  failed to secure the attendance of princes at the Mantuan
  Congress, summoned in A.D. 1459 to take steps for the equipment
  of a crusade. A war against the Turks was indeed to have been
  undertaken by emperor Frederick III., and a tax was to have been
  levied on Christians and Jews for its cost; but neither tax nor
  crusade was forthcoming. Pius demanded of the French ambassadors
  a formal repudiation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, and
  when they threatened the calling of an œcumenical council, he
  issued the bull _Execrabilis_, which pronounced “the execrable
  and previously unheard of” enormity of an appeal to a council to
  be heresy and treason. In A.D. 1461 the pope, by a long epistle,
  attempted the conversion of Mohammed II., the powerful conqueror
  of Constantinople. As the discovery of the great alum deposit
  at Rome in A.D. 1462 was attributed to miraculous direction, the
  pope was led to devote its rich resources to the fitting out of
  a crusade against the Turks. He wished himself to lead the army
  in person, in order to secure victory by uplifted hands, like
  Moses in the war with Amalek. But here again the princes left him
  in the lurch. Coming to Ancona in A.D. 1464 to take ship there
  upon his great undertaking, only his own two galleys were waiting
  him. After long weary waiting, twelve Venetian ships arrived,
  just in time to see the pope prostrated with fever and excitement.

  § 110.11. =Paul II., Sixtus IV. and Innocent VII.,
  A.D. 1464-1492.=--Among the popes of the last forty years of
  the 15th century =Paul II.=, A.D. 1464-1471, was the best,
  though vain, sensual, greedy, fond of show, and extravagant.
  He was impartial in the administration of justice, free from
  nepotism, and always ready to succour the needy. His successor,
  =Sixtus IV.=, A.D. 1471-1484, formerly Franciscan general,
  was one of the most wicked of the occupants of the chair of
  Peter. His appeal for an expedition against the Turks finding no
  response outside of Italy, his love of strife found gratification
  in fomenting internal animosities among the Italian states.
  In favour of a nephew he sought the overthrow in A.D. 1478 of
  the famous Medici family in Florence. Julian was murdered, but
  Lorenzo escaped, and the archbishop, as abettor of the crime,
  was hanged in his official robes. The pope placed the city
  under ban and interdict. It was only the conquest of Otranto in
  A.D. 1480, and the terror caused by the landing of the Turks in
  Italy, that moved him to make terms with Florence. His nepotism
  was most shamelessly practised, and he increased his revenues
  by taxing the brothels of Rome. His powerful government did
  something towards the improvement of the administration of
  justice in the Church States and his love of art beautified
  the city. In A.D. 1482 Andrew, archbishop of Crain, a Slav by
  birth and of the Dominican order, halted at Basel on his return
  from Rome, where he had been as ambassador for Frederick, and,
  with the support of the Italian league and the emperor, issued
  violent invectives against the pope, and summoned an œcumenical
  council for the reform of the church in its head and members. The
  pope ordered his arrest and extradition, but this the municipal
  authorities refused. After a volley of bulls and briefs, charges
  and appeals, and after innumerable embassies and negotiations
  between Basel, Vienna, Innsbrück, Florence, and Rome, in which
  the emperor abandoned the archbishop and the papal legates
  dangled an interdict over Basel, the authorities decided to
  imprison the objectionable prelate, but refused to deliver him
  up. After eleven months’ imprisonment, however, he was found
  hanged in his cell in A.D. 1484. Sixtus had died three months
  before and Basel was absolved by his successor =Innocent VIII.=,
  A.D. 1484-1492. In character and ability he was far inferior to
  his predecessor. The number of illegitimate children brought by
  him to the Vatican gave occasion to the popular witticism: “_Octo
  Nocens genuit pueros totidemque puellas, Hunc merito poterit
  dicere Roma patrem_.” The mighty conqueror of half the world,
  Mohammed II., had died in A.D. 1481. His two sons contested
  for the throne, and Bajazet proving successful committed the
  guardianship of his brother to the Knights of St. John in Rhodes.
  The Grandmaster transferred his prisoner, in A.D. 1489, to the
  pope. Innocent rewarded him with a cardinalate, and Bajazet
  promised the pope not only continual peace, but a yearly
  tribute of 40,000 ducats. He also voluntarily presented his
  holiness with the spear which pierced the Saviour’s side. All
  this, however, did not prevent the pope from repeatedly but
  ineffectually seeking to rouse Christendom to a crusade against
  the Turks. To this pope also belongs the odium of familiarizing
  Europe with witch prosecutions (§ 117, 4).[327]

  § 110.12. =Alexander VI., A.D. 1492-1503.=--The Spanish cardinal
  Roderick Borgia, sister’s son of Calixtus III., purchased the
  tiara by bribing his colleagues. In him as Alexander VI. we have
  a pope whose government presents a scene of unparalleled infamy,
  riotous immorality, and unmentionable crimes, of cruel despotism,
  fraud, faithlessness, and murder, and a barefaced nepotism, such
  as even the city of the popes had never witnessed before. He
  had already before his election five children by a concubine,
  Rosa Vanossa, four sons and one daughter, Lucretia, and his one
  care was for their advancement. His favourite son was Giovanni,
  for whom while cardinal he had purchased the rank of a Spanish
  grandee, with the title Duke of Gandia, and when pope he bestowed
  on him, in A.D. 1497, the hereditary dukedom of Benevento. But
  eight days after his corpse with dagger wounds upon it was taken
  out of the Tiber. The pope exclaimed, “I know the murderer.”
  Suspicion fell first upon Giovanni Sforsa of Pesaro, Lucretia’s
  husband, who had charged the murdered man with committing incest
  with his sister, but afterwards upon Cardinal Cæsar Borgia, the
  pope’s second son, who was jealous of his brother because of the
  favour shown him by Lucretia and by her father. Alexander’s grief
  knew no bounds, but sought escape from it by redoubled love to
  the suspected son. In A.D. 1498 the papal bastard resigned the
  cardinalate as an intolerable burden, married a French princess,
  and was made hereditary duke of Romagna. Suddenly at the same
  time, and in the same manner, in A.D. 1503, father and son took
  ill. The father died after a few days, but the vigour of youth
  aided the son’s recovery. Cæsar Borgia was at a later period cast
  into prison by Julius II., and fell in A.D. 1507 in the service
  of his brother-in-law, the king of Navarre. It was generally
  believed that Alexander died of poisoned wine prepared by his
  son to secure the removal of a rich cardinal. The father as well
  as the two brothers were suspected of incest with Lucretia. This
  pope, too, did not hesitate to intrigue with the Turkish sultan
  against Charles VIII. of France. With unexampled assumption,
  during the contention of Portugal and Spain about the American
  discoveries, he presented Ferdinand and Isabella in A.D. 1493
  with all islands and continents that had been discovered or might
  yet be discovered lying beyond a line of demarcation drawn from
  the North to the South Pole. Once only, when grieving over the
  death of his favourite son, had this pope a twinge of conscience.
  He had resolved, he said, to devote himself to his spiritual
  calling and secure a reform in church discipline. But when
  the commission appointed for this purpose presented its first
  reform proposals the momentary emotion had already passed away.
  Nothing was further from his thought than the calling of an
  œcumenical council, which not only the king of France, but also
  the Florentine reformer Savonarola demanded (§ 119, 11).

  § 110.13. =Julius II., A.D. 1503-1513.=--Alexander’s successor,
  Pius III., son of a sister of Pius II., died after a twenty-six
  days’ pontificate. He was followed by a nephew of Sixtus IV.,
  a bitter enemy of the Borgias, who took the name of Julius II.
  He was essentially a warrior, with nothing of the priest about
  him. He was also a lover of art, and carried on the works which
  his uncle had begun. His youthful excesses had seriously impaired
  his health. As pope, he was not free from nepotism and simony, in
  controversy passionate, and in policy intriguing and faithless.
  He transformed the States of the Church into a temporal despotic
  monarchy, and was himself incessantly engaged in war. When
  he broke with France, which held Milan from A.D. 1499 with
  Alexander’s consent, =Louis XII.=, A.D. 1498-1515, convened
  a French national council at Tours in A.D. 1510. This council
  renewed the Pragmatic Sanction, which in a weak hour Louis XI.,
  in A.D. 1462, had abrogated, and had in consequence obtained,
  in A.D. 1469, the title _Rex Christianissimus_, and refused to
  obey the pope. Also =Maximilian I.=, A.D. 1493-1519, who even
  without papal coronation called himself “elected Roman emperor,”
  directed the learned humanist Wimpfeling of Heidelberg to collect
  the gravamina of the Germans against the Roman curia, and to
  sketch out a Pragmatic Sanction for Germany. France and Germany,
  with five revolting cardinals, convoked an œcumenical council at
  Pisa, in A.D. 1511. Half in sport, half in earnest, Maximilian
  spoke of placing on his own head the tiara, as well as the
  imperial crown. The pope put Pisa, where only a few French
  prelates ventured, under an interdict, and anathematized the
  king of France, who then had medals cast, with the inscription,
  _Perdam Babylonis nomen_. In a murderous battle at Ravenna, in
  A.D. 1512, the army of the papal league was all but annihilated.
  But two months later, the French, by the revolt of the Milanese
  and the successes of the Swiss, were driven to their homes
  ingloriously, and the schismatic council, which had been shifted
  from Pisa to Milan, had to withdraw to Lyons, where it was
  dissolved by the pope “on account of its many crimes.” Meanwhile
  the pope had summoned a council to meet at Rome, the =fifth
  œcumenical Lateran Council=, A.D. 1512-1517, at which however
  only fifty-three Italian bishops were present. There the ban upon
  the king of France was renewed, but a concordat was concluded
  with Maximilian, redressing the more serious grievances of which
  he had complained. The pope succeeded in freeing Northern Italy
  from French oppression, and only his early death prevented him
  from delivering Southern Italy from the Spanish yoke.

  § 110.14. =Leo X., A.D. 1513-1521.=--John, son of Lorenzo
  Medici, who was cardinal in A.D. 1488, in his eighteenth year,
  when thirty-eight years of age ascended the papal throne as
  Leo X.; a great patron of the Renaissance, but luxurious and
  pleasure-loving, extravagant and frivolous, without a spark
  of religion (§ 120, 1), and a zealous promoter of the fortunes
  of his own family. The attempt of Louis XII., with the help of
  Venice, to regain Milan failed, and being hard pressed in his
  own country by Henry VIII. of England, the French king decided
  at last, in Dec., 1513, to end the schism and recognise the
  Lateran Council. His successor, =Francis I.=, A.D. 1515-1547, was
  more fortunate. In the battle of Marignano he gained a brilliant
  victory over the brave Swiss, in consequence of which the
  duchy of Milan fell again into the hands of France. At Bologna,
  in A.D. 1516, the pope in person now greeted the king, who
  proferred him obedience, and concluded a political league and
  an ecclesiastical concordat with his holiness, abrogating the
  Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., but maintaining the king’s
  right to nominate all bishops and abbots of his realm, with
  reservation of the annats for the papal treasury. The Lateran
  Council, though attended only by Italian bishops, was pronounced
  œcumenical. During its five years’ sittings it had issued
  concordats for Germany and France, the papal bull _Pastor
  æternus_ was solemnly ratified, which renewed the bull _Unam
  sanctam_ and by various forgeries proved the power of the
  pope to be superior to the authority of councils, quieted the
  bishops’ objections to the privileges of the begging friars by
  a compromise, and as a protection against heresy gave the right
  of the censorship of the press to bishops, while explicitly
  asserting the immateriality, individuality, and immortality of
  the human soul.[328]

  § 110.15. =Papal Claims to Sovereignty.=--From A.D. 1319 the
  popes secured large revenues from the Annats, revenues for a
  full year of all vacancies; the Reservations, the holding of
  rich benefices and bestowing them upon payment of large sums;
  the Expectances, naming for payment a successor to an incumbent
  still living; the Offices held _in commendam_, provisionally
  on payment of a part of the incomes; the _Jus spoliarum_, the
  Holy See being the legitimate heir of all property gained by
  Churchmen from their offices; the Taxing of Church property for
  particularly pressing calls; innumerable Indulgences, Absolutions,
  Dispensations, etc. The happy thought occurred to Paul II., in
  A.D. 1469, to extend the law of Annats to such ecclesiastical
  institutions as belonged to corporations. He reckoned the
  lifetime of a prelate at fifteen years, and so claimed his tax
  of such institutions every fifteenth year. The doctrine of the
  papal infallibility in matters of faith, under the influence
  of the reforming councils of the 15th century, was rather less
  in favour than before. The rigid Franciscans opposed the papal
  doctrine of poverty (§§ 98, 4; 112, 2); and John XXII. was almost
  unanimously charged by his contemporaries with heresy, because
  of his views about the vision of God. Even the most zealous
  curialists of the 15th century did not venture to ascribe to
  the pope absolute infallibility. A distinction was made between
  the infallibility of the office, which is absolute, and that of
  the person, which is only relative; a pope who falls into error
  and heresy thereby ceases to be pope and infallible. This was the
  opinion of the Dominican Torquemada (§ 112, 4), whom Eugenius IV.
  rewarded at the Basel Council with a cardinalate and the title
  of _Defensor fidei_, as the most zealous defender of papal
  absolutism. From the 14th century the popes have worn the triple
  crown. The three tiers of the tiara, richly ornamented with
  precious stones, indicated the power of the pope over heaven by
  his canonizing, over purgatory by his granting of indulgences,
  and over the earth by his pronouncing anathemas. Until the papal
  court retired to Avignon the Lateran was the usual residence of
  the popes, and after the ending of the schism, the Vatican.[329]

  § 110.16. =The Papal Curia.=--The chief courts of the papal
  government are spoken of collectively as the curia, their members
  being taken from the higher clergy. The following are the most
  important: the _Cancellaria Romana_, to which belonged the
  administration of affairs pertaining to the pope and the college
  of cardinals; the _Dataria Romana_, which had to do with matters
  of grace not kept secret, such as absolutions, dispensations,
  etc.; while the _Pœnitentiaria Romana_ dealt with matters which
  were kept secret; the _Camera Romana_, which administered the
  papal finances; and the _Rota Romana_, which was the supreme
  court of justice. Important decrees issued by the pope himself
  with the approval of the cardinals are called _bulls_. They are
  written on parchment in the Gothic character in Latin, stamped
  with the great seal of the Roman church, and secured in a metal
  case. The word bull was originally applied to the case, then
  to the seal, and at last to the document itself. Less important
  decrees, for which the advice of the cardinals had not been asked,
  are called _briefs_. The brief is usually written on parchment,
  in the ordinary Roman characters, and sealed in red wax with the
  pope’s private seal, the fisherman’s ring.


                           § 111. THE CLERGY.

  Provincial synods had now lost almost all their importance, and
were rarely held, and then for the most part under the presidency of
a papal legate. The cathedral chapters afforded welcome provision for
the younger sons of the nobles, who were nothing behind their elder
brothers in worldliness of life and conversation. For their own
selfish interests they limited the number of members of the chapter,
and demanded as a qualification evidence of at least sixteen ancestors.
The political significance of the prelates was in France very small,
and as champions of the Gallican liberties they were less enthusiastic
than the University of Paris and the Parliament. In England they
formed an influential order in the State, with carefully defined
rights; and in Germany, as princes of the empire, especially the
clerical elector princes, their political importance was very great.
In Spain, on the other hand, at the end of the 15th century, by
the ecclesiastico-political reformation endeavours of Ferdinand
“the Catholic” and Isabella (§ 118, 7), the higher clergy were made
completely dependent upon the Crown.

  § 111.1. =The Moral Condition of the Clergy= was in general
  very low. The bishops mostly lived in open concubinage. The lower
  secular clergy followed their example, and had toleration granted
  by paying a yearly tax to the bishop. The people, distinguishing
  office and person, made no objection, but rather looked on it
  as a sort of protection to their wives and daughters from the
  dangers of the confessional. Especially in Italy, unnatural vice
  was widely spread among the clergy. At Constance and Basel it
  was thought to cure such evils by giving permission to priests
  to marry; but it was feared that the ecclesiastical revenues
  would be made heritable, and the clergy brought too much
  under the State.--The mendicant orders were allowed to hear
  confession everywhere, and when John de Polliaco, a Prussian
  doctor, maintained that the local clergy only should be taken
  as confessors, John XXII., in A.D. 1322, pronounced his views
  heretical.

  § 111.2. The French concordat of A.D. 1516 (§ 110, 14),
  which gave the king the right of appointing commendator abbots
  (§ 85, 5), to almost all the cloisters, induced many of the
  younger sons of old noble families to take orders, so as to
  obtain rich sinecures or offices, which they could hold _in
  commendam_. They bore a semi-clerical character, and had the
  title of =abbé=, which gradually came to be given to all the
  secular clergy of higher culture and social position. In Italy
  too it became customary to give the title =abbate= to the younger
  clergy of high rank, before receiving ordination.


                 § 112. MONASTIC ORDERS AND SOCIETIES.

  The corruption of monastic life was becoming more evident from day
to day. Immorality, sloth, and unnatural vice only too often found
a nursery behind the cloister walls. Monks and nuns of neighbouring
convents lived in open sin with one another, so that the author of the
book _De ruina ecclesia_ (§ 118, 4, c) thinks that _Virginem velare_
is the same as _Virginem ad scortandum exponere_. In the Benedictine
order the corruption was most complete. The rich cloisters, after the
example of their founder, divided their revenues among their several
members (_proprietarii_). Science was disregarded, and they cared
only for good living. The celebrated Scottish cloister (§ 98, 1) of
St. James, at Regensburg, in the 14th century, had a regular tavern
within its walls, and there was a current saying, _Uxor amissa in
monasterio Scotorum quæri debet_. The mendicants represented even
yet relatively the better side of monasticism, and maintained their
character as exponents of theological learning. Only the Carthusians,
however, still held fast to the ancient strict discipline of their
order.

  § 112.1. =The Benedictine Orders.=--For the reorganization of
  this order, which had abandoned itself to good living and luxury,
  Clement V., at the Council of Vienna, A.D. 1311, issued a set of
  ordinances which aimed principally at the restoration of monastic
  discipline and the revival of learning among the monks. But they
  were of little or no avail. Benedict XII. therefore found it
  necessary, in A.D. 1336, with the co-operation of distinguished
  French abbots, to draw up a new constitution for the Benedictines,
  which after him was called the Benedictina. The houses of Black
  Friars were to be divided into thirty-six provinces, and each
  of them was to hold every third year a provincial chapter for
  conference and determination of cases. In each abbey there
  should be a daily penitential chapter for maintaining discipline,
  and an annual chapter for giving a reckoning of accounts. In
  order to reawaken interest in scientific studies, it was enjoined
  that from every cloister a number of the abler monks should be
  maintained at a university, at the cost of the cloister, to study
  theology and canon law. But the disciplinary prescriptions of the
  Benedictina were powerless before the attractions of good living,
  and the proposals for organization were repugnant to the proud
  independence of monks and abbots. The enactments in favour of
  scientific pursuits led to better results. The first really
  successful attempt at reforming the cloisters was made, in
  A.D. 1435, by the general chapter of the Brothers of the Common
  Life, who not only dealt with their own institutions, but also
  with all the Benedictine monasteries throughout the whole of
  the West. The soul of this movement was Joh. Busch, monk in
  Windesheim, then prior in various monasteries, and finally
  provost of Sulte, near Hildesheim, A.D. 1458-1479. The so called
  _Bursfeld Union_ or Congregation resulted from his intercourse
  with the abbot of the Benedictine monastery at Bursfeld, on the
  Weser, John of Hagen (ab Andagine). Notwithstanding the bitter
  hostility of corrupt monks and nuns, there were in a short time
  seventy-five monasteries under this Bursfeld rule, where the
  original strictness of the monastic life was enforced. The rule
  was confirmed by the council of A.D. 1440, and subsequently
  by Pius II. Most of the cloisters under this rule joined the
  Lutheran reformation of the 16th century, and Bursfeld itself is
  at this day the seat of a titular Lutheran abbot.--A new branch
  of the Benedictine order, the =Olivetans=, was founded by Bernard
  Tolomæi. Blindness having obliged him to abandon his teaching of
  philosophy at Siena, the blessed Virgin restored him his sight;
  and then, in A.D. 1313, he forsook the world, and withdrew
  with certain companions into almost inaccessible mountain
  recesses, ten miles from Siena. Disciples gathered around him
  from all sides. He built a cloister on a hill, which he called
  the Mount of Olives, and founded under the Benedictine rule
  a congregation of the Most Blessed Virgin of the Mount of Olives,
  which obtained the sanction of John XXII. Tolomæi became its
  first general, in A.D. 1322, and held the office till his death,
  caused by infection caught while attending the plague stricken
  in A.D. 1348. There were new elections of abbots every third
  year. The Olivetans were zealous worshippers of Mary, and
  strict ascetics. In several of their cloisters, which numbered
  as many as one hundred, the study of theology and philosophy
  was diligently prosecuted. They embraced also an order of nuns,
  founded by St. Francisca Romana.

  § 112.2. =The Franciscans.=--At the Council of Vienna, in
  A.D. 1312, Clement V. renewed the decree of Nicholas III., and
  by the constitution _Exivi de paradiso_ decided in favour of
  the stricter view (§ 98, 4), but ordered all rigorists to submit
  to their order. But neither this nor the solemn ratification of
  his predecessor’s decisions by John XXII. in A.D. 1317 put an
  end to the division. The contention was now of a twofold kind.
  The =Spirituals= confined their opposition to a rigoristic
  interpretation of the vow of poverty. The =Fraticelli= carried
  their opposition into many other departments. They exaggerated
  the demand of poverty to the utmost, but also repudiated
  the primacy of the pope, the jurisdiction of bishops, the
  admissibility of oaths, etc. In the south of France within
  a few years 115 of them had perished at the stake; and the
  Spirituals also suffered severely.--The Dominicans were the
  cause of a new split in the Seraphic order. The Inquisition
  at Narbonne had, in A.D. 1321, condemned to the stake a Beghard
  who had affirmed, what to the Dominicans seemed a heretical
  proposition, that Christ and the apostles had neither personal
  nor common property. The Franciscans, who, on the plea of a
  pretended transference of their property to the pope, claimed
  to be without possessions, pronounced that proposition orthodox,
  and the Dominicans complained to John XXII. He pronounced
  in favour of the Dominicans, and declared the Franciscans’
  transference of property illusory; and finding this decision
  contrary to decrees of previous popes, he asserted the right
  of any pontiff to reverse the findings of his predecessors. The
  Franciscans were driven more and more into open revolt against
  the pope. They made common cause with the persecuted Spirituals,
  and like them sought support from the Italian Ghibellines and
  the emperor, Louis the Bavarian (§ 110, 3). The pope summoned
  their general, Michael of Cesena, to Avignon; and while detaining
  him there sought unsuccessfully to obtain his deposition by
  the general synod of the order. Michael, with two like-minded
  brothers, William Occam (§ 113, 3) and Bonagratia of Bergamo,
  escaped to Pisa in a ship of war, which the emperor sent for
  them in A.D. 1328. There, in the name of his order, he appealed
  to an œcumenical council to have the papal excommunication and
  deposition annulled which had now been issued against him. After
  the disastrous Italian campaign in A.D. 1330, the excommunicated
  churchmen accompanied the emperor to Munich, where they conducted
  a literary defence of their rights and privileges, and charged
  the pope with a multitude of heresies. Michael died at Munich,
  in A.D. 1342.--After the overthrow of the schismatic Minorite
  pope, Nicholas V. (§ 110, 3), the opposition soon gave in
  its submission. But to the end of his life John XXII. was a
  bloody persecutor of all schismatical Franciscans, who showed
  a fanatical love of martyrdom, rather than abate one iota of
  their opposition to the possession of property.

  § 112.3. The strict and lax tendencies were brought to light in
  connection with successive attempts at reformation. In A.D. 1368
  Paolucci of Foligni founded the fraternity of Sandal-wearers,
  which embraced the remnants of the Cœlestine eremites
  (§ 98, 4). This strict rule was soon modified so as to admit
  of the possession of immovable property and living together
  in conventual establishments. Those who adhered rigidly to the
  original requirements as to seclusion, asceticism, and dress
  were now called =Observants= and the more lax =Conventuals=.
  Crossing the Alps in A.D. 1388, they spread through Europe,
  converting heretics and heathens. Both sections received
  papal encouragement. Their leader for forty years was =John
  of Capistrano=, born A.D. 1386, died A.D. 1456, who inspired
  all their movements, and as a preacher gathered hundreds of
  thousands around him. His predecessor in office, Bernardino
  of Siena, who died in A.D. 1444, was canonized after a hard
  fight in A.D. 1450. John was deputed by the pope in that same
  year to proceed to Austria and Germany to convert the Hussites
  and preach a crusade against the Turks. His greatest feat was
  the repulse, in A.D. 1456, of the Turks, under Mohammed II.,
  before Belgrade, ascribed to him and his crusade, which delivered
  Hungary, Germany, and indeed the whole West, from threatened
  subjection to the Moslem yoke. Capistrano died three months
  afterwards. Notwithstanding all the efforts of his followers,
  his beatification was not secured till A.D. 1690, and the decree
  of canonization was not obtained till A.D. 1724.--Continuation
  § 149, 6.

  § 112.4. =The Dominicans.=--The Dominicans, as they interpreted
  the vow of poverty only of personal and not of common property,
  soon lost the character of a mendicant order.--One of their most
  distinguished members was =St. Catharine of Siena=, who died
  in A.D. 1380, in her thirty-third year. Having taken the vow of
  chastity as a child, living only on bread and herbs, for a time
  only on the eucharistic elements, she was in vision affianced to
  Christ as His bride, and received His heart instead of her own.
  She felt the pains of Christ’s wounds, and, like St. Dominic,
  lashed herself thrice a day with an iron chain. She gained
  unexampled fame, and along with St. Bridget procured the
  return of the pope from Avignon to Rome.--The controversy
  of the Dominicans with the Franciscans over the _immaculata
  conceptio_ (§ 104, 7) was conducted in the most passionate
  manner. The visions of St. Catherine favoured the Dominican,
  those of St. Bridget the Franciscan views; during the schism
  the French popes favoured the former, the Roman popes the
  latter. The Franciscan view gained for the time the ascendency.
  The University of Paris sustained it in A.D. 1387, and made its
  confession a condition of receiving academic rank. The Dominican
  Torquemada combated this doctrine, in A.D. 1437, in his able
  _Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis B. V._ In A.D. 1439, the
  Council of Basel, which was then regarded as schismatical,
  sanctioned the Franciscan doctrine. Sixtus IV., who had
  previously, as general of the Franciscans, supported the views
  of his order in a special treatise, authorized the celebration
  of the festival referred to, but in A.D. 1483 forbade controversy
  on either side. A comedy with a very tragical conclusion was
  enacted at Bern, in connection with this matter in A.D. 1509.
  The Dominicans there deceived a simple tailor called Jetzer, who
  joined them as a novice, with pretended visions and revelation
  of the Virgin, and burned upon him with a hot iron the wound
  prints of the Saviour, and caused an image of the mother of
  God to weep tears of blood over the godless doctrine of the
  Franciscans. When the base trick was discovered, the prior and
  three monks had to atone for their conduct by death at the stake.
  (Continuation § 149, 13.) A new controversy between the two
  orders broke out in A.D. 1462, at Brescia. There, on Easter Day
  of that year, the Franciscan Jacob of Marchia in his preaching
  said that the blood of Christ shed upon the cross, until its
  reassumption by the resurrection, was outside of the hypostatic
  union with the Logos, and therefore as such was not the subject
  of adoration. The grand-inquisitor, Jacob of Brescia, pronounced
  this heretical, and at Christmas, A.D. 1463, a three days’
  disputation was held between three Dominicans and as many
  Minorites before pope and cardinals, which yielded no result.
  Pius II. reserved judgment, and never gave his decision.

  § 112.5. =The Augustinians.=--In A.D. 1432, =Zolter=, at the
  call of the general of the Augustinians, reorganized the order,
  and in A.D. 1438 Pius II. gave a constitution to the Observants.
  The “Union of the Five Convents” founded by him in Saxony and
  Franconia, with Magdeburg as its centre, formed the nucleus of
  =regular Augustinian Observants=, which had =Andrew Proles= of
  Dresden as their vicar-general for a second time in A.D. 1473.
  Notwithstanding bitter opposition, the union spread through
  all Germany, even to the Netherlands. In A.D. 1475 the general
  of the order at Rome took offence at Proles for looking directly
  to the apostolic see, and not to him, for his authority. He
  therefore abolished the institution of vicars, insisted that all
  Observants should return to their allegiance to the provincials,
  and make full restitution of all the cloisters which they had
  appropriated, and empowered the provincial of Saxony to imprison
  and excommunicate Proles and his party, in case of their refusal.
  Proles did not submit, and when the ban was issued appealed
  directly to the pope. A papal commission in A.D. 1477 decided
  that all Observant cloisters placed by the duke under the pope’s
  protection should so continue, confirmed all their privileges,
  and annulled all mandates and anathemas issued against Proles
  and his followers. With redoubled energy and zeal Proles now
  wrought for the extension and consolidation of the congregation
  until A.D. 1503, when he resigned office in his 74th year,
  and soon after died. He was one of the worthiest and most
  pious men in the German Church of his time; but Flacius is
  quite mistaken when he describes him as a precursor of Luther,
  an evangelical martyr and witness for the truth in the sense
  of the Reformation of the 16th century. Energetic and devoted
  as he was in prosecuting his reformation, he gave himself
  purely to the correcting of the morals of the monks and
  restoring discipline; but in zeal for the doctrine of merits,
  the institution of indulgences, mariolatry, saint and image
  worship, and in devotion to the papacy, he and his congregation
  were by no means in advance of the age.

  § 112.6. As his successor in the vicariate the chapter, in
  accordance with the wish of Proles, elected =John von Staupitz=.
  He had been prior of the Augustinian cloister at Tübingen, and
  became professor of theology in the University of Wittenberg,
  in A.D. 1502. Like his predecessor, he devoted himself to
  the interests of the congregation, and by the union which he
  effected between it and the Lombard Observant congregation,
  he greatly increased its importance. In carrying out a plan
  for uniting the Saxon Conventuals with the German Observants
  by combining in his own hand the Saxon provincial priorate with
  the German vicariate, he encountered such difficulties that he
  was obliged to abandon the attempt; but he succeeded thus far,
  that from that time the Conventuals and Observants of Germany
  dwelt in peace side by side. He directed the troubled spirit of
  Luther to the crucified Saviour (§ 122, 1), and thus became the
  spiritual father of the great reformer. The new constitutions
  for the German congregations, proffered by him and accepted
  by the chapter at Nuremberg, A.D. 1504, are characterized by
  earnest recommendations of Scripture study. But of a deep and
  comprehensive evangelical and reformatory application of them
  we find no traces as yet, even in Staupitz; neither do we
  see any zealous study of Augustine’s writings, and consequent
  appreciation of his theological principles, such as is shown
  by the mystics of the 13th and 14th centuries. All this appears
  later in his little treatise “On the Imitation of the Willingly
  Dying Christ” of A.D. 1515. A discourse on predestination
  in A.D. 1517 moves distinctly on Augustinian lines, and the
  mysticism of St. Bernard may be traced in the book “On the
  Love of God” of that same year. True as he was to Luther as
  a counsellor and helper during the first eventful year of
  struggle, the reformer’s protest soon became too violent for
  him, and in A.D. 1520 he resigned his office, withdrew to the
  Benedictine cloister at Salzburg, and died as its abbot in
  A.D. 1524. His continued attachment to the positive tendencies
  of the Reformation is proved by his “Fast Sermons,” delivered
  in A.D. 1523.--His successor =Link=, Luther’s fellow student
  at Magdeburg, was and continued to be an attached friend of
  the reformer. Unsuccessful in his endeavours to remove abuses,
  he resigned office in A.D. 1523, and became evangelical pastor
  in Altenburg, and married. The very small opposition chose in
  place of him Joh. Spangenberg, who, unable to withstand the
  movement among the German Conventuals, as well as among the
  Observants, resigned in A.D. 1529.

  § 112.7. =Overthrow of the Templars.=--The order of Knights
  Templar, whose chief seat was now in Paris and the south of
  France, by rich presents, exactions, and robberies in the
  island of Cyprus, vast commercial speculations and extensive
  money-lending and banking transactions with crusaders and
  pilgrims and needy princes, had acquired immense wealth in
  money and landed property in the East and the West. They
  had in consequence become proud, greedy, and vicious. Their
  independence of the State had long been a thorn in the eye
  of Philip the Fair of France, and their policy was often at
  variance with his. But above all their great wealth excited
  his cupidity. In a letter to a visitor of the order Innocent III.
  had in A.D. 1208 bitterly complained of their unspirituality,
  worldliness, avarice, drunkenness, and study of the black art,
  saying that he refrained from remarking upon yet more shameful
  offences with which they were charged. Stories also were current
  of apostasy to Mohammedanism, sorcery, unnatural vice, etc.
  It was said that they worshipped an idol Baphomet; that a
  black cat appeared in their assemblies; that at initiation
  they abjured Christ, spat on the cross, and trampled it under
  foot. A Templar expelled for certain offences gave evidence in
  support of these charges. Thereupon in A.D. 1307 Philip had all
  Templars in his realm suddenly apprehended. Many admitted their
  guilt amid the tortures of the rack; others voluntarily did so
  in order to escape such treatment. A Parliament assembled at
  Tours in A.D. 1308 heartily endorsed the king’s opinion, and
  the pope, Clement V., was powerless to resist (§ 110, 2). While
  the pope’s commissioners were prosecuting inquiries in all
  countries, Philip without more ado in A.D. 1310 brought to the
  stake one hundred Templars who had retracted their confession.
  The =œcumenical council at Vienne in A.D. 1311=, summoned for
  the final settlement of the matter, refused to give judgment
  without hearing the defence of the accused. But Philip threatened
  the pope till a decree was passed disbanding the order because
  of the suspicion and ill repute into which it had fallen. Its
  property was to go to the Knights of St. John. But a great part
  had already been seized by the princes, especially by Philip.
  Final decision in regard to individuals was committed by the
  pope to the provincial synods of the several countries. Judgment
  on the grand-master, James Molay, and the then chief dignitaries
  of the order, he reserved to himself. Philip paid no attention
  to this, but, when they refused to adhere to their confession
  of guilt, had them burnt in a slow fire at Paris in A.D. 1314.
  Most of the other knights turned to secular employments, many
  entered the ranks of the Knights of St. John, while others ended
  their days in monastic prisons.--Scholars are to this day divided
  in opinion as to the degree of guilt or innocence which may be
  ascribed to the Templars in regard to the serious charges brought
  against them.[330]

  § 112.8. =New Orders.=--In A.D. 1317 the king of Portugal,
  for the protection of his frontier from the Moors, instituted
  the =Order of Christ=, composed of knights and clergy, and to
  it John XXII. in A.D. 1319 gave the privileges of the order
  of Calatrava (§ 98, 13). Alexander VI. released them from the
  vow of poverty and allowed them to marry. The king of Portugal
  was grand-master, and at the beginning of the 16th century
  it had 450 companies and an annual revenue of one and a half
  million livres. In A.D. 1797 it was converted into a secular
  order.--Among the new monkish orders the following are the most
  important:

    1. =Hieronymites=, founded in A.D. 1370 by the Portuguese
       Basco and the Spaniard Pecha as an order of canons regular
       under the rule of Augustine, and confirmed by Gregory XI.
       in A.D. 1373. Devoted to study, they took Jerome as their
       patron, and obtained great reputation in Spain and Italy.

    2. =Jesuates=, founded by Colombini of Siena, who, excited
       by reading legends of the saints, combined with several
       companions in forming this society for self-mortification
       and care of the sick, for which Urban V. prescribed the
       Augustinian rule in A.D. 1367. They greeted all they met
       with the name of Jesus: hence their designation.

    3. =Minimi=, an extreme sect of Minorites (§ 98, 3), founded
       by Francis de Paula in Calabria in A.D. 1436. Their rule
       was extremely strict, and forbade them all use of flesh,
       milk, butter, eggs, etc., so that their mode of life was
       described as _vita quadragesimalis_.

    4. =Nuns of St. Bridget.= To the Swedish princess visions of
       the wounded and bleeding Saviour had come in her childhood.
       Compelled by her parents to marry, she became mother of
       eight children; but at her husband’s death, in A.D. 1344,
       she adopted a rigidly ascetic life, and in A.D. 1363
       founded a cloister at Wedstena for sixty nuns in honour
       of the blessed Virgin, with thirteen priests, four deacons,
       and eight lay brothers in a separate establishment. All were
       under the control of the abbess. She also founded at Rome a
       hospice for Swedish pilgrims and students, made a pilgrimage
       from Rome to Jerusalem, and died at Rome in A.D. 1373.
       The _Revelationes S. Brigittæ_ ascribed to her were in
       high repute during the Middle Ages. They are full of bitter
       invectives against the corrupt papacy; call the pope worse
       than Lucifer, a murderer of the souls committed to him, who
       condemns the guiltless and sells believers for filthy lucre.
       There were seventy-four cloisters of the order spread over
       all Europe. Her successor as abbess of the parent abbey was
       her daughter, St. Catherine of Sweden, who died in A.D. 1381.

    5. The French =Annunciate Order= was founded in A.D. 1501 by
       Joanna of Valois, the divorced wife of Louis XII., and when
       abolished by the French Revolution it numbered forty-five
       nunneries.

  § 112.9. =The Brothers of the Common Life=, a society of pious
  priests, gave themselves to the devotional study of Scripture,
  the exercise of contemplative mysticism, and practical imitation
  of the lowly life of Christ with voluntary observance of the
  three monkish vows, and residing, without any lifelong obligation,
  in unions where things were administered in common. Pious laymen
  were not excluded from their association, and institutions for
  sisters were soon reared alongside of those for the brothers. The
  founder of this organization was Gerhard Groot, _Gerardus magnus_,
  of Deventer in the Netherlands, a favourite pupil of the mystic
  John of Ruysbroek (§ 114, 7). Dying a victim to his benevolence
  during a season of pestilence in A.D. 1384, a year or two after
  the founding of the first union institute, he was succeeded by
  his able pupil and assistant Florentius Radewins, who zealously
  carried on the work he had begun. The house of the brothers at
  Deventer soon became the centre of numerous other houses from
  the Scheld to the Wesel. Florentius added a cloister for regular
  canons at Windesheim, from which went forth the famous cloister
  reformer Burch. The most important of the later foundations of
  this kind was the cloister built on Mount St. Agnes near Zwoll.
  The famous Thomas à Kempis (§ 114, 7) was trained here, and
  wrote the life of Groot and his fellow labourers. Each house was
  presided over by a rector, each sister house by a matron, who was
  called Martha. The brothers supported themselves by transcribing
  spiritual books, the lay brothers by some handicraft; the sisters
  by sewing, spinning, and weaving. Begging was strictly forbidden.
  Besides caring for their own souls’ salvation, the brothers
  sought to benefit the people by preaching, pastoral visitation,
  and instructing the youth. They had as many as 1,200 scholars
  under their care. Hated by the mendicant friars, they were
  accused by a Dominican to the Bishop of Utrecht. This dignitary
  favoured the brothers, and when the Dominican appealed to the
  pope, he applied to the Constance Council of A.D. 1418, where
  Gerson and d’Ailly vigorously supported them. Their accuser was
  compelled to retract, and Martin V. confirmed the brotherhood.
  Though heartily attached to the doctrines of the Catholic Church,
  their biblical and evangelical tendencies formed an unconscious
  preparation for the Reformation (§ 119, 10). A great number
  of the brothers joined the party of the reformers. In the
  17th century the last remnant of them disappeared.[331]




                        II. Theological Science.


                § 113. SCHOLASTICISM AND ITS REFORMERS.

  The University of Paris took the lead, in accordance with the
liberal tendencies of the Gallican Church, in the opposition to
hierarchical pretensions, and was followed by the universities of
Oxford, Prague, and Cologne, in all of which the mendicant friars
were the teachers. Most distinguished among the schoolmen of this
age was John Duns Scotus, whose works formed the doctrinal standard
for the Franciscans, as those of Aquinas did for the Dominicans.
After realism had enjoyed for a long time an uncontested sway, William
Occam, amid passionate battles, successfully introduced nominalism.
But the creative power of scholasticism was well nigh extinct. Even
Duns Scotus is rather an acute critic of the old than an original
creator of new ideas. Miserable quarrels between the schools and a
spiritless formalism now widely prevailed in the lecture halls, as well
as in the treatises of the learned. Moral theology degenerated into
fruitless casuistry and abstruse discussion on subtly devised cases
where there appeared a collision of duties. But from all sides there
arose complaint and contradiction. On the one side were some who made
a general complaint without striking at the roots of the evil. They
suggested the adoption of a better method, or the infusion of new life
by the study of Scripture and the Fathers, and a return to mysticism.
To this class belonged the Brothers of the Common Life (§ 112, 9) and
d’Ailly and Gerson, the supporters of the Constance reforms (§ 118, 4).
Here too we may place the talented father of natural theology, Raimund
of Sabunde, and the brilliant Nicholas of Cusa, in whom all the nobler
aspirations of mediæval ecclesiastical science were concentrated. But
on the other side was the radical opposition, consisting of the German
mystics (§ 114), the English and Bohemian reformers (§ 119), and the
Humanists (§ 120).

  § 113.1. =John Duns Scotus.=--The date of birth, whether
  A.D. 1274 or A.D. 1266, and the place of birth, whether in
  Scotland, Ireland, or England, of this Franciscan hero, honoured
  with the title _doctor subtilis_, are uncertain; even the place
  and manner of his training are unknown. After lecturing with
  great success at Oxford, he went in A.D. 1304 to Paris, where
  he obtained the degree of doctor, and successfully vindicated
  the _immaculata conceptio B. V._ (§ 104, 7) against the Thomists.
  Summoned to Cologne in A.D. 1308 to engage in controversy with
  the Beghards, he displayed great skill in dialectics, but died
  during that same year. His chief work, a commentary on the
  Lombard, was composed at Oxford. His answers to the questions
  proposed for his doctor’s degree were afterwards wrought up
  into the work entitled _Quæstiones quodlibetales_. The opponent
  and rival of Thomas, he controverted his doctrine at every point,
  as well as the doctrines of Alexander and Bonaventura of his own
  order, and other shining stars of the 13th century. In subtlety
  of thought and dialectic power he excelled them all, but in
  depth of feeling, profundity of mind, and ardour of faith he
  was far behind them. Proofs of doctrines interested him more
  than the doctrines themselves. To philosophy he assigns a purely
  theoretical, to theology a pre-eminently practical character,
  and protests against the Thomist commingling of the two. He
  accepts the doctrine of a twofold truth (§ 103, 3), basing it
  on the fall. Granting that the Bible is the only foundation
  of religious knowledge, but contending that the Church under
  the Spirit’s guidance has advanced ever more and more in the
  development of it, he readily admits that many a point in
  constitution, doctrine, and worship cannot be established from
  the Bible; _e.g._ immaculate conception, clerical celibacy,
  etc. He has no hesitation in contradicting even Augustine and
  St. Bernard from the standpoint of a more highly developed
  doctrine of the Church.

  § 113.2. =Thomists and Scotists.=--The Dominicans and Franciscans
  were opposed as followers respectively of Thomas and of Scotus.
  Thomas regarded individuality, _i.e._ the fact that everything
  is an individual, every _res_ is a _hæc_, as a limitation and
  defect; while Duns saw in this _hæcitas_ a mark of perfection
  and the true end of creation. Thomas also preferred the Platonic,
  and Duns the Aristotelian realism. In theology Duns was opposed
  to Thomas in maintaining an unlimited arbitrary will in God,
  according to which God does not choose a thing because it is
  good, but the thing chosen is good because He chooses it. Thomas
  therefore was a determinist, and in his doctrine of sin and
  grace adopted a moderate Augustinianism (§ 53, 5), while Duns
  was a semipelagian. The atonement was viewed by Thomas more in
  accordance with the theory of Anselm, for he assigned to the
  merits of Christ as the God-Man infinite worth, _satisfactio
  superabundans_, which is in itself more than sufficient
  for redemption; but Duns held that the merits of Christ were
  sufficient only as accepted by the free will of God, _acceptatio
  gratuita_. The Scotists also most resolutely contended for
  the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, while
  the Thomists as passionately opposed it.--Among the immediate
  disciples of Duns the most celebrated was =Francis Mayron=,
  teacher at the Sorbonne, who died in A.D. 1325 and was dignified
  with the title _doctor illuminatus_ or _acutus_. The most notable
  of the Thomists was =Hervæus Natalis=, who died in A.D. 1323
  as general of the Dominicans. Of the later Thomists the most
  eminent was =Thomas Bradwardine=, _doctor profundus_, a man of
  deep religious earnestness, who accused his age of Pelagianism,
  and vindicated the truth in opposition to this error in his _De
  causa Dei c. Pelagium_. He began teaching at Oxford, afterwards
  accompanied Edward III. as his confessor and chaplain on his
  expeditions in France, and died in A.D. 1349 a few weeks after
  his appointment to the archbishopric of Canterbury.[332]

  § 113.3. =Nominalists and Realists.=--After nominalism
  (§ 99, 2) in the person of Roscelin had been condemned by the
  Church (§ 101, 3) realism held sway for more than two centuries.
  Both Thomas and Duns supported it. By sundering philosophy
  and theology Duns opened the way to freer discussion, so that
  by-and-by nominalism won the ascendency, and at last scarcely
  any but the precursors of the Reformation (§ 119) were to be
  found in the ranks of the realists. The pioneer of the movement
  was the Englishman =William Occam=, a Franciscan and pupil of
  Duns, who as teacher of philosophy in Paris obtained the title
  _doctor singularis et invincibilis_, and was called by later
  nominalists _venerabilis inceptor_. He supported the _Spirituals_
  (§ 112, 2) in the controversies within his order. He accompanied
  his general, Michael of Cesena, to Avignon, and escaping with
  him in A.D. 1328 from threatened imprisonment, lived at Munich
  till his death in A.D. 1349. There, protected by Louis the
  Bavarian, he vindicated imperial rights against papal pretensions,
  and charged various heresies against the pope (§ 118, 2). In
  philosophy and theology he was mainly influenced by Scotus.
  In accordance with his nominalistic principles he assumed the
  position in theology that our ideas derived from experience
  cannot reach to a knowledge of the supernatural; and thus he
  may be called a precursor of Kant (§ 171, 10). The _universalia_
  are mere _fictiones_ (§ 99, 2), things that do not correspond to
  our notions; the world of ideas agrees not with that of phenomena,
  and so the unity of faith and knowledge, of theological and
  philosophical truth, asserted by realists, cannot be maintained
  (§ 103, 2). Faith rests on the authority of Scripture and the
  decisions of the Church; criticism applied to the doctrines of
  the Church reduces them to a series of antinomies.--In A.D. 1339
  the University of Paris forbade the reading of Occam’s works, and
  soon after formally condemned nominalism. Thomists and Scotists
  forgot their own differences to combine against Occam; but all
  in vain, for the Occamists were recruited from all the orders.
  The Constance reform party too supported him (§ 118, 4).[333]
  Of the Thomists who succeeded to Occam the most distinguished
  was =William Durand= of St. Pourçain, _doct. resolutissimus_,
  who died in A.D. 1322 as Bishop of Meaux. =Muertius of Inghen,=
  one of the founders of the University of Heidelberg in A.D. 1386
  and its first rector, was also a zealous nominalist. The last
  notable schoolman of the period was =Gabriel Biel= of Spires,
  teacher of theology at Tübingen, who died A.D. 1495, a nominalist
  and an admirer of Occam. He was a vigorous supporter of the
  doctrine of the immaculate conception, and delivered public
  discourses on the “Ethics” of Aristotle.

  § 113.4. =Casuistry=, or that part of moral theology which
  seeks to provide a complete guide to the solution of difficult
  cases of conscience, especially where there is collision of
  duties, moral or ecclesiastical, makes its first appearance in
  the penitentials (§ 89, 6), and had a great impetus given it in
  the compulsory injunction of auricular confession (§ 104, 4). It
  was also favoured by the hair-splitting character of scholastic
  dialectics. The first who elaborated it as a distinct science
  was Raimundus [Raimund] de Pennaforte, who besides his works on
  canon law (§ 99, 5), wrote about A.D. 1238 a _summa de casibus
  pœnitentialibus_. This was followed by the Franciscan _Antesana_,
  the Dominican _Pisana_, and the Angelica of the Genoese Angelus
  of A.D. 1482, which Luther in A.D. 1520 burned along with the
  papal bull and decretals. The views of the different casuists
  greatly vary, and confuse rather than assist the conscience.
  Out of them grew the doctrine of probabilism (§ 149, 10).

  § 113.5. =The Founder of Natural Theology.=--The Spaniard
  =Raimund of Sabunde= settled as a physician in Toulouse in
  A.D. 1430, but afterwards turned his attention to theology.
  Seeing the need of infusing new life into the corrupt
  scholasticism, he sought to rescue it from utter formalism and
  fruitless casuistry by a return to simple, clear, and rational
  thinking. Anselm of Canterbury was his model of a clear and
  profound thinker and believing theologian (§ 101, 1). He also
  turned for stimulus and instruction to the book of nature.
  The result of his studies is seen in his _Theologia naturalis
  s. liber creaturarum_, published in A.D. 1436. God’s book
  of nature, in which every creature is as it were a letter,
  is the first and simplest source of knowledge accessible to
  the unlearned layman, and the surest, because free from all
  falsifications of heretics. But the fall and God’s plan of
  salvation have made an addition to it necessary, and this we
  have in the Scripture revelation. The two books coming from the
  one author cannot be contradictory, but only extend, confirm,
  and explain one another. The facts of revelation are the
  necessary presupposition or consequences of the book of nature.
  From the latter all religious knowledge is derivable by ascending
  through the four degrees of creation, _esse_, _vivere_, _sentire_,
  and _intelligere_, to the knowledge of man, and thence to the
  knowledge of the Creator as the highest and absolute unity, and
  by arguing that the acknowledgment of human sinfulness involved
  an admission of the need of redemption, which the book of
  revelation shows to be a fact. In carrying out this idea Raimund
  attaches himself closely to Anselm in his scientific reconciling
  of the natural and revealed idea of God and redemption. Although
  he never expressly contradicted any of the Church doctrines, the
  Council of Trent put the prologue of his book into the _Index
  prohibitorum_.

  § 113.6. =Nicholas of Cusa= was born in A.D. 1401 at Cues,
  near Treves, and was originally called Krebs. Trained first by
  the Brothers at Deventer (§ 112, 9), he afterwards studied law
  at Padua. The failure of his first case led him to begin the
  study of theology. As archdeacon of Liège he attended the Basel
  Council, and there by mouth and pen supported the view that the
  council is superior to the pope, but in A.D. 1440 he passed over
  to the papal party. On account of his learning, address, and
  eloquence he was often employed by Eugenius IV. and Nicholas V.
  in difficult negotiations. He was made cardinal in A.D. 1448,
  an unheard of honour for a German prelate. In A.D. 1450 he was
  made bishop of Brixen, but owing to a dispute with Sigismund,
  Archduke of Austria, he suffered several years’ hard imprisonment.
  He died in A.D. 1464 at Todi in Umbria. His principal work
  is _De docta ignorantia_, which shows, in opposition to proud
  scholasticism, that the absolute truth about God in the world
  is not attainable by men. His theological speculation approaches
  that of Eckhart, and like it is not free from pantheistic
  elements. God is for him the absolute maximum, but is also the
  absolute minimum, since He cannot be greater or less than He is.
  He begets of Himself His likeness, _i.e._ the Son, and He again
  turns back as Holy Spirit into unity. The world again is the
  aggregated maximum. His _Dialogus de pace_, occasioned by the
  fall of Constantinople in A.D. 1453, represents Christianity
  as the most perfect of all religions, but recognises in all
  others, even in Islam, essential elements of eternal truth.
  Like Roger Bacon (§ 103, 8), he assigns a prominent place to
  mathematics and astronomy, and in his _De separatione Calendarii_
  of A.D. 1436 he recommended reforms in the calendar which were
  only effected in A.D. 1582 by Gregory XIII. (§ 149, 3). He
  detected the pseudo-Isidore (§ 87, 2) and the Donation of
  Constantine (§ 87, 4) frauds.

  § 113.7. =Biblical and Practical Theologians.=

    1. The Franciscan =Nicholas of Lyra=, _doctor planus et utilis_,
       a Jewish convert from Normandy, and teacher of theology at
       Paris, did good service as a grammatico-historical exegete
       and an earnest expositor of Scripture. Luther gratefully
       acknowledges the help he got in his Bible translation from
       the postils of Lyra.[334] He died in A.D. 1340.

    2. =Antonine of Florence= played a prominent part at the
       Florentine Council of A.D. 1439, and was threatened
       by Eugenius IV. with the loss of his archbishopric. He
       discharged his duties with great zeal, especially during
       a plague and famine in A.D. 1448, and during the earthquake
       which destroyed half of the city in A.D. 1457. As an earnest
       preacher, an unwearied pastor, and upright churchman he was
       universally admired, and was canonized by Hadrian VI. in
       A.D. 1523. He had a high reputation as a writer. His _Summa
       historialis_ is a chronicle of universal history reaching
       down to his own time; and his _Summa theologica_ is a
       popular outline of the Thomist doctrine.

    3. The learned and famous abbot =John Trithemius=, born
       in A.D. 1462, after studying at Treves and Heidelberg,
       entered in A.D. 1487 the Benedictine cloister of Sponheim,
       became its abbot in the following year, resigned office
       in A.D. 1505 owing to a rebellion among his monks, and
       died in A.D. 1516 as abbot of the Scottish cloister of
       St. James at Würzburg. Influenced by Wessel’s reforming
       movement (§ 119, 10), he urged the duty of Scripture study
       and prayer, but still practised and commended the most
       extravagant adoration of Mary and Ann. Though he was keenly
       alive to the absurdity of certain forms of superstition,
       he was himself firmly bound within its coils. He lashed
       unsparingly the vices of the monks, but regarded the
       monastic life as the highest Christian ideal. He pictured
       in dark colours the deep and widespread corruption of the
       Church, and was yet the most abject slave of the hierarchy
       which fostered that corruption.


                    § 114. THE GERMAN MYSTICS.[335]

  The schoolmen of the 13th century, with the exception of
Bonaventura, had little sympathy with mysticism, and gave their whole
attention to the development of doctrine (§ 99, 1). The 14th century
was the Augustan age of mysticism. Germany, which had already in
the previous period given Hugo of St. Victor and the two divines of
Reichersberg (§ 102, 4, 6), was its proper home. Its most distinguished
representatives belonged to the preaching orders, and its recognised
grand-master was the Dominican Meister Eckhart. This specifically
German mysticism cast away completely the scholastic modes of thought
and expression, and sought to arrive at Christian truth by entirely new
paths. It appealed, not to the understanding and cultured reason of the
learned, but to the hearts and spirits of the people, in order to point
them the surest way to union with God. The mystics therefore wrote
neither commentaries on the Lombard nor gigantic _summæ_ of their own
composition, but wrought by word and writing to meet immediate pressing
needs. They preached lively sermons and wrote short treatises, not in
Latin, but in the homely mother tongue. This popular form however did
not prevent them from conveying to their readers and hearers profound
thoughts, the result of keen speculation; but that in this they did
not go over the heads of the people is shown by the crowds that flocked
to their preaching. The “Friends of God” proved a spiritual power
over many lands (§ 116, 4). From the practical prophetic mysticism
of the 12th and 13th centuries (§§ 107; 108, 5) it was distinguished
by avoiding the visionary apocalyptic and magnetic somnambulistic
elements through a better appreciation of science; and from the
scholastic mysticism of that earlier age (§§ 102, 3, 4, 6; 103, 4)
by abandoning allegory and the scholastic framework for the elevation
of the soul to God, as well as by indulgence in a somewhat pantheistic
speculation on God and the world, man and the God-Man, on the
incarnation and birth of God in us, on our redemption, sanctification,
and final restoration. Its younger representatives however cut off all
pantheistic excrescences, and thus became more practical and edifying,
though indeed with the loss of speculative power. In this way they
brought themselves more into sympathy with another mystic tendency
which was spreading through the Netherlands under the influence of
the Flemish canon, John of Ruysbroek. In France too mysticism again
made its appearance during the 15th century in the persons of d’Ailly
and Gerson (§ 118, 4), in a form similar to that which it had assumed
during the 12th and 13th centuries in the Victorines and Bonaventura.

  § 114.1. =Meister Eckhart.=--One of the profoundest
  thinkers of all the Christian centuries was the Dominican
  Meister Eckhart, the true father of German speculative mysticism.
  Born in Strassburg about A.D. 1260, he studied at Cologne under
  Albert the Great, but took his master’s degree at Paris in
  A.D. 1303. He had already been for some years prior at Erfurt
  and provincial vicar of Thuringia. In A.D. 1304 he was made
  provincial of Saxony, and in A.D. 1307 vicar-general of Bohemia.
  In both positions he did much for the reform of the cloisters
  of his order. In A.D. 1311 we find him teacher in Paris;
  then for some years teaching and preaching in Strassburg;
  afterwards officiating as prior at Frankfort; and finally as
  private teacher at Cologne, where he died in A.D. 1327. While
  at Frankfort in A.D. 1320 he was suspected of heresy because
  of alleged intercourse with Beghards (§ 98, 12) and Brothers
  of the Free Spirit (§ 116, 5). In A.D. 1325 the archbishop
  of Cologne renewed these charges, but Eckhart succeeded in
  vindicating himself. The archbishop now set up an inquisition
  of his own, but from its sentence Eckhart appealed to the pope,
  lodged a protest, and then of his own accord in the Dominican
  church of Cologne, before the assembled congregation, solemnly
  declared that the charge against him rested upon misrepresentation
  and misunderstanding, but that he was then and always ready to
  withdraw anything that might be erroneous. The papal judgment,
  given two years after Eckhart’s death, pronounced twenty-eight
  of his propositions to be pantheistic in their tendency,
  seventeen being heretical and eleven dangerous. He was therefore
  declared to be suspected of heresy. The bull, contrary to reason
  and truth, went on to say that Eckhart at the end of his life
  had retracted and submitted all his writings and doctrines
  to the judgment of the Holy See. But Eckhart had indignantly
  protested against the charge of pantheism, and certainly in his
  doctrine of God and the creature, of the high nobility of the
  human soul, of retirement and absorption into God, he has always
  kept within the limits of Christian knowledge and life. Attaching
  himself to the Platonic and Neoplatonic doctrines, which are met
  with also in Albert and Thomas, and appealing to the acknowledged
  authorities of the Church, especially the Areopagite, Augustine,
  and Aquinas, Eckhart with great originality composed a singularly
  comprehensive and profound system of religious knowledge.
  Although in all his writings aiming primarily at quickening and
  edification, he always grounds his endeavours on a theoretical
  investigation of the nature of the thing. But knowledge is for
  him essentially union of the knowing subject with the object to
  be known, and the highest stage of knowledge is the intuition
  where all finite things sink into the substance of Deity.[336]

  § 114.2. =Mystics of Upper Germany after Eckhart.=--A noble band
  of mystics arose during the 14th and 15th centuries influenced
  by Eckhart’s writings, who carefully avoided pantheistic extremes
  by giving a thoroughly practical direction to their speculation.
  Nearest to Eckhart stands the author of “=The German Theology=,”
  in which the master’s principles are nobly popularized and
  explained. Luther, who took it for a work of Tauler, and
  published it in A.D. 1516, characterized it as “a noble little
  book, showing what Adam and Christ are, and how Adam should
  die and Christ live in us.” In the most complete MS. of this
  tract, found in A.D. 1850, the author is described as a “Friend
  of God.”--The Dominican =John Tauler= was born at Strassburg,
  studied at Paris, and came into connection with Eckhart, whose
  mysticism, without its pantheistic tendencies, he adopted. When
  Strassburg was visited with the Black Death, he laboured as
  preacher and pastor among the stricken with heroic devotion.
  Though the city was under an interdict (§ 110, 3), the Dominicans
  persisted for a whole year in reading mass, and were stopped
  only by the severe threats of the master of their order. The
  magistrates gave them the alternative either to discharge their
  official duties or leave the city. Tauler now, in A.D. 1341,
  retired to Basel, and afterwards to Cologne. In A.D. 1437
  we find him again in Strassburg, where he died in A.D. 1361.
  His thirty sermons, with some other short tracts, appeared
  at Leipzig in A.D. 1498. The most important of all Tauler’s
  works is, “The Imitation of the Poverty of Christ.” It was
  thought to be of French authorship, but is now admitted to be
  Tauler’s.[337]--=Rulman Merswin=, a rich merchant of Strassburg,
  in his fortieth year, A.D. 1347, with his wife’s consent,
  retired from his business and forsook the world, gave his
  wealth to charities, and bought in A.D. 1366 an old, abandoned
  convent near the city, which he restored and presented to the
  order of St. John. Here he spent the remainder of his days in
  pious contemplation, amid austerities and mortifications and
  favoured with visions. He died in A.D. 1382. Four years after
  his conversion he attained to clear conceptions and inner
  peace. His chief work, composed in A.D. 1352, “The Book of the
  Nine Rocks,” was long ascribed to Suso. It is full of bitter
  complaints against the moral and religious corruption of all
  classes, and earnest warnings of Divine judgment. Its starting
  point is a vision. From the fountains in the high mountains
  stream many brooks over the rocks into the valley, and thence
  into the sea; multitudes of fishes transport themselves from
  their lofty home, and are mostly taken in nets, only a few
  succeed in reaching their home again by springing over these
  nine rocks. At the request of the “Friend of God from the
  Uplands” he wrote the “Four Years from the Beginning of Life.”
  His “Banner Tract” describes the conflict with and victory
  over the Brothers of the Free Spirit under the banner of
  Lucifer (§ 116, 4, 5).

  § 114.3. =The Friend of God in the Uplands.=--In a book
  entitled “The Story of Tauler’s Conversion,” originally called
  “The Master’s Book,” but now assigned to Nicholas of Basel,
  it is told that in A.D. 1346 a great “Master of Holy Scripture”
  preached in an unnamed city, and that soon his fame spread
  through the land. A layman living in the Uplands, thirty miles
  off, was directed in a vision thrice over to go to seek this
  Friend of God, companion of Rulman. He listened to his preaching,
  chose him as his confessor, and then sought to show him that
  he had not yet the true consecration. Like a child the master
  submitted to be taught the elements of piety of religion
  by the layman, and at his command abstaining from all study
  and preaching for two years, gave himself to meditation and
  penitential exercises. When he resumed his preaching his success
  was marvellous. After nine years’ labour, feeling his end
  approaching, he gave to the layman an account of his conversion.
  The latter arranged his materials, and added five sermons of
  the master, and sent the little book, in A.D. 1369, to a priest
  of Rulman’s cloister near Strassburg. In A.D. 1486 the master
  was identified with Tauler. This however is contradicted by
  its contents. The historical part is improbable and incredible,
  and its chronology irreconcilable with known facts of Tauler’s
  life. We find no trace of the original ideas or characteristic
  eloquence of Tauler; while the language and homiletical
  arrangement of the sermons are quite different from those
  of the great Dominican preacher.

  § 114.4. =Nicholas of Basel.=--After long hiding from the
  emissaries of the Inquisition the layman Nicholas of Basel,
  in extreme old age, was taken with two companions, and burned
  at Vienna, as a heretic, between A.D. 1393-1408. He has been
  identified by Schmidt of Strassburg with the “Friend of God.”
  This is more than doubtful, since of the sixteen heresies,
  for the most part of a Waldensian character, charged against
  Nicholas, no trace is found in the writings of the Friend of
  God; while it is made highly probable by Denifle’s researches
  that the “Friend of God” was but a name assumed by Rulman Merswin.

  § 114.5. =Henry Suso=, born A.D. 1295, entered the Dominican
  cloister of Constance in his 13th year. When eighteen years old
  he took the vow, and till his twenty-second year unceasingly
  practised the strictest asceticism, in imitation of the
  sufferings of Christ. He completed his studies, A.D. 1325-1328,
  under Eckhart at Cologne, and on the death of his pious mother
  withdrew into the cloister, where he became reader and afterwards
  prior. The first work which he here published, in A.D. 1335, the
  “Book of the Truth,” is strongly influenced by the spirit of his
  master. Accused as a heretic, he was deposed from the priorship
  in A.D. 1336. His “Book of Eternal Wisdom” was the favourite
  reading of all lovers of German mysticism. Blending the knight’s
  and fanatic’s idea of love with the Solomonic conception of
  Wisdom, which he identifies sometimes with God, sometimes with
  Christ, sometimes with Mary, he chose her for his beloved,
  and was favoured by her with frequent visions and was honoured
  with the title of “Amandus.”--Like most of his fellow monks at
  Constance, Suso was a supporter of the pope in his contest with
  Louis the Bavarian, while the city sided with the emperor. When,
  in A.D. 1339, the monks, in obedience to the papal interdict,
  refused to perform public worship, they were expelled by the
  magistrates. In his fortieth year Suso had begun his painful
  career of self-discipline, which he carried so far as to endanger
  his life. Now driven away as an exile, he began his singularly
  fruitful wanderings, during which, passing from cloister to
  cloister as an itinerant preacher, he became either personally
  or through correspondence most intimately acquainted with all
  the most notable of the friends of mysticism, and made many
  new friends in all ranks, especially among women. In A.D. 1346,
  along with eight companions, he ventured to return to Constance.
  There however he met with his sorest trial. An immoral woman,
  who pretended to him that she sorrowed over and repented of her
  sins, while really she continued in the practice of them, and
  was therefore turned away by him, took her revenge by charging
  him with being the father of the child she was about to bear.
  Probably this painful incident was the occasion of his retiring
  into the monastery of Ulm, where he died in A.D. 1366. In him
  the poetic and romantic element overshadowed the speculative,
  and in his attachment to ecclesiastical orthodoxy he kept aloof
  from all reformatory movements.

  § 114.6. =Henry of Nördlingen= is only slightly known to us
  by the letters which he sent to his lady friend, the Dominican
  nun =Margaret Ebner=. He was spiritually related to Tauler,
  as well as to Suso, and shared with the great preacher in his
  sorrows over the calamities of the age, which his sensitive
  nature felt in no ordinary degree during enforced official
  idleness under the interdict. His mysticism, by its sweetly
  sentimental character, as well as by its superstitious tendency
  to reverence Mary and relics, was essentially distinguished
  from that of Tauler. His friend Margaret, who had also a
  spiritual affinity to Tauler, and was highly esteemed by all
  the “Friends of God,” was religiously and politically, as a
  supporter of the anathematized emperor, much more decided.
  In depth of thought and power of expression however she
  is quite inferior to the earlier Thuringian prophetesses
  (§ 107, 2).--=Hermann of Fritzlar=, a rich and pious layman,
  is supposed to have written, A.D. 1343-1349, a life of the
  saints in the order of the calendar, as a picture of heart
  purity, with mystic reflections and speculations based on the
  legendary matter, and all expressed in pure and simple German.
  Hermann, however, was only the author of the plan, and the actual
  writer was a Dominican of Erfurt, =Giseler of Slatheim=.--A
  Franciscan in Basel, =Otto of Passau=, published, in A.D. 1386,
  “The Four-and-Twenty Elders, or the Golden Throne,” which became
  a very popular book of devotion, in which the twenty-four elders
  of Revelation iv. 4, one after another, show the loving soul
  how to win for himself a golden throne in heaven. Passages of
  an edifying and contemplative description from the Fathers and
  teachers of the Church down to the 13th century are selected by
  the author, and adapted to the use of the unlearned “Friends of
  God” in a German translation.

  § 114.7. =Mystics of the Netherlands.=

    1. =John of Ruysbroek= was born, in A.D. 1298, in the village
       of Ruysbroek, near Brussels. In youth he was addicted more
       to pious contemplation than to scholastic studies, and
       in his sixtieth year he resigned his position as secular
       priest in Brussels, and retired into a convent of regular
       canons (§ 97, 3) near Brussels, where he died as its prior
       in A.D. 1481, when eighty-eight years old. He was called
       _doctor ecstaticus_, because he regarded his mystical
       views, which he developed amid pious contemplation in the
       shades of the forest, and there wrote out in Flemish speech,
       as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His mysticism was
       essentially theistic. The _unio mystica_ consisted not
       in the deification of man, but was wrought only through
       the free grace of God in Christ without the loss of man’s
       own personality. His genuine practical piety led him to
       see in the moral depravity of the clergy, not less than
       of the people generally, the cause of the decay of the
       Church, so that even the person of the pope did not escape
       his reproof. Numerous pilgrims from far and near sought
       the pious sage for counsel and quickening. His favourite
       disciple was Gerhard Groot of Deventer, who impressed
       much of his master’s spirit upon the brotherhood of the
       Common Life (§ 112, 9).--Of this noble school of mystics
       the three following were the most distinguished.

    2. =Hendrik Mande=, who died A.D. 1430, impressed by a sermon
       of Groot’s, and favoured during a long illness by visions,
       abandoned the life of a courtier for the fellowship of
       the Brethren of Deventer, and in A.D. 1395 entered the
       cloister of Windesheim, to which he bequeathed his wealth,
       and where he continued to enjoy visions of the Saviour and
       the saints. His works, written in Dutch, are characterized
       by spirituality and depth of feeling, copious and
       appropriate imagery, and great moral earnestness.

    3. =Gerlach Peters= was the favourite scholar of Florentius
       in Deventer. He subsequently entered the monastery of
       Windesheim, where, after a painful illness, he died in
       A.D. 1411, in his thirty-third year. “An ardent spirit
       in a body of skin and bone,” praising God for his terrible
       bodily sufferings as a means of grace bestowed on him,
       his devotion reaches the sublimest heights of enthusiasm.
       He wrote the _Soliloquium_, the voice of a man who has
       daily struggled in God’s presence to free his heart from
       worldly bonds, and by God’s grace in the cross of Christ
       to have Adam’s purity restored and union with the highest
       good secured.

    4. =Thomas à Kempis=, formerly Hamerken, was born in A.D. 1380
       at Kempen, near Cologne. He was educated at Deventer, and
       died as sub-prior of the convent of St. Agnes, near Zwoll,
       in A.D. 1471. To him, and not to the chancellor Gerson,
       according to the now universally accepted opinion, belongs
       the world renowned book _De Imitatione Christi_. Reprinted
       about five thousand times, oftener than any other book
       except the Bible, it has been also translated into more
       languages than any other. Free from all Romish superstition,
       it is read by Catholics and Protestants, and holds an
       unrivalled position as a book of devotion. A photographic
       reproduction of the original edition of A.D. 1441 was
       published from the autograph MSS. of Thomas, by Ch. Ruelans,
       London, 1879.[338]




                    III. The Church and the People.


           § 115A. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
                             OF THE PEOPLE.

  Preaching in the vernacular was carried on mainly by the Brothers
of the Common Life, the mystics, and several heretical sects, _e.g._
Waldensians, Wiclifites, Hussites, etc.; and stimulated by their
example, others began to follow the same practice. The so called
_Biblia pauperum_ set forth in pictures the New Testament history
with its Old Testament types and prophecies; _Bible Histories_ made
known among the people the Scripture stories in a connected form; and,
after the introduction of printing, the German _Plenaries_ helped also
to spread the knowledge of God’s word by renderings for private use of
the principal parts of the service. For the instruction of the people
in faith and morals a whole series of _Catechisms_ was constructed
after a gradually developed type. The “Dance of Death” in its various
forms reminded of the vanity of all earthly pleasures. The spirit of
the Reformation was shown during this period in the large number of
hymns written in the vernacular. Church music too received a powerful
impulse.

  § 115.1. =Fasts and Festivals.=--New =Mary Festivals= were
  introduced: _F. præsentationis M._ on 21st Nov. (Lev. xii. 5-8),
  _F. visitationis M._ (Luke i. 39-51), on 2nd July. In the
  15th century we meet with the festivals of the Seven Pains of
  Mary, _F. Spasmi M._, on Friday or Saturday before Palm Sunday.
  Dominic instituted a rosary festival, _F. rosarii M._, on 1st
  Oct., and its general observance was enjoined by Gregory XIII.
  in A.D. 1571.--The =Veneration of Ann= (§ 57, 2) was introduced
  into Germany in the second half of the 15th century, but soon
  rose to a height almost equal to that of Mary.--The =Fasts= of
  the early Church (§ 56, 7) had, even during the previous period,
  been greatly relaxed. Now the most special fast days were mere
  days of abstinence from flesh, while most lavish meals of fish
  and farinaceous food were indulged in. Papal and episcopal
  dispensations from fasting were also freely given.

  § 115.2. =Preaching= (§ 104, 1).--To aid and encourage preaching
  in the language of the people, unskilled preachers were supplied
  with _Vocabularia prædicantium_. Surgant, a priest of Basel,
  wrote, in the end of the 15th century, a treatise on homiletics
  and catechetics most useful for his age, _Manuale Curatorum_.
  In it he showed how Latin sermons might be rendered into the
  tongue of the people, and urged the duty of hearing sermons.
  The mendicants were the chief preachers, especially the mystics
  of the preaching orders, during the 14th century (§ 114), and
  the Augustinians, particularly their German Observants, during
  the 15th (§ 112, 5), and next to them, the Franciscans.--The
  most zealous preacher of his age was the Spanish Dominican
  =Vincent Ferrér=. In A.D. 1397 he began his unprecedentedly
  successful preaching tours through Spain, France, Italy, England,
  Scotland, and Ireland. He died in A.D. 1419. He laboured with
  special ardour for the conversion of the Jews, of whom he is
  said to have baptized 35,000. Wherever he went he was venerated
  as a saint, received with respect by the clergy and prelates,
  highly honoured by kings and princes, consulted by rich and
  poor regarding temporal and spiritual things. He was canonized
  by Calixtus III. in A.D. 1455. Certain Flagellants (§ 116, 3)
  whom he met in his travels followed him, scourging themselves
  and singing his penitential songs, but he stopped this when
  objected to by the Council of Constance. His sermons dealt
  with the realities of actual life, and called all classes
  to repent of their sins. Of a similar spirit was the Italian
  Dominican =Barletta=, who died in A.D. 1480, whose burlesque
  and scathing satire rendered him the most popular preacher
  of the day. In his footsteps went the Frenchmen =Maillard=
  and =Menot=, both Franciscans, and the German priest of
  Strassburg, =Geiler of Kaisersberg=, quite equal to them in
  quaint terseness of expression and biting wit. All these were
  preeminently distinguished for moral earnestness and profound
  spirituality.[339]

  § 115.3. =The _Biblia Pauperum_.=--The typological
  interpretation of the Old Testament history received a fixed
  and permanent form in the illustrations introduced into the
  service books and pictures printed on the altars, walls, and
  windows of churches, etc., during the 12th century. A set of
  seventeen such picture groups was found at Vienna, of which the
  middle panels represent the New Testament history, _sub gracia_,
  above it an Old Testament type from the period _ante legem_, and
  under it one from the period _sub lege_. This picture series was
  completed by the =Biblia pauperum=, so called from the saying
  of Gregory I., that pictures were the poor man’s Bible. Many of
  the extant MSS., all depending on a common source, date from the
  14th and 15th centuries. The illustrations of the New Testament
  are in the middle, and round about are pictures of the four
  prophets, with volumes in their hands, on which the appropriate
  Old Testament prophecies are written. On right and left are Old
  Testament types. The multiplication of copies of this work by
  woodcuts and types was one of the first uses to which printing
  was put.[340]

  § 115.4. =The Bible in the Vernacular.=--The need of
  =translations of the Bible= into the language of the people,
  specially urged by the Waldensians and Albigensians, was now
  widely insisted upon by those of reformatory tendencies (§ 119).
  On the introduction of printing, about A.D. 1450, an opportunity
  was afforded of rapidly circulating translations already made
  in most of the European languages. Before Luther, there were
  fourteen printed editions of the Bible in High and five in Low
  German. The translations, made from the Vulgate, were in all
  practically the same. The translators are unknown. The diction
  is for the most part clumsy, and the sense often scarcely
  intelligible. Translations had been made in England by the
  Wiclifites, and in Bohemia by the Hussites. In France, various
  renderings of separate books of Scripture were circulated,
  and a complete French Bible was issued by the confessor of
  Charles VIII., Jean de Rely, at Paris, in A.D. 1487. Two
  Italian Bibles were published in Venice, in A.D. 1471, one by
  the Camaldulite abbot Malherbi, closely following the Vulgate;
  the other by the humanist Bruccioli, which often falls back
  on the original text. The latter was highly valued by Italian
  exiles of the Reformation age. In Spain a Carthusian, Ferreri,
  attempted a translation, which was printed at Valencia in
  A.D. 1478. More popular however than these translations were the
  =Bible Histories=, _i.e._ free renderings, sometimes contracted,
  sometimes expanded, of the historical books, especially these
  of the Old Testament. From A.D. 1470 large and frequent editions
  were published of the German =Plenaries=, containing at first
  only the gospels and epistles, afterwards also the Service of
  the Mass, for all Sundays and festivals and saints’ days, with
  explanations and directions.

  § 115.5. =Catechisms and Prayer Books.=--Next to preaching,
  the chief opportunity for imparting religious instruction was
  confession. Later catechisms drew largely upon the baptismal
  and confessional services. In the 13th and 14th centuries the
  decalogue was added, and afterwards the seven deadly sins and
  the seven principal virtues. Pictures were used to impress
  the main points on the minds of the people and the youth.
  The catechetical literature of this period, both in guides
  for priests and manuals for the people, was written in the
  vernacular.--During the 15th century there were also numerous
  so-called _Artes moriendi_, showing how to die well, in which
  often earnest piety appeared side by side with the grossest
  superstition. There were also many prayer books, _Hortuli animæ_,
  published, in which the worship of Mary and the saints often
  overshadowed that of God and Christ, and an extravagant belief
  in indulgences led to a mechanical view of prayer that was
  thoroughly pagan.

  § 115.6. =The Dance of Death.=--The fantastic humour of the
  Middle Ages found dramatic and spectacular expression in the
  Dance of Death, in which all classes, from the pope and princes
  to the beggars, in turn converse with death. It was introduced
  into Germany and France in the beginning of the 14th century,
  with the view of raising men out of the pleasures and troubles
  of life. It was called in France the Dance of the Maccabees,
  because first introduced at that festival. Pictures and verbal
  descriptions of the Dance of Death were made on walls and
  doors of churches, around MSS. and woodcuts, where death was
  generally represented as a skeleton. Hans Holbein the Younger
  gave the finishing touch to these representations in his
  _Imagines Mortis_, the originals of which are in St. Petersburg.
  In this masterpiece, the idea of a dancing pair is set aside,
  and in its place forty pictures, afterwards increased to
  fifty-eight, full of humour and moral earnestness, pourtray
  the power of death in the earthly life.[341]

  § 115.7. =Hymnology= (§ 104, 10).--The =Latin Church poetry= of
  the 14th and 15th centuries was far beneath that of the 12th and
  13th. Only the mystics, _e.g._ Thomas à Kempis, still composed
  some beautiful hymns. We have now however the beginnings of
  =German= and =Bohemian= hymnology. The German flagellators sang
  German hymns (§ 116, 3), and so obtained much popular favour.
  The Hussite movement of the 15th century gave a great impulse
  to church song. Huss himself earnestly urged the practice of
  congregational singing in the language of the people, and himself
  composed Bohemian hymns. The Bohemian and Moravian Brethren
  were specially productive in this department (§ 119, 8). In
  many churches, at least on high festivals, German hymns were
  sung, and in some even at the celebration of mass and other parts
  of public worship. The spiritual songs of this period were of
  four kinds: some half German, half Latin; others translations of
  Latin hymns and sequences; others, original German compositions
  by monks and minstrels; and adaptations of secular songs to
  spiritual purposes. In the latter case the original melodies
  were also retained. Popular forms and melodies for sacred songs
  were now secured, and these were subsequently appropriated by
  the Reformers of the 16th century.

  § 115.8. =Church Music= (§ 104, 11).--Great improvements were
  made in organs by the invention of pedals, etc. =Church music=
  was also greatly developed by the introduction of harmony and
  counterpoint. The Dutch were pre-eminent in this department.
  Ockenheim, founder of the second Dutch school of music, at
  the end of the 15th century, was the inventor of the canon
  and the fugue. The greatest composer of this school was
  Jodocus Pratensis, about A.D. 1500, and next to him may be
  named the German, Adam of Fulda.

  § 115.9. =Legendary Relics.=--The legend of angels having
  transferred the house of Mary from Nazareth, in A.D. 1291,
  to Tersato in Dalmatia, in A.D. 1294 to Reccanati, and finally,
  in A.D. 1295, to Loretto in Ancona, arose in the 14th century,
  in connection with the fall of Acre (§ 94, 6) and the overthrow
  of the last remnants of the kingdom of Jerusalem. When and how
  the legend arose of the _Scala santa_ at Rome being the marble
  steps of Pilate’s prætorium, brought there by St. Helena, is
  unknown.--Even Frederick the Wise, at an enormous cost, brought
  together 1,010 sacred relics into his new chapel at Wittenberg,
  a mere look at which secured indulgence for 100 years. In a
  catalogue of relics in the churches of St. Maurice and Mary
  Magdalene at Halle, published in A D. 1520, are mentioned a
  piece of earth, from a field of Damascus, of which God made
  the first man; a piece from a field at Hebron, where Adam
  repented; a piece of the body of Isaac; twenty-five fragments
  of the burning bush of Horeb; specimens of the wilderness
  manna; six drops of the Virgin’s milk; the finger of the
  Baptist that pointed to the Lamb of God; the finger of Thomas
  that touched the wounds of Jesus; a bit of the altar at which
  John read mass for the Virgin; the stone with which Stephen was
  killed; a great piece of Paul’s skull; the hose of St. Thomas
  of Canterbury; the baret of St. Francis, etc. The collection
  consisted of 8,933 articles, and could afford indulgence
  for 39,245,100 years and 220 days! Benefit was to be had by
  contributions to the church, which went into the pocket of the
  elector-archbishop, Albert of Mainz. The craze for =pilgrimages=
  was also rife among all classes, old and young, high and low.
  Signs and wonders and newly discovered relics were regarded
  as consecrating new places of pilgrimage, and the stories of
  pilgrims raised the fame of these resorts more and more. In
  A.D. 1500 Düren, by the possession of a relic of Ann, stolen
  from Mainz, rapidly rose to first rank. The people of Mainz
  sought through the pope to recover this valuable property,
  but he decided in favour of Düren, because God had meanwhile
  sanctioned the transfer by working many miracles of healing.


          § 115B. NATIONAL LITERATURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL ART.

  Toward the close of the 13th century, and throughout the 14th,
a national literature, in prose and poetry, sprang up in Italy, which
in several respects has close relations to the history of the church.
The three Florentines, Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, boldly burst
through the barriers of traditional usage, which had made Latin the
only vehicle for literature and science, and became the creators of
a beautiful Italian style; while their example powerfully influenced
their own countrymen, and those of other western nations, during the
immediately succeeding ages. The exclusive use of the Latin language
had produced a uniform hierarchical spirit, and was a restraint to
the anti-hierarchical movements of the age after independent national
development in church and State. The breaking down of this barrier to
progress was an important step. But all the three great men of letters
whom we have named were also highly distinguished for their classical
culture. They introduced the study of the ancient classics, and were
thus the precursors of the humanists. They also presented a united
front against the corruptions of the church, against hierarchical
pretensions, the greed and moral debasement of the papacy, as well
as against the moral and intellectual degradation of the clergy
and the monks. Petrarch and Boccaccio too warred against the
depraved scholasticism. The Augustan age of German national poetry
was contemporary with the age of the Hohenstaufens. It consisted
in popular songs, these often of a sacred character. During the
14th century the sacred drama reached the highest point of its
development, especially in Germany, England, France, and Spain. The
spirit of the Renaissance, which during the 15th century dominated
Italian art, made itself felt also in the domain of ecclesiastical
architecture and painting.

  § 115.10. =The Italian National Literature.=[342]--=Dante
  Alighieri=, born at Florence in A.D. 1265, was in A.D. 1302
  banished as a Ghibelline from his native city, and died an
  exile at Ravenna, in A.D. 1321. His boyish love for Beatrice,
  which after her early death continued to fill his soul to
  the end of his life, gave him an impulse to a “New Life,”
  and proved the unfailing source of his poetic inspiration. His
  studies at Bologna, Padua, and Paris made him an enthusiastic
  admirer of Thomas, but alongside of his scholastic culture
  there lay the quick perception of the beautiful, combined with
  a lively imagination. He was thus able to deal with the burning
  questions of his day in one of the greatest poetic masterpieces
  of any age, people, or tongue. His _Divina Commedia_ describes
  a vision in which the poet is led, first by the hand of
  Virgil, as the representative of human wisdom, through Hell
  and Purgatory, then by Beatrice, whose place at times is taken
  by the German Matilda (§ 107, 2), and finally by St. Bernard,
  as representatives of revealed religion, through Paradise and
  the several heavens up to the empyræum, the eternal residence
  of the triune God. The poet presents his readers with a
  description of what he saw, and reports his conversations
  with his guides and the souls of more important personages,
  most of them shortly before deceased, in which the problems of
  philosophy, theology, and politics are discussed. His political
  views, of which he treats _ex professo_ in the three books of
  his _De monarchia_, are derived from Aquinas’ theory of the
  State, but breathe a strong Italian Ghibelline patriotism, so
  that he places not only Boniface VIII. but also Frederick II.
  in Hell. In the struggle between the empire and the papacy
  he stands decidedly on the side of the former. With profound
  sorrow he bewails the corruption of the church in its head and
  members, but holds firmly by its confession of faith. And while
  lashing vigorously the corruptions of monkery, he eulogizes
  the heavenliness of the lives of Francis and Dominic.[343]
  =Petrarch=, who died in A.D. 1374, broke away completely from
  scholasticism, and turned with enthusiasm to classical studies.
  He combated superstition, _e.g._ astrology, but also contends
  against the unbelief of his age, and in his letters and poems
  lashes with merciless severity the immorality of the papacy
  and the secularization of the church.[344] In =Boccaccio=
  again, who died in A.D. 1375, antipathy to scholasticism,
  monkery, and the hierarchy had reached its utmost stage. He
  has no anger and denunciation, but only contempt, reproach,
  and wit to shoot against them. He also makes light of the
  moral requirements of Christianity and the church, especially
  the seventh commandment. But in later years he manifested
  deep penitence for the lascivious writing of his youth, to
  which he had given reckless and shameless expression in his
  “Decameron.”

  § 115.11. =The German National Literature.=--The German
  prose style was greatly ennobled by the mystics (§ 114), and
  the highest development of German satire against the hierarchy,
  clergy, and monks was reached by Sebastian Brant, of Strassburg,
  who wrote in A.D. 1494 his “Ship of Fools.” Among popular
  preachers John Tauler held the first rank (§ 114, 2). In
  Strassburg, Geiler of Kaisersberg distinguished himself as
  an original preacher. His sermons were full of biting wit,
  keen sarcasm, and humorous expressions, but also of profound
  earnestness and withering exposures of the sins of the clergy
  and monks. His best known work is a series of sermons on Brant’s
  “Ship of Fools,” published in A.D. 1498.

  § 115.12. =The Sacred Drama= (§ 105, 5).--The poetic merit of
  most of the German mysteries performed at high festivals is not
  great. The Laments of Mary however often rose to true poetic
  heights. Comedy and burlesque too found place especially in
  connection with Judas, or the exchangers, or the unconverted
  Magdalene. A priest, Theodoric Schernberg, wrote a play on the
  fall and repentance of the popess Johanna (§ 82, 6). On Shrove
  Tuesday plays were performed, in which the clergy and monks
  were held up to ridicule. Hans Roseuplüt of Nuremberg, about
  A.D. 1450, was the most famous writer of German Shrovetide
  plays. In France, about the end of the 14th century, a society
  of young people of the upper rank was formed, called _Enfans
  sans souci_, whose _Sotties_, buffooneries, in which the church
  was ridiculed, were in high repute in the cities and at the
  court. Their most distinguished poet was Pierre Gringoire, who,
  in the beginning of the 16th century, in the French _Chasse
  du Cerf des Cerfs_, parodied the _Servus servorum_ (§ 46, 10),
  and the church is represented as the old befooled mother. The
  numerous Italian mysteries were produced mainly by the gifted
  and cultured sons of Tuscany, who had already developed their
  native tongue into a beautiful and flexible language. In Spain,
  during the 15th century, the _Autos_, partly as Christmas plays
  and partly as sacramental or passion plays, were based on the
  ancient mysteries, and in form inclined more to the allegorical
  moralities.

  § 115.13. =Architecture and Painting= (§ 104, 12, 14)--=Gothic
  architecture= was the prevailing style in the churches of
  Germany, France, and England. In Italy, the humanist movement
  (§ 120, 1) led to the imitation of ancient classical models,
  and thus the Renaissance style was introduced, which flourished
  for 300 years. Its real creator was the Florentine Bruneleschi,
  who won imperishable renown by the grand cupola of the cathedral
  of Florence. Bramante, died A.D. 1514, marks the transition
  from the earlier Renaissance of the 15th century to the later
  of the 16th, at the summit of which stands Michael Angelo,
  A.D. 1474-1564. After a plan of Bramante Julius II., in
  A.D. 1506, began the magnificent reconstruction of St. Peter’s
  at Rome, the execution of which in its gigantic proportions
  occupied the reigns of twenty popes. It was completed under
  Urban VIII., in A.D. 1636. This great building, in consequence
  of the traffic in indulgences, entered on to defray its cost,
  became the occasion of the loss to the papacy of the half
  of western Christendom.--Sacred =Statuary=, in the hands of
  Ghiberti, died A.D. 1455, and Michael Angelo, reached the
  highest stage of excellence.--Of =Painting=, the Augustan
  age of which was the 15th century, there were properly four
  schools. Giotto, who died in A.D. 1336, was founder of the
  Florentine school, which was specially distinguished by its
  delineations of sacred history. To it belonged the Dominican
  Fra Giovanni da Fiesole, who painted only as he prayed,
  Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Bartolomeo, and Michael Angelo. Then
  there was the Lombard or Venetian School, at the head of
  which stands Giovanni Bellini, died A.D. 1516, which turned
  away from the church and applied itself with its fresh living
  colouring to the depicting of earthly ideals. Its most eminent
  representatives were Correggio, died A.D. 1534, and Titian,
  died A.D. 1576. In the Umbrian school, again, the spirit of
  St. Francis continued still to breathe. Its greatest master
  was Raphael of Urbino, the noblest and most renowned of all
  Christian painters, distinguished also as an architect. The
  German school had its ablest representatives in the brothers
  Hubert and John van Eyk, Albert Dürer, and Hans Holbein the
  Elder.--Continuation § 149, 15.


                       § 116. POPULAR MOVEMENTS.

  In consequence of the shameful debasement of the papacy and the
deep corruption of the clergy and monks, the influence of the church
on the moral and religious culture of the people, in spite of the
ardent zeal of the homilists and catechists, was upon the whole much
less than formerly. Reverence for the church as it stood was indeed
tottering, but was not yet completely overthrown. The religious
enthusiasm of earlier times was fading away, but occasional phenomena
still continued to arise, like St. Bridget and St. Catharine of Siena
(§ 112, 4, 8), Claus of Flüe, and the Maid of Orleans. But in order
to elevate a John of Nepomuk into a recognised national saint, it
was necessary to produce forged legendary stories in post-Reformation
times. The market-place tricks of John of Capistrano (§ 112, 3) were
of such a kind, that even the papal curia only after a century and a
half had passed could venture to adorn him with the halo of saintship.
The ever-increasing nuisance of the sale of indulgences smothered
religious earnestness and crushed all religious spirit out of the
people. But earnestness showed itself again in the reactions of the
Beghards and Lollards, or in the explosions of the Flagellants, and
spirituality often found rich nourishment in the preaching of the
mystics. One current issuing from the widespread Friends of God
passed deep into the heart of the German people; another, springing
probably from the same source, but with a quite different tendency,
appears in the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit. On the other
hand, superstition also prevailed, and was all the more dangerous
the more it parted with its poetic and naïve character (§ 117, 4).
Toward the end of that period however a new era dawned in social
life, as well as in national literature. Knighthood paled before
gunpowder. The establishment of civic corporations developed a sense
of freedom, and introduced a healthy understanding and appreciation
of civil liberty. The printing of books began the dissemination of
knowledge, and the discovery of America opened to view a new world
for trade, colonization, and the spread of Christianity. To the
pious heart of the discoverer the extension of Christ’s kingdom
proved the most powerful motive to his continued exertions, and
from the treasures of the new world he hoped also to obtain the
means for conquering again the Holy Sepulchre and the Holy Land.

  § 116.1. =Two National Saints.=--=John of Nepomuk=, of
  Pomuk in Bohemia, was from A.D. 1380 pastor, then canon,
  archiepiscopal secretary, and vicar-general of Prague. King
  Wenzel had him seized, cruelly tortured, and flung over the
  bridge into the Moldau, because, so runs the legend, he as
  confessor of the queen sturdily refused to betray the secrets
  of the confessional, but really because he had roused the king’s
  anger to the uttermost in a violent controversy between the
  king’s archbishop, John of Jenzenstein, and the chapter over
  their election and consecration of an abbot. The confession
  legend appears first in an Austrian writer of A.D. 1451,
  who gives it distinctly as a tradition. It is evidently
  connected with the Taborite rejection of the Catholic doctrine
  of auricular confession (§ 119, 7). If it be accepted as true,
  then, seeing that all the older chroniclers ascribe the cruel
  treatment of this prelate to the share he took in the abbot’s
  election, it will be necessary to assume two victims of the
  king’s wrath instead of one. The John Nepomuk of the legend,
  and the confessor of the queen, was tortured by the king’s
  command in A.D. 1383; the other, who figures in the old
  chronicles as archiepiscopal vicar-general, and is simply
  called John, was tortured in A.D. 1393, and then thrown over
  the bridge into the Moldau. This latter story appears first
  in a Bohemian chronicle of A.D. 1541. In the 17th century the
  Jesuits, in order to deprive the heretical national saint and
  martyr John Huss of his supremacy by bringing forward another
  genuine Bohemian, but also a thoroughly Catholic saint, gave
  currency to the legend, adorned with many additional stories
  of miracles. Benedict XIII. (§ 164, 1) was just the pope
  to aid such a device by sanctioning, as he did in A.D. 1729,
  the canonization of a purely fictitious saint-confessor John
  Nepomuk. He is patron saint of bridges, whose image in Bohemia,
  and other strictly Catholic lands, is met with at almost
  every bridge, and is reverenced as the protector from unjust
  accusations, as well as the dispenser of rain in seasons
  of great drought. Although no mention is made of the story
  about the confessional in the letter of complaint to Rome
  by Archbishop Jenzenstein, Catholic historians still insist
  that the confessor’s steadfastness was the real cause, the
  election of the abbot the ostensible cause, of the martyrdom
  of A.D. 1393.[345] The need of strengthening the position
  of the Romish church, in face of the progress of the Swiss
  Reformation of the 16th century, led also to the elevation
  of the recluse, =Nicolaus [Nicolas] of Flüe= upon the pedestal
  of a Swiss national saint. Esteemed even before his birth a
  saint by reason of signs and wonders, “Brother Claus,” after
  a long, active life in the world, in his 50th year, the father
  of ten children, forsook house and home, with the approval
  of his wife, abstained from all nourishment save that of the
  sacrament, and died, after spending nineteen years in the
  wilderness, in A.D. 1487. During this period he was the trusted
  adviser of all classes upon public and private affairs. He
  is specially famous as having saved Switzerland, by appearing
  personally at the Diet of Stanz, in A.D. 1481, stopping
  the conflict between cities and provinces, which threatened
  to break up the confederation and bring about civil war, and
  suggesting the peaceable compromise of the “Agreement of Stanz.”
  That Brother Claus did assist in securing harmony is a well
  established fact, but it is also demonstrable that he was not
  personally present at Stanz. He was beatified by Clement X.
  in A.D. 1671, but notwithstanding repeated endeavours by his
  admirers, he has not yet been canonized.

  § 116.2. =The Maid of Orleans, A.D. 1428-1431.=--Joan of Arc
  was the daughter of a peasant in the village of Domremy, in
  Champagne. Even in her thirteenth year she thought she saw
  a peculiar brightness and heard a heavenly voice exhorting
  her to chastity and piety. She now bound herself by a vow to
  perpetual virginity. Afterwards the heavenly voices became more
  frequent, and the brightness took the shape of the archangel
  Michael, St. Catharine, and other saints, who saluted her as
  saviour of her fatherland. France was, under the imbecile king
  Charles VI., and still more after his death, rent by the rival
  parties of the Armagnacs and Burgundians. The former fought for
  the rights of the dauphin Charles VII.; the latter supported his
  mother Isabella and the English king Henry V., who was succeeded
  in A.D. 1422 by his son Henry VI., then only nine months old.
  Joan was the enthusiastic supporter of the dauphin. He found
  himself in A.D. 1428 in the greatest straits. The last bulwark
  of his might, the city of Orleans, was besieged by the English,
  and seemed near its fall. Then her voices commanded Joan to
  relieve Orleans, and to accompany the dauphin to his coronation
  at Rheims. She now published her call, which had been hitherto
  kept secret, overcame all difficulties, was recognised as
  a messenger of heaven, assumed the male attire of a soldier,
  and placed herself at the head of an enthusiastic crowd. Great
  success attended the movements of this girl of seventeen years.
  In the latter campaigns of the war she became the prisoner of
  Burgundy, who delivered her over to the English. At Rouen she
  was subjected to an ecclesiastical tribunal, which after four
  months’ investigation condemned her to the stake as a heretic
  and sorceress. In view of the fire, her courage failed. Yielding
  to the persuasion of her confessor, she acknowledged her guilt,
  and had her sentence commuted to that of imprisonment for life.
  But eight days later she was led forth to the stake. Her rude
  keepers had taken away her female attire, and forced her to wear
  again male garments, and this act to which she was compelled was
  made a charge against her. She died courageously and piously in
  A.D. 1431. At the demand of her family, which had been ennobled,
  a revision of the process against her was made in A.D. 1450, when
  she was pronounced innocent, and the charges against her false.
  The endeavour of Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, in A.D. 1876,
  in the name of Catholic France, to have her canonized, was not
  responded to by the papal curia. The infallible church, that
  had burnt her as a witch in A.D. 1431, could scarcely give her
  a place among its saints, even after 450 years had gone.

  § 116.3. =Lollards, Flagellants, and Dancers.=--During a plague
  at Antwerp in A.D. 1300 the =Lollards= made their appearance,
  nursing the sick and burying the dead. They spread rapidly
  over the Netherlands and the bordering German provinces. Like
  the Beghards however, and for the same reasons, they soon fell
  under suspicion of heresy, and were subjected to the persecution
  of the Inquisition, until Gregory XI., in A.D. 1347, again
  granted them toleration. But the name Lollard still continued
  to be associated with heresy or hypocrisy (§ 119, 1).[346]
  The =Flagellant= fraternities, which had sprung up in the
  12th century (§ 106, 4), greatly increased during this period,
  and reached their height during the 14th century. Their
  influence was greatest during the visitation of the Black
  Death, A.D. 1348-1350, which cost Europe many millions of
  lives. Issuing from Hungary, rushing forth with the force of
  an avalanche, and massing in great numbers on the upper Rhine,
  they spread over all Germany, Belgium and Holland, Switzerland,
  England, and Sweden. Entrance into France was refused them
  at the bidding of the Avignon pope Clement VI. In long rows
  of penitents, with uncovered head, screaming forth their
  penitential songs, and with tears streaming down their cheeks,
  they rushed about lashing their bare backs. They also from
  city to city and from village to village read aloud a letter
  of warning, said to have been written by Christ, and brought
  to the Patriarch of Jerusalem by an angel. This paroxysm
  lasted for three years. In Lombardy, in A.D. 1399, when famine,
  pestilence, the Turkish war, and expectation of the end of the
  world inclined men to such extravagances, the Flagellants made
  their appearance again, dressed in white robes, and so called
  _Bianchi_, _Albati_. Princes, scholars, and popes, universities
  and councils sought to check this silly fanaticism, but were
  not able to suppress it. Many Flagellants were also heretical
  in their views, spoke of the hierarchy as antichrist, withdrew
  from the worship of the church, declared the bloody baptism of
  the scourge the only true sacrament, and died at the stake of
  the Inquisition.--The =Dancers=, _Chorisantes_, were a sect
  closely related to the Flagellants, but their fanaticism seemed
  more of a pathological than of a religious order. Half naked
  and crowned with leaves they rushed along the streets and into
  houses, dancing in a wild, tumultuous manner. They made a great
  noise in the Rhine Provinces in A.D. 1374 and in A.D. 1418. They
  were regarded as demoniacs and cured by calling upon St. Vitus.

  § 116.4. =The Friends of God.=--During the 14th century many
  detachments of mystic sects spread through all Southern Germany,
  and even from the Netherlands to Hungary and Italy. A powerful
  religious awakening, with an undertone of contemplative mysticism,
  was now experienced in the castles of the knights, in the shops
  of artisans, and in the stalls of traders, as well as in the
  Beguine houses, the monasteries, and nunneries of the Dominicans
  and other monkish orders. A great free association was then
  called forth under the name of “Friends of God” (John xv. 15),
  whose members maintained personal and epistolary correspondence
  with one another. The headquarters of this movement were
  Cologne, Strassburg, and Basel. Its preachers and supporters
  were mostly Dominicans. They drew their intellectual and
  spiritual nourishment from the writings of the German mystics.
  They repudiated all sectarian intentions, carefully observed
  the rites and ceremonies and attended on the worship of the
  church, and accepted all its dogmas. But all the greater on
  this account was their sorrow over the deep decay of religious
  and moral life, and their lamentations over the corruption
  of the clergy and hierarchy. Fantastic visionary conceptions,
  however, derived from the domain of mysticism, were by no means
  rare among them.

  § 116.5. =Pantheistic Libertine Societies.=--A demoniacally
  inspired counterpart to the fraternity of the “Friends of God” is
  found in the sect of the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit.
  This sect, derived for the most part from the artisan class,
  may be regarded as carrying out to a consistent development the
  views of Amalrich of Bena (§ 108, 4). We meet with these in the
  beginning of the 14th century wandering about, missionarising
  and agitating in all parts of Southern Germany as well as in
  Switzerland, while they were particularly numerous in the Rhine
  Provinces, where Cologne and Strassburg were their main resorts.
  Often associating with strolling Beghards (§ 98, 12) they
  are frequently confounded with these. They were communistic
  libertine pantheists. Every pious man is a Christ, in whom God
  becomes man. Whatever is done in love is pure. The perfect are
  free from the law, and cannot sin. The church with her sacraments
  and institutions is a thorough cheat; purgatory, heaven, and
  hell are mere figments, the marriage bond contrary to nature,
  all property is common good, and theft of it allowable. Their
  secret services ended with immoral orgies. The Inquisition
  exterminated the sect by sword and stake.--The Adamites in
  Austria in A.D. 1312 and the Turlupines in the Isle of France
  showed similar tendencies. In the beginning of the 15th century
  they reappeared as _Homines intelligentiæ_ at Brussels. In
  A.D. 1421 the Hussite leader Ziska rooted out the Bohemian
  Adamites or Picards, who went naked after the pattern of
  paradise, and had a community of wives. Picard is just a
  modification of the heretical designation Beghard. They gained
  a footing in several villages, and built an establishment on a
  small island in a tributary of the Moldau, from which they made
  excursions into the surrounding districts, until Ziska put an
  end to them by conquering the island in A.D. 1421.


                       § 117. CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

  The reckless and shameless sale of indulgences often made the
exercise of church discipline impossible, and the discreditable
conduct of the mendicant monks destroyed all respect for the
confessional. The scandalous misuse of the ban and interdict had shorn
these of much of their terror. Frightful curses were pronounced at Rome
every Maundy Thursday against heretics by the solemn reading of the
bull _In Cœna Domini_. The Inquisition was still abundantly occupied
with persecuting and burning numerous heretics, and at the end of our
period Innocent VIII. carried to the utmost extreme the persecution and
burning of witches.

  § 117.1. =Indulgences.=--The scholastic theory of indulgences
  (§ 106, 2) was authoritatively proclaimed by Clement VI. in
  A.D. 1343. The reforming councils of the 15th century wished
  only to prevent them being misused, for the purpose of filling
  the papal treasury. Sixtus IV., in A.D. 1477, declared that
  it was allowable to take money for indulgences for the dead,
  and that their souls might be freed from purgatory. The pert
  question, why the pope would not rather free all souls at
  once by the exercise of his sovereign power, was answered
  by the assertion that the church, in accordance with Divine
  righteousness, could dispense its grace only _discrete et cum
  moderamine_. The institution of the jubilee gave a great impulse
  to the sale of indulgences. In A.D. 1300 Boniface VIII., at the
  bidding of an old man, proclaimed a complete indulgence for one
  hundred years to all Christians who would do penance for fifteen
  days in the churches of the apostles at Rome, and by this means
  gathered from day to day 200,000 pilgrims within the walls of
  the Holy City. Later popes made a jubilee every fiftieth year,
  then every thirty-third, and finally every twenty-fifth. Instead
  of appearing personally at Rome, it was enough to pay the cost
  of such a journey. The nepotism and extravagance of the popes
  had left an empty exchequer, which this sale of indulgences
  was intended to fill. The war with the Turks and the building
  of St. Peter’s gave occasion to repeated indulgence crusades.
  Traffickers in indulgences in the most barefaced way cried
  up the quality of their wares; the conditions of repentance
  and purpose of reformation were scarcely so much as named.
  Indulgences were even granted beforehand for sins that were
  contemplated.

  § 117.2. =The Inquisition=, since A.D. 1232 under the direction
  of the Dominicans (§ 109, 2), spread through all European
  countries during the 14th century. While the papal court resided
  at Avignon the Inquisition was at its height in =France=, where
  Waldensians and Albigensians, Beghards and Lollards, Fraticelli
  and Fanatical Spiritualists, were brought in crowds to the stake
  and subjected to the most cruel tortures. Bernard Delicieux, a
  Franciscan, raised his voice, A.D. 1300-1320, against the inhuman
  cruelty of the inquisitors, and with noble independence and
  heroic bravery appealed to king and pope against the merciless
  sacrifice of so many victims. He was shut up for life in a
  dark dungeon, and fed on bread and water.--In =Germany=, where,
  from the murder of Conrad of Marburg in A.D. 1233 (§ 109, 3),
  for almost a century and a half we find no trace of a regularly
  constituted Inquisition, it made its appearance again in
  A.D. 1368. During that year Urban V. issued a bull, by which
  he required that the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of
  Germany should support with their counsel and influence the two
  inquisitors who were searching out the heretical Beghards and
  Beguines (§ 116, 5), and place their prisons at the disposal
  of the Holy Office, which had still no prison of its own. His
  successor, Gregory XI., in A.D. 1372 increased the number of
  inquisitors in Germany to five, one in each of the archdioceses
  of Mainz, Cologne, Salzburg, Magdeburg, and Bremen; while his
  successor, Boniface IX., in A.D. 1399 added a sixth for North
  Germany. But these papal bulls would probably, owing to the
  disinclination of the Germans to the Inquisition, like the
  attempts of Gregory IX., never have been put in force, had not
  Charles IV. (§ 110, 4, 5) taken up the matter with an ardent
  zeal that even went beyond the intentions of Urban and Gregory.
  During his second journey to Rome, in A.D. 1369, he issued
  from Lucca four imperial decrees, and in A.D. 1378 from Treves
  a fifth, by which he granted to the Inquisition throughout
  Germany all the rights, powers, and privileges which it had
  anywhere, and required that all civil and ecclesiastical
  authorities, under pain of severest penalties and confiscation
  of all their goods, should support the Inquisition in its search
  for heretics and in its discovery and burning of all religious
  writings in the vulgar tongue composed and circulated by laymen
  or semi-laymen.--The =Spanish Inquisition= was re-established
  under Ferdinand and Isabella in A.D. 1480, and thoroughly
  organized by the grand-inquisitor Torquemada, A.D. 1483-1499.
  One of the first inquisitors appointed by him in A.D. 1484 was
  an Augustinian, Pedro Arbires, who amid the most unrelenting
  cruelties performed the duties of his office with such zeal,
  that in sixteen months many hundreds had perished at the stake;
  but his fanatical career was ended by his murder at the altar
  in A.D. 1485. Not only the two who did the deed, but also all
  their relatives and friends, to the number of two hundred,
  suspected of complicity in a plot, were burned, while the
  “martyr” himself was beatified by Alexander VII. in A.D. 1661,
  and canonized by Pius IX. in A.D. 1867. This terrible tribunal
  further undertook the persecution of the hated Moors and Jews
  who had been baptized under compulsion (§ 95, 2, 3), which
  through numerous confiscations greatly enriched the national
  exchequer of Spain. This institution reached its highest
  point under the grand-inquisitor the Cardinal Francis Ximenes,
  A.D. 1507-1517, under whom 2,536 persons were burnt alive
  and 1,368 in effigy. The _auto da fès_, which ended at the
  stake, were conducted with a horrible pomp. Even those who were
  acquitted of the charge of heresy were compelled for a long
  time to wear the _san benito_, an armless robe with a red cross
  marked on it before and behind. According to Llorente, who had
  been general secretary of the Inquisition at Madrid, the Spanish
  inquisition, down to its suppression by Joseph Buonaparte in
  A.D. 1808, had executed in person 31,912, burned in effigy
  17,659, and subjected to severe punishments 291,456.[347]

  § 117.3. =The Bull “_In Cœna Domini_.”=--It was customary
  to repeat from time to time the more important decrees of
  excommunication, to show that they were still valid. In this
  way the famous bull _In Cœna Domini_ was gradually constructed.
  The earliest sketch of it was given by Urban V., who died in
  A.D. 1370, and it was published in its final form by Urban VIII.
  in A.D. 1627. It contains a summary of all the rights of the
  Roman hierarchy, with anathemas against all opposing claims,
  not only on the part of secular princes and laymen, but also of
  antipapal councils, and concludes with a solemn excommunication
  of all heretics, to which Paul V. in A.D. 1610 added Lutherans,
  Zwinglians, and Calvinists, together with all their sympathisers.
  Pius V., in A.D. 1567, in a new redaction insisted that it should
  be read yearly in the Catholic churches of all lands, but could
  not get this carried out, especially in France and Germany. In
  A.D. 1770 Clement XIV. forbade its being read.

  § 117.4. =Prosecution of Witches.=--Down to the beginning of
  the 13th century many churchmen had spoken against the popular
  superstition regarding sorcery, witchcraft, and compacts with the
  devil, and a whole series of provincial councils had pronounced
  such belief to be heathenish, sinful, and heretical. Even in
  Gratian’s decretal (§ 99, 5) there was a canon which required
  the clergy to teach the people that witchcraft was a delusion,
  and belief in it incompatible with the Christian faith. But
  upon the establishment of the Inquisition in the beginning of
  the 13th century witchcraft came more and more to occupy the
  attention of the ecclesiastical authorities. Heresy and sorcery
  were now regarded as correlates, like two agencies resting on
  and serviceable to the demoniacal powers, and were therefore
  treated in the same way as offences to be punished with
  torture and the stake. The Dominicans, as administrators of
  the Inquisition, were the most zealous defenders of the belief
  in witchcraft, whereas the Franciscans generally spoke of it
  simply as foolish, heathenish, and heretical. Thomas Aquinas
  included it in his theological system, and Eymerich in his
  _Directorium Inquisitorium_ (§ 109, 2). Yet witch prosecutions
  were only occasional incidents during the 14th and 15th centuries,
  especially in Germany, where clergy and people were adverse
  to them. But it was quite otherwise after Innocent VIII., on
  3rd December, 1484, by his bull _Summis desiderantes affectibus_,
  complaining of previous laxity, called attention to the spread
  of witchcraft in the country, and appointed two inquisitors,
  Sprenger and Institor, to secure its extermination. These
  administered their office with such zeal and success, that
  in A.D. 1489 at Cologne they were able, as the result of their
  experiences, to publish under the title _Malleus maleficarum_
  a complete code for witch prosecutions. From the confessions
  wrung from their victims by torture and suggestive questions,
  they obtained a full, dogmatic system of compacts and intrigues
  with the devil, of _Succubis_ and _Incubis_, of witch ointment,
  broomsticks, and ovenforks, of witches’ sabbaths, Walpurgis
  nights, and flights up chimneys. Soon this illusion spread
  like an epidemic, and thousands throughout Germany and all
  other Catholic countries, mostly old women, but also some young
  maidens, were subjected to the most horrible tortures, and after
  confession had been extorted, to death by fire. The _Malleus_
  accounted for the fact that women and very rarely men were found
  engaged in such proceedings, by this statement: _Dicitur enim
  femina a feret minus, quia semper minorem habet et servat fidem,
  et hoc ex natura._--The Reformation of the 16th century made
  no change in these horrible proceedings, which rather rose to
  a height during the 17th century. Theologians of all confessions
  believed in the possibility and reality of compacts with the
  devil, and regarded this to be as essential to an orthodox creed
  as belief in the devil’s existence. The jurists and civil judges
  in Protestant and Catholic countries were no less narrow-minded
  and superstitious than the theologians. Among Catholics the
  most celebrated defenders of the witch prosecutions were Jean
  Bodin (§ 148, 3), Peter Binsfeld, and the Jesuit Mart. Delrio
  (§ 149, 11). Among Protestant vindicators of these prosecutions
  may be named the Heidelberg physician Thomas Erastus (§ 144, 1),
  James I. of England, and the famous criminal lawyer Carpzov of
  Leipzig. Noble men however were not wanting on both sides who
  were shrewd and sensible enough to oppose such crude conceptions.
  In the 16th century we have the physician Weier, who wrote his
  _De præstigiis dæmonorum_ in A.D. 1563, and in the 17th the
  Jesuits Tanner and Spee (§ 149, 11; 156, 3), and the Dutch
  Protestant Bekker (§ 160, 5). The writings of the Halle jurist
  Thomasius in A.D. 1701, 1704, were the first to tell powerfully
  in favour of liberal views. In A.D. 1749 a nun of seventy
  years old was burnt at Würzburg as a witch. In A.D. 1754 a
  girl of thirteen and in A.D. 1756 one of fourteen years were
  put to death at Landshut as suspected of witchcraft. In German
  Switzerland a servant girl at Glarus in A.D. 1782 was the last
  victim. In bigoted Catholic countries the delusion lasted longer,
  but prosecutions were seldomer carried the length of judicial
  murder. In Mexico however, the Alcade Ignacio Castello of
  San Jacobo on 20th August, 1877, “with consent of the whole
  population,” burnt five witches alive. Altogether since the
  issue of the bull of Innocent there have been certainly no less
  than 300,000 women brought to the stake as witches.




                      IV. Attempts at Reformation.


               § 118. ATTEMPTED REFORMS IN CHURCH POLITY.

  The struggle between imperialism and hierarchism, which is present
through the whole course of the Middle Ages, rose to a height in the
times of Louis the Bavarian, A.D. 1314-1347 (§ 110, 3, 4), and is
of special interest here because of the literary war waged against
one another by the rival supporters of the emperor and the pope. It
concerns itself first of all only with the questions in debate between
the imperial and the sacerdotal parties; but soon on the imperialist
side there appeared a reforming tendency, which could not be given
effect to without carrying the discussion into a multitude of other
departments where reformation was also needed. Of quite another kind
was the “reformation of head and members” desired by the great councils
of the 15th century. The contention here was based, not so much upon
any superiority claimed by the emperor over the pope and by the State
over the church, but rather upon the subordination of the pope to the
supreme authority of the universal church represented by the œcumenical
councils. Yet both agreed in this, that with like energy they attacked
the corruption of the papacy, in the one case in the interest of the
State, in the other in the interest of the church.

  § 118.1. =The Literary War between Imperialists and Curialists in
  the 14th Century.=--The literary controversy over the debatable
  land between church and State was conducted with special vigour
  in the earlier part of our period, on account of the conflict
  between Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France (§ 110, 1).
  The ablest vindicators of the independence of the State were the
  advocate =Peter Dubois= and the Dominican theologian =John of
  Paris=. Among their scholars were the men who twenty years later
  sought refuge from the wrath of Pope John XXII. at the court of
  Louis the Bavarian at Munich. Of these the most important was the
  Italian =Marsilius of Padua=. As teacher of theology, philosophy,
  and medicine at Paris, in A.D. 1324, when the dispute between
  emperor and pope had reached its height, he composed jointly with
  his colleague =John of Jandun= in Champagne a _Defensor pacis_,
  a civil and ecclesiastical memoir, which, with an insight and
  clearness very remarkable for that age, developed the evangelical
  mean of the superiority of the State over the church, and of
  the empire over the papacy, historically, exegetically, and
  dogmatically; and for this end established theories of Scripture
  and tradition, of the tasks and place of the church in the State,
  of excommunication and persecution of heretics, of liberty of
  faith and conscience, etc., which even transcend the principles
  laid down on these points by the Reformation of the 16th century.
  Both authors accompanied Louis to Italy in A.D. 1326, and there
  John of Jandun died in A.D. 1328. Marsilius continued with the
  emperor as his physician, counsellor, and literary defender, and
  died at Munich between A.D. 1341-1343. In A.D. 1327 John XXII.
  condemned the _Defensor pacis_, and Clement VI. pronounced its
  author the worst heretic of all ages. The book, often reprinted
  during the 16th century, was first printed at Basel in A.D. 1522.

  § 118.2. Alongside of Marsilius there also stood a goodly array
  of schismatical Franciscans, with their general, Michael of
  Cesena, at their head (§ 112, 2), who were like himself refugees
  at the court of Munich. They persistently contested the heresies
  of John XXII. in regard to the vision of God (§ 110, 3) and his
  lax theory of poverty. Their polemic also extended to the whole
  papal system, and the corruption of church and clergy connected
  therewith. The most celebrated of them in respect of scientific
  attainments was =William Occam= (§ 113, 3). His earlier treatises
  dealt with the pope’s heresies, and only after the Diet of
  Rhense (§ 110, 4) did he take up the burning questions about
  church and State. In the comprehensive _Dialogus_ he rejects
  the infallibility of the pope as decidedly as his temporal
  sovereignty, and denies the Divine institution of the primacy.
  Also a German prelate, =Leopold of Bebenburg=, Canon of Würzburg,
  and from A.D. 1353 Bishop of Bamberg, inspired by genuinely
  German patriotism, made his appearance in A.D. 1338 as a brave
  and prudent defender of imperial rights against the assumptions
  of the papacy.--The ablest of all Marsilius’ opponents was the
  Spanish Franciscan =Alvarus Pelagius=, who wrote in A.D. 1330 the
  treatise _De planctu ecclesiæ_, in which, while sadly complaining
  of the corruption of the church and clergy, he yet ascribes
  to the pope as the vicar of Christ unlimited authority over
  all earthly principalities and powers, and regards him as the
  fountain of all privileges and laws. A still more thoroughgoing
  deification of the papacy had appeared a few years earlier
  in the _Summa de potestate ecclesiæ ad Johannem Papam_ by
  the Augustinian =Augustinus Triumphus= of Ancona. But neither
  he nor Pelagius, in view of the manifest contradictions of the
  pope’s doctrines of poverty (§ 112, 2), dared go the length of
  maintaining papal infallibility. A German canon of Regensburg,
  =Conrad of Megensburg=, also took part in the controversy,
  seeking to vindicate and glorify the papacy.

  § 118.3. =Reforming Councils of the 15th Century.=--The
  longing for reform during this period found most distinct
  expression in the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel
  (§ 110, 7-9). The fruitlessness of these endeavours, though
  they had the sympathy of the people generally, shows that there
  was something essentially defective in them. The movement had
  kept itself aloof from all sectaries and separatists, wishing to
  hold by and reform the presently existing church. But its fault
  was this, that it insisted only upon a reformation in the head
  and members, not in the spirit, that it aimed at lopping off
  the wild growths of the tree, without getting rid of the corrupt
  sap from which the very same growths would again proceed. Only
  that which was manifestly unchristian in the pretensions of
  the hierarchy, the covetousness and greed of the pope, the
  immorality of the clergy, the depravity and ignorance of
  the monks, etc.--in short, only abuses in hierarchical
  constitution and discipline--were dealt with. There was no
  word about doctrine. The Romish system, in spite of all its
  perversions, was allowed to stand. The current forms of worship,
  notwithstanding the introduction of many unevangelical elements
  and pagan superstitions, were left untouched. It was not seen
  that what was most important of all was the revival of the
  preaching of repentance and of justification through Him who
  is the justifier of the ungodly. And so it happened that at
  Constance Huss, who had pointed out and followed this way, was
  sent to the stake, and at Basel the doctrine of the immaculate
  conception (§ 112, 4) was admitted as a doctrine of the church.
  It was not merely the election of a new pope opposed to the
  Reformation that rendered the negotiations at Pisa and Constance
  utter failures, the wrong principle upon which they proceeded
  insured a disappointing result.

  § 118.4. =Friends of Reform in France during the 15th Century.=

    1. =Peter d’Ailly=, professor and chancellor of the University
       of Paris, Bishop of Cambray in A.D. 1397 and cardinal in
       A.D. 1411, was one of the ablest members of the councils of
       Pisa and Constance. He died in A.D. 1425 as cardinal-legate
       in Germany. His chief dogmatic treatise, the _Quæstiones_
       on the Sentences of the Lombard, occupies the standpoint
       of Occam. In many of his other works he falls back upon
       the position of the mystics of St. Victor (§ 102, 4),
       and recommends with much warmth the diligent study of the
       Scriptures. His ideas about church reform are centred in
       the affirmation of the Gallican Liberties, which he had
       to maintain as a French bishop, but are expressed with the
       moderation becoming a Roman cardinal. In opposition to Occam
       and the Spirituals, he founds the temporal sovereignty of
       the pope on the _Donatio Constantini_. He also holds by
       the primacy of the Roman bishop, as firmly established by
       Scripture. But the πέτρα of Matthew xvi. 18 he understands
       not of Peter, but of Christ. In this passage therefore no
       pre-eminence is given to Peter over the other apostles in
       the _potestas ordinis_, but by the injunction of John xx.,
       “Feed My sheep,” such pre-eminence is given in the _potestas
       regiminis_. The œcumenical council, as representative of the
       whole church, stands superior to the pope as administrative
       head.

    2. d’Ailly’s successor as professor and chancellor was the
       celebrated =Jean Charlier=, better known from the name of
       his birthplace near Rheims as =Gerson=. Having denounced the
       Duke of Burgundy’s murder of the Duke of Orleans, and having
       thus incurred that prince’s hatred, he withdrew after the
       Council of Constance into Bavaria. Soon after the duke’s
       death, in A.D. 1419, he returned to France, and settled
       at Lyons, where he died in A.D. 1429. Like d’Ailly, Gerson
       was a decided nominalist, and sought to give new life
       to scholasticism by combining with it Scripture study
       and mysticism. He, too, was powerfully influenced by the
       Victorine mystics, and yet more by Bonaventura He had
       no appreciation of the speculative element in German
       mysticism. Gerson was the first French theologian who
       employed the language of the people, particularly in his
       smaller practical tracts. He was mainly instrumental in
       bringing about the Council of Pisa. In the Council of
       Constance he was one of the most conspicuous figures.
       Restrained by no personal or official relationship with
       the curia, he could by speech and writing express himself
       much more freely than d’Ailly. The principle and means
       of the reform of the church, in its head and members, was
       recognised by Gerson in his statement that the highest
       authority of the church is to be sought not in the pope,
       but in the œcumenical council. He held however in every
       point to the Romish system of doctrine. He did indeed
       unweariedly proclaim the Bible the one norm and source
       of all Christian knowledge, but he would not allow the
       reading of it in the vernacular, and regarded all as
       heretics who did not in the interpretation of it submit
       unconditionally to the judgment of the church.

    3. Nicholas of Clemanges was in A.D. 1393 rector of the
       University of Paris, but afterwards retired into solitude.
       He had the profoundest insight into the corruption of the
       church, and acknowledged Holy Scripture to be the only
       source of saving truth. From this standpoint he demanded
       a thorough reform in theological study and the whole
       constitution of the church.

    4. Louis d’Aleman, cardinal and Archbishop of Arles, who died
       in A.D. 1450, was the most powerful and most eloquent of the
       anti-papal party at Basel. He was therefore excommunicated
       by Eugenius IV. At last submitting to the pope, he was
       restored by Nicholas V. and in A.D. 1527 beatified by
       Clement VII.

  § 118.5. =Friends of Reform in Germany.=

    1. Even before the appearance of the Parisian friends of
       reform, a German, =Henry of Langenstein=, at Marburg had
       insisted upon the princes and prelates calling an œcumenical
       council for putting an end to schism and reforming the
       church. In a treatise published in A.D. 1381 he gave a sad
       but only too true picture of the desolate condition of the
       church. The cloisters he designated _prostibula meretricium_,
       cathedral churches _speluncæ raptorum et latronum_, etc.
       From A.D. 1363 he taught in Paris, from A.D. 1390 in Vienna,
       where in A.D. 1397 he died as rector of the university.

    2. =Theodorich or Dietrich of Niem= in Westphalia
       accompanied Gregory XI. from France to Rome as his
       secretary in A.D. 1377. From A.D. 1395-1399 he was Bishop
       of Verdun, was probably present at the Council of Pisa,
       and certainly at that of Constance. He died in this latter
       place in A.D. 1417. His writings are of great value for
       the history of the schism and of the councils of Pisa and
       Constance. His language is simple, strong, and faithful.

    3. =Gregory of Heimburg= was present at the Basel Council,
       in terms of close friendship with Æneas Sylvius, who was
       then also on the side of reform. He became in A.D. 1433
       syndicus at Nuremberg, went to the council at Mantua
       in A.D. 1459 as envoy of Duke Sigismund of Austria, was
       banished in A.D. 1460 by his old friend, now Pius II.,
       afterwards led a changeful life, never free from the
       papal persecutions, and died at Dresden in A.D. 1472. His
       principal writings on civil and ecclesiastical polity,
       powerful indictments against the Roman curia inspired by
       love for his German fatherland, appeared at Frankfort in
       A.D. 1608 under the title _Scripta nervosa justitiæque
       plena_.

    4. =Jacob of Jüterboyk [Jüterbock]=, who died in A.D. 1465,
       was first a Cistercian monk in Poland and teacher of
       theology at Cracow, then Carthusian at Erfurt, and to the
       end of his life a zealous defender of the positions of the
       Council of Basel, at which he was present in A.D. 1441. His
       writings leave untouched the doctrines of the church, but
       vigorously denounce the political and moral corruption of
       the papacy and monasticism, the greedy misuse of the sale
       of indulgences, and insist upon the subordinating of the
       pope under general councils, and their right even to depose
       the pontiff. Whoever contests this latter position teaches
       that Christ has given over the church to a sinful man, like
       a bridegroom who surrenders his bride to the unrestrained
       will of a soldier. All possession of property on the part
       of those in sacred offices is with him an abomination, and
       unhesitatingly he calls upon the civil power to put an end
       to this evil.

    5. The =Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa= (§ 113, 6) also for a long
       time was one of the most zealous friends of reform in the
       Basel Council.

    6. =Felix Hemmerlin=, canon at Zürich, was to the end of
       his life an ardent supporter of the reform measures of the
       Council of Basel, at which he had been present. As he gave
       effect to his views in his =official= position, he incurred
       the hatred and persecution of the inmates of his convent
       to such an extent, that they laid a plot to murder him in
       A.D. 1439. His whole life was an almost unbroken series of
       sufferings and persecutions. These in great part he brought
       on himself by his zealous support of the reactionary party
       of the nobles that sided with Austria in opposition to the
       patriotic revolutionary party that struggled for freedom.
       Deprived of his revenues and deposed from office, he was
       imprisoned in A.D. 1454, and died between A.D. 1457-1464
       in the prison of the monastery of the Minorites at Lucerne,
       martyr as much to his political conservatism as to his
       ecclesiastical reformatory principles. His writings were
       placed in the _Index prohibitorum_ by the Council of Trent.

    7. To this place also belongs the work written in the Swabian
       dialect, “=The Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund=,”
       which demands a thoroughgoing and radical reform of
       the clergy and the secular priests, insisting upon the
       renunciation of all personal property on the part of the
       latter, enforcing against prelates, abbots, monasteries,
       and monks all the reforms of the Basel Council, and making
       proposals for their execution in the spirit of the Taborites
       and Hussites. The author is styled in the MSS. Frederick
       of Landscron, and describes himself as a councillor of
       Sigismund. The tract was therefore regarded during the
       15th and 16th centuries as a work composed under the
       direction of the emperor, setting forth the principles
       of reformation attempted at the Basel or Constance Council.
       According to Böhm its author was the Taborite Reiser
       (§ 119, 9), who, under the powerful reforming impulse
       of the Basel Council of A.D. 1435-1437, composed it in
       A.D. 1438.

  § 118.6. =An Italian Apostate from the Basel Liberal
  Party.=--=Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini=, born at Siena in A.D. 1405,
  appeared at Basel, first as secretary of a bishop, then of a
  cardinal, and finally of the Basel anti-pope Felix V., as a most
  decided opponent of Eugenius IV., and wrote in A.D. 1439 from
  this point of view his history of the council. In A.D. 1442 he
  entered the service of the then neutral Emperor Frederick III.,
  was made _Poeta laureatus_ and imperial councillor, and as such
  still fought for the independence of the German church. But in
  A.D. 1445, with all the diplomatic arts which were so abundantly
  at his disposal, he wrought to secure the subjection of the
  emperor and German princes under the pope (§ 110, 10). Made
  bishop of Siena in A.D. 1450, he was raised to the cardinalate
  by Calixtus III. in A.D. 1456, and two years later ascended the
  papal throne as Pius II. The lasciviousness of his earlier life
  is mirrored in his poems, novels, dialogues, dramas, and letters.
  But as pope, old and weak, he maintained an honourable life, and
  in a bull of retractation addressed to the University of Cologne
  exhorted Christendom _Æneam rejicite, Pium recipite_!

  § 118.7. =Reforms in Church Policy in Spain.=--Notwithstanding
  the church feeling awakened by the struggle with the Moors, a
  vigorous opposition to papal pretensions was shown during the
  14th century by the Spanish princes, and after the outbreak
  of the great schism the anti-pope Clement VII., in A.D. 1381,
  purchased the obedience of the Spanish church by large
  concessions in regard to appointment to its bishoprics and
  the removal of the abuses of papal indulgences. The popes,
  indeed, sought not unsuccessfully to enlist Spain in their
  favour against the reformatory tendencies of the councils
  of the 15th century, until =Ferdinand= of Aragon [Arragon],
  A.D. 1479-1516, and =Isabella= of Castille [Castile],
  A.D. 1474-1504, who had on account of their zeal for the
  Catholic cause been entitled by the pontiff himself “their
  Catholic majesties,” entered so vigorous a protest against
  papal usurpations, that toward the end of the 15th century the
  royal supremacy over the Spanish church had won a recognition
  never accorded to it before. They consistently refused to
  acknowledge any bishop appointed by the pope, and forced from
  Sixtus IV. the concession that only Spaniards nominated by
  the Crown should be eligible for the highest ecclesiastical
  offices. All papal rescripts were subject to the royal approval,
  ecclesiastical tribunals were carefully supervised, and appeals
  from them were allowed to the royal judicatures. The church had
  also to give ordinary and extraordinary tithes of its goods and
  revenues for State purposes. The Spanish inquisition (§ 117, 2),
  thoroughly recognised in A.D. 1483, was more of a civil than
  an ecclesiastical institution. As the bishops and inquisitors
  were appointed by the royal edict, the orders of knights
  (§ 98, 13), by the transference of the grand-mastership to
  the king, were placed in complete subjection to the Crown;
  and whether he would or not Alexander VI. was obliged to accord
  to the royal commission for church and cloister visitation
  and reform the most absolute authority. But in everything
  else these rulers were worthy of the name of “Catholics,”
  for they tolerated in their church only the purely mediæval
  type of strict orthodoxy. The most distinguished promoter
  of their reforms in church polity was a Franciscan monk,
  =Francis Ximenes=, from A.D. 1492 confessor to Isabella,
  afterwards raised by her to the archbishopric of Toledo,
  made a Roman cardinal by Alexander VI., and grand-inquisitor
  of Spain in A.D. 1507. He died in A.D. 1517.


                 § 119. EVANGELICAL EFFORTS AT REFORM.

  Alongside of the Parisian reformers, but far in advance of them,
stand those of the English and Bohemian churches represented by Wiclif
and Huss. The reformation aimed at by these two was essentially of
the same kind, Wiclif being the more original, while Huss was largely
dependent upon his great English precursor. For in personal endowment,
speculative power, rich and varied learning, acuteness and wealth of
thought, originality and productivity of intellect, the Englishman
was head and shoulders above the Bohemian. On the other hand, Huss
was far more a man for the people, and he conducted his contention
in a sensible, popular, and practical manner. There were also powerful
representatives of the reform movement in the Netherlands during this
period, who pointed to Scripture and faith in the crucified Saviour as
the only radical cure for the corruptions of the church. While Wiclif
and Huss attached themselves to the Augustinian theology, the Dutchmen
gave themselves to quiet, calm contemplation and the acquirement of
practical religious knowledge. In Italy too a reformer appeared of a
strongly evangelical spirit, who did not however show the practical
sense of those of the Netherlands.

  § 119.1. =Wiclif and the Wiclifites.=--In England the kings and
  the Parliament had for a long time withstood the oppressive yoke
  of the papal hierarchy. Men too like John of Salisbury, Robert
  Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Bradwardine had raised their
  voices against the inner corruption of the church. =John Wiclif=,
  a scholar of Bradwardine, was born about A.D. 1320. As fellow of
  the University of Oxford, he supported in A.D. 1366 the English
  Crown against the payment of tribute to the papal court then at
  Avignon, admitted by John Lackland (§ 96, 18), of which payment
  had now for a long time been refused. This secured him court
  favour, the title of doctor, and a professorship of theology at
  Oxford; and in A.D. 1374 he was chosen as member of a commission
  which was to discuss at Brügge in the Netherlands with the papal
  envoys the differences that had arisen about the appointing
  to ecclesiastical offices. After his return he openly spoke
  and wrote against the papal “antichrist” and his doctrines.
  Gregory XI. now, in A.D. 1377, condemned nineteen propositions
  from his writings, but the English court protected him from the
  strict inquiry and punishment threatened. Meanwhile Wiclif was
  ever becoming bolder. Under his influence religious societies
  were formed which sent out travelling preachers of the gospel
  among the people. By their opponents they were called Lollards
  (§ 116, 3), a name to which the stigma of heresy was already
  attached. Wiclif translated for them the Scriptures from
  the Vulgate into English. The bitterness of his enemies now
  reached its height. Just then, in A.D. 1381, a rebellion of
  the oppressed peasants that deluged all England with blood
  broke out. Its origin has been quite gratuitously assigned to
  the religious movement. When he had directly repudiated the
  doctrine of transubstantiation, a synod at London, in A.D. 1382,
  condemned his writings and his doctrine as heretical, and the
  university also cast him out. Court and Parliament could only
  protect his person. He now retired to his rectory at Lutterworth
  in Leicestershire, where he died on 31st December, 1384.--For
  five centuries his able writings were left unprinted, to moulder
  away in the obscurity of libraries. His English works have
  now been edited by Matthews, London, 1880. Lechler of Leipzig
  edited Wiclif’s most complete and comprehensive work, the
  “_Trialogus_” (Oxford, 1869), in which his whole theological
  system is developed. Buddensieg of Dresden published the keen
  antipapal controversial tract, “_De Christo et suo adversario
  Antichristo_” (Leipzig, 1880). The Wiclif Society, instituted
  at the fifth centenary of Wiclif’s death for the purpose of
  issuing critical editions of his most important works, sent
  forth as their first performance Buddensieg’s edition of
  “twenty-six Latin controversial tracts of Wiclif’s from MSS.
  previously unprinted,” in 2 vols., London, 1883. Among Wiclif’s
  systematic treatises we are promised editions of the _Summa
  theologiæ_, _De incarnatione Verbi_, _De veritate s. Scr._,
  _De dominio divino_, _De ecclesia_, _De actibus animæ_, etc.,
  some by English, some by German editors.--As the principle of
  all theology and reformation Wiclif consistently affirms the
  sole authority of Divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures. He
  has hence been called _doctor evangelicus_. Anything that cannot
  be proved from it is a corrupting human invention. Consistently
  carrying out this principle, he denounced the worship of saints,
  relics, and images, the use of Latin in public worship, elaborate
  priestly choir singing, the multiplication of festivals, private
  masses, extreme unction, and generally all ceremonialism. The
  Catholic doctrine of indulgence and the sale of indulgences,
  as well as the ban and the interdict, he pronounced blasphemous;
  auricular confession he regarded as a forcing of conscience; the
  power of the keys he explained as conditional, its binding and
  loosing powerless, except when in accordance with the judgment
  of Christ. He denied the real presence of the body and blood
  of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and affirmed, like Berengar,
  a spiritual communication thereof, which however he makes
  dependent, not only on the faith of the receiver, but also
  on the worthiness of the officiating priest. The doctrine of
  purgatory he completely rejected, and supported Augustine’s
  predestinationism against the prevalent semipelagianism. The
  papacy was antichrist; the pope has his power only from the
  emperor, not from God. The hierarchical system should be
  replaced by the apostolic presbyterial constitution. Ordination
  confers no indelible character; a priest who has fallen into
  mortal sin cannot dispense the sacrament. Every believer is as
  such a priest. The State is a representation of Christ, as the
  God-Man ruler of the universe; the clergy represent only the
  poor and suffering life of His humanity. Monkery is contrary
  to nature, etc.--Wiclif’s supporters, many of them belonging
  to the noblest and most cultured orders, were after his death
  subjected to violent persecution, which reached its height when
  the House of Lancaster in the person of Henry IV. ascended the
  English throne in A.D. 1399. An act of parliament was passed in
  A.D. 1400 which made death by fire the punishment of the heresy
  of the Lollards. Among the martyrs which this law brought to
  the stake was the noble Sir John Oldcastle, who in A.D. 1418
  was hung up between two beams in iron chains over a fire and
  there slowly burnt. The Council of Constance in A.D. 1415
  condemned forty-five propositions from Wiclif’s writings, and
  ordered his bones to be exhumed and scattered abroad. Many
  germs sown by him continued until the Reformation came.[348]

  § 119.2. =Precursors of the Hussite Movement.=--Owing to its
  Greek origin (§ 79, 2, 3), the Bohemian church had a certain
  character of its own and barely tolerated the Roman constitution
  and ritual. In Bohemia too the Waldensians had numerous
  supporters during the 13th century. And even before the
  appearance of Huss three distinguished clergymen in and around
  Prague by earnest preaching and pastoral work had awakened in
  many a consciousness of crying abuses in the church.

    1. =Conrad of Waldhausen= was a famous preacher when called
       by Charles IV. to Prague, where after fifteen years’ labour
       he died in A.D. 1369. Preaching in German, he inveighed
       against the cupidity, hypocrisy, and immorality of the
       clergy and monks, against the frauds connected with the
       worship of images and relics and shrines, and threw back
       upon his accusers the charge of heresy in his still extant
       _Apologia_.

    2. More influential than Conrad as a preacher of repentance
       in Prague was =John Milicz of Cremsier= in Moravia, who
       died in A.D. 1374. Believing the end of the world near
       and antichrist already come, he went to Rome in A.D. 1367
       to place before Urban V. his scheme of apocalyptic
       interpretation. Escaping with difficulty from the
       Inquisition, he returned to Prague, and there applied
       himself with renewed zeal to the preaching of repentance.
       His preaching led to the conversion of 200 fallen women,
       for whom he erected an institution which he called Jerusalem.
       But the begging friars accused him before Gregory XI. as a
       heretic. Milicz fearlessly went for examination to Avignon
       in A.D. 1374, where he soon died before judgment had been
       passed. The most important of his works is _De Antichristo_.

    3. =Matthias of Janow=, of noble Bohemian descent, died in
       A.D. 1374, after fourteen years’ work as a preacher and
       pastor in Prague. His sermons, composed in Bohemian, lashed
       unsparingly the vices of the clergy and monks, as well
       as the immorality of the laity, and denounced the worship
       of images and relics. None of his sermons are extant,
       but we have various theological treatises of his on the
       distinguishing of the true faith from the false and the
       frequent observance of the communion. At a Prague synod of
       A.D. 1389 he was obliged to retract several of his positions,
       and especially to grant the propriety of confessing and
       communicating half-yearly. Janow however, like Conrad and
       Milicz, did not seriously contest any fundamental point of
       the doctrine of the church.

  § 119.3. =John Huss of Hussinecz= in Bohemia, born A.D. 1369,
  was Bachelor of Theology at Prague, in A.D. 1394, Master
  of Liberal Arts in A.D. 1396, became public teacher in the
  university in A.D. 1398, was ordained priest in A.D. 1400,
  undertook a pastorate in A.D. 1402 in the Bethlehem chapel,
  where he had to preach in the Bohemian language, was chosen
  confessor of Queen Sophia in A.D. 1403, and was soon afterwards
  made synodal preacher by the new archbishop, Sbynko of Hasenburg.
  Till then he had in pious humility accepted all the doctrines
  of the Romish Church, and even in A.D. 1392 he offered his last
  four groschen for an indulgence, so that for a long time dry
  bread was his only nourishment. But about A.D. 1402 he reached
  an important crisis in his life through the study of Wiclif’s
  theological works.--Bohemians who had studied in Oxford brought
  with them Wiclif’s philosophical works, and in A.D. 1348 the
  discussion on realism and nominalism broke out in Prague. The
  Bohemians generally sided with Wiclif for realism; the Germans
  with the nominalists (§ 113, 3). This helped to prepare an
  entrance for Wiclif’s theological writings into Bohemia. Of the
  national party which favoured Wiclif’s philosophy and theology,
  Huss was soon recognised as a leader. A university decree of
  A.D. 1403 condemned forty-five propositions from Wiclif’s works
  as heretical, and forbade their promulgation in lectures or
  sermons. Huss however was still highly esteemed by Archbishop
  Sbynko. In A.D. 1405 he appointed Huss, with other three
  scholars, a commission to investigate a reputed miracle at
  Wilsnack, where on the altar of a ruined church three blood-red
  coloured hosts were said to have been found. Huss pronounced
  the miracle a cheat, and proved in a tract that the blood of
  Christ glorified can only be invisibly present in the sacrament
  of the altar. The archbishop approved this tract, and forbade
  all pilgrimages to the spot. He also took no offence at Huss
  for uttering Wiclifite doctrine in his synod sermon. Only when,
  in A.D. 1408, the clergy of his diocese complained that Huss by
  his preaching made the priests contemptible before the people,
  did he deprive him of his function as synod preacher. When the
  majority of cardinals at Leghorn in A.D. 1408 took steps to put
  an end to the schism, king Wenzel determined to remain neutral,
  and demanded the assent of the university as well as the clergy
  of his realm. But only the Bohemian members of the university
  agreed, while the rest, along with the archbishop, supported
  Gregory XII. Sbynko keenly resented the revolt of the Bohemians,
  and forbade Huss as their spokesman to preach within his diocese.
  Huss paid no attention to the prohibition, but secured a royal
  injunction, that henceforth in the university Bohemians should
  have three votes and foreigners only one. The foreigners then
  withdrew, and founded the University of Leipzig in A.D. 1409.
  Huss was made first rector of the newly organized University
  of Prague; but the very fact of his great popularity in Bohemia
  caused him to be profoundly hated in other lands.[349]

  § 119.4. The archbishop escaped prosecution only by
  unreservedly condemning the doctrines of Wiclif, burning his
  books, and prohibiting all lectures upon them. Huss and his
  friends appealed to John XXIII., but this did not prevent the
  archbishop burning in his palace yard about two hundred Wiclifite
  books that had previously escaped his search. For this he was
  hooted in the streets, and compelled by the courts of law to
  pay the value of the books destroyed. John XXIII. cited Huss
  to appear at Rome. King, nobles, magistrates, and university
  sided with him; but the papal commission condemned him when he
  did not appear, and the archbishop pronounced anathema against
  him and the interdict against Prague (A.D. 1411). Huss appealed
  to the œcumenical council, and continued to preach. The court
  forced the archbishop to become reconciled with Huss, and to
  admit his orthodoxy. Sbynko reported to the pope that Bohemia
  was free from heresy. He soon afterwards died. The pope himself
  was the cause of a complete breach, by having an indulgence
  preached in Bohemia in A.D. 1412 for a crusade against Ladislaus
  of Naples, the powerful adherent of Gregory XII. Huss opposed
  this by word and writing, and in a public disputation maintained
  that the pope had no right to grant such indulgence. His most
  stanch supporter was a Bohemian knight, Jerome of Prague, who
  had studied at Oxford, and returned in A.D. 1402 an enthusiastic
  adherent of Wiclif’s doctrines. Their addresses produced
  an immense impression, and two days later their disorderly
  followers, to throw contempt on the papal party, had the bull
  of indulgence paraded through the streets, on the breast of a
  public prostitute, representing the whore of Babylon, and then
  cast into the flames. But many old friends now withdrew from Huss
  and joined his opponents. The papal curia thundered against him
  and his followers the great excommunication, with its terrible
  curses. Wherever he resided that place was put under interdict.
  But Huss appealed to the one righteous Judge, Jesus Christ. At
  the wish of the king he left the city, and sought the protection
  of various noble patrons, from whose castles he went forth
  diligently preaching round about. He spread his views all over
  the country by controversial and doctrinal treatises in Latin
  and Bohemian, as well as by an extensive correspondence with
  his friends and followers. Thus the trouble and turmoil grew
  from day to day, and all the king’s efforts to restore peace
  were in vain.

  § 119.5. The Roman emperor Sigismund summoned Huss to attend the
  Council of Constance (§ 110, 7), and promised him a safe-conduct.
  Though not yet in possession of this latter, which he only
  got at Constance, trusting to the righteousness of his cause,
  for which he was quite willing to die a martyr’s death, he
  started for Constance on 11th October, A.D. 1414, reaching his
  destination on 3rd November. On 28th November he was sentenced
  to imprisonment at a private conference of the cardinals, on the
  pretended charge of an attempt at flight, first in the Dominican
  cloister, then in the bishop’s castle of Gottlieben, where he
  was put in chains, finally in the Franciscan cloister. Sigismund,
  who had not been forewarned when he was cast into prison, ordered
  his release; but the council convinced him that Huss, arraigned
  as a heretic before a general council, was beyond the reach
  of civil protection. His bitterest enemies and accusers were
  two Bohemians, Michael of Deutschbrod and Stephan of Palecz.
  The latter extracted forty-two points for accusations from his
  writings, which Huss from his prison retracted. D’Ailly and
  Gerson were both against him. The brave knight John of Chlum
  stood faithfully by him as a comforter to the last. For almost
  seven months was he harassed by private examinations, in which,
  notwithstanding his decided repudiation of many of them, he was
  charged with all imaginable Wiclifite heresies. The result was
  the renewed condemnation of those forty-five propositions from
  Wiclif’s writings, which had been condemned A.D. 1408 by the
  University of Prague. At last, on 5th June, A.D. 1415, he was
  for the first time granted a public trial, but the tumult at
  the sitting was so great that he was prevented from saying a
  single word. Even on the two following days of the trial he
  could do little more than make a vain protest against being
  falsely charged with errors, and declare his willingness to be
  better instructed from God’s word. The humility and gentleness of
  his demeanour, as well as the enthusiasm and believing joyfulness
  which he displayed, won for him many hearts even outside of the
  council. All possible motives were urged to induce him to submit.
  Sigismund so exhorted him, with the threat that if he did not
  he would withdraw his protection. The third and last day of
  trial was 8th June, A.D. 1415, and judgment was pronounced in
  the cathedral church on the 6th July. After high mass had been
  celebrated, a bishop mounted the pulpit and preached on Romans
  vi. 6. He addressed Sigismund, who was present, “By destroying
  this heretic, thou shalt obtain an undying name to all ensuing
  generations.” Once again called upon to recant, Huss repeated
  his previous protests, appealed to the promise of a safe-conduct,
  which made Sigismund wince and blush, and kneeling down prayed
  to God for his enemies and unjust judges. Then seven bishops
  dressed him in priestly robes in order to strip him of them one
  after another amid solemn execrations. Then they put on him a
  high pyramidal hat, painted with figures of devils, and bearing
  the inscription, _Hæresiarcha_, and uttered the words, “We give
  thy soul to the devil.” He replied: “I commend it into the hands
  of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” On that same day he was given over
  by Sigismund to Louis Count-palatine of the Rhine, and by him
  to the Constance magistrates, and led to the stake. Amid prayer
  and praise he expired, joyfully, courageously, and confidently,
  showing himself worthy to rank among the martyrs who in the best
  times of Christianity had sealed their Christian confession with
  their blood. His ashes were scattered on the Rhine. The later
  Hussites, in accordance with an old Christian custom (§ 39, 5),
  celebrated the day of his death as the _dies natalis_ of the
  holy martyr John Huss.--=Jerome of Prague= had gone unasked to
  Constance. When he saw that his longer stay would not help his
  friend, but only involve himself in his fate, he left the city;
  but was seized on the way, and taken back in chains in April,
  A.D. 1415. During a severe half-year’s imprisonment, and wearied
  with the importunities of his judges, he agreed to recant, and
  to acquiesce in the sentence of Huss. But he was not trusted, and
  after as before his recantation he was kept in close confinement.
  Then his courage revived. He demanded a public trial before the
  whole council, which was at last granted him in May, A.D. 1416.
  There he solemnly and formally retracted his previous retractation
  with a believer’s confidence and a martyr’s joy. On May 30th,
  A.D. 1416, he, too, died at the stake, joyfully and courageously
  as Huss had done. The Florentine humanist Poggio, who was present,
  has given enthusiastic expression in a still extant letter to his
  admiration at the heroic spirit of the martyr.

  § 119.6. In all his departures from Romish doctrine Huss was
  dependent upon Wiclif, not only for the matter, but even for
  the modes of expression. He did not however separate himself
  quite so far from the Church doctrines as his English master.
  He firmly maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation; he was
  also inclined to withhold the cup from the laity; and, though
  he sought salvation only from the Saviour crucified for us, he
  did not refuse to give any place to works in the justification
  of the sinner, and even invocation of the saints he did not
  wholly condemn. While he energetically protested against the
  corruption of the clergy, he never denied that the sacrament
  might be efficaciously administered by an unworthy priest. In
  everything else however he was in thorough agreement with the
  English reformer. The most complete exposition of his doctrine
  is found in the _Tractatus de ecclesia_ of A.D. 1413. Augustine’s
  doctrine of predestination is its foundation. He distinguishes
  from the church as a visible human institution the idea of the
  church as the true body of Christ, embracing all elected in
  Christ to blessedness from eternity. Its one and only head is
  Christ: not Peter, not the pope; for this church is no monster
  with two heads. Originally and according to Christ’s appointment
  the bishop of Rome was no more than the other bishops. The
  donation of Constantine first gave him power and dignity over
  the rest. As the church in the beginning could exist without
  a pope, so the church unto the end can exist without one. The
  Christian can obey the pope only where his commands and doctrines
  agree with those of Christ. In matters of faith Holy Scripture
  is the only authority. Fathers, councils, and popes may err,
  and have erred; only the word of God is infallible.--That
  this liberal reforming Council of Constance, with a Gerson
  at its head, should have sentenced such a man to death is not
  to be wondered at when we rightly consider how matters stood.
  His hateful realism seemed to the nominalistic fathers of the
  council the source of all conceivable heresies. It had even
  been maintained that realism consistently carried out would
  give a fourth person to the Godhead. His devotion to the national
  interests of Bohemia in the University of Prague had excited
  German national feeling against him. And, further, the council,
  which was concerned only with outward reforms, had little
  sympathy with the evangelical tone of his spirit and doctrine.
  Besides this, Huss had placed himself between the swords of two
  contending parties. The hierarchical party wished, in order to
  strike terror into their opponents, to show by an example that
  the church had still the power to burn heretics; and the liberal
  party refused to this object of papal hate all protection, lest
  they should endanger the cause of reformation by incurring a
  suspicion of sympathy with heresy.--The prophecy said to have
  been uttered by Huss in his last moments, “To-day you burn a
  goose (this being the meaning of Huss in Slavonian), but from
  its ashes will arise a swan (Luther’s coat of arms), which you
  will not be able to burn,” was unknown to his contemporaries.
  Probably it originated in the Reformation age from the appeals
  of both martyrs to the judgment of God and history. Huss had
  often declared that instead of the weak goose there would come
  powerful eagles and falcons.[350]

  § 119.7. =Calixtines and Taborites.=--During the imprisonment
  of their leader the Hussite party was headed by Jacob of Misa,
  pastor of St. Michael’s church in Prague. With consent of Huss
  he introduced the use of the cup by the laity and rejected the
  _jejunium eucharisticum_ as opposed to Matthew xxvi. 26. This
  led to an interchange of controversial tracts between Prague and
  Constance on the withholding of the cup. The council decreed that
  whoever disobeys the Church on this point is to be punished as a
  heretic. This decree, followed by the execution of Huss, roused
  Bohemia to the uttermost. King Wenceslaw died in A.D. 1419 in the
  midst of national excitement, and the estates refused to crown
  his brother Sigismund, “the word-breaker.” Now arose a civil war,
  A.D. 1420-1436, characterized by cruelties on both sides rarely
  equalled. At the head of the Hussites, who had built on the brow
  of a steep hill the strong fortress Tabor, was the one-eyed,
  afterwards blind, =John Ziska of Trocznov=. The crusading armies
  sent against the Hussites were one after another destroyed;
  but the gentle spirit of Huss had no place among most of his
  followers. The two parties became more and more embittered toward
  one another. The aristocratic =Calixtines= (_calix_, cup) or
  Utraquists (_sub utraque_), at whose head was Bishop Rokycana
  of Prague, declared that they would be satisfied if the Catholic
  church would concede to them four articles:

    1. Communion under both kinds;

    2. Preaching of the pure gospel in the vulgar tongue;

    3. Strict discipline among the clergy; and

    4. Renunciation by the clergy of church property.

  On the other hand, the =Taborites= would have no reconciliation
  with the Romish church, regarding as fundamentally corrupt in
  doctrine and worship whatever is not found in Scripture, and
  passing over into violent fanaticism, iconoclasm, etc. After
  Ziska’s death of the plague in A.D. 1424, the majority of the
  Taborites elected Procopius the Great as his successor. A small
  party that regarded no man worthy of succeeding the great Ziska,
  refused him allegiance, and styled themselves Orphans. They were
  the most fanatical of all.--Meanwhile the Council of Basel had
  met (§ 110, 8) and after long fruitless negotiations it was
  resolved in A.D. 1433 that 300 Hussite deputies should appear
  at Basel. After a fifty days’ disputation the four Calixtine
  articles with certain modifications were accepted by the council.
  On the basis of this =Basel Compact= the Calixtines returned
  to the Romish church. The Taborites regarded this as shameful
  treason to the cause of truth, and continued the conflict. But
  in A.D. 1434 they were utterly annihilated at Böhmischbrod, not
  far from Prague. In the Treaty of Iglau in A.D. 1436 Sigismund
  swore to observe the compact, and was recognised as king. But
  the concessions sworn to by church and state were more and more
  restricted and ultimately ignored. Sigismund died in A.D. 1437.
  In place of his son-in-law, Albert II., the Utraquists set up a
  rival king in the person of the thirteen year old Polish prince
  Casimir; but Albert died in A.D. 1439. His son, Ladislaus, born
  after his father’s death, had, in George Podiebrad, a Calixtine
  tutor. After he had grown up in A.D. 1453, he walked in his
  grandfather’s footsteps, and died in A.D. 1457. The Calixtines
  now elected Podiebrad king, as a firm supporter of the compact.
  Pius II. recognised him in the hope that he would aid him in his
  projected war against the Turks. When this hope was disappointed
  he cancelled the compact, in A.D. 1462. Paul II. put the king
  under him, and had a crusade preached against him. Podiebrad
  however still held his ground. He died in A.D. 1471. His
  successor, Wladislaw II., a Polish prince, though a zealous
  Catholic, was obliged to confirm anew to the Calixtines
  at the Diet of Cuttenberg, in A.D. 1485, all their rights
  and liberties. Yet they could not maintain themselves as
  an independent community. Those of them who did not join
  the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren gradually during the
  16th century became thoroughly amalgamated with the Catholic
  church.

  § 119.8. =The Bohemian and Moravian Brethren.=--George Podiebrad
  took Tabor in A.D. 1453, and scattered the last remnants of the
  Taborites. Joining with the evangelical Friends of God, they
  received from the king a castle, where, under the leadership
  of the local pastor, Michael of Bradacz, they formed a _Unitas
  fratrum_, and called themselves Bohemian and Moravian Brethren.
  But in A.D. 1461 Podiebrad withdrew his favour, and confiscated
  their goods. They fled into the woods, and met for worship in
  caves. In A.D. 1467 the most distinguished of the Bohemian and
  Moravian Brethren met in a Bohemian village, Shota, with the
  German Waldensians, and chose three brethren by lot as priests,
  who were ordained by Michael and a Waldensian priest. But
  when the validity of their ordination was disputed, Michael
  went to the Waldensian bishop Stephen, got from him episcopal
  consecration, and then again ordained the three chosen at Shota,
  one, Matthias of Conewald, as bishop, the other two as priests.
  This led Rokycana to persecute them all the more bitterly. They
  increased their numbers however, by receiving the remnants of
  the Waldensians and many Utraquists, until by the beginning of
  the 16th century they had four hundred congregations in Bohemia
  and Moravia. Under Wladislaw II. persecution was stopped from
  A.D. 1475, but was renewed with great violence in A.D. 1503. They
  sent in A.D. 1511 a confession of faith to Erasmus (§ 120, 6),
  with the request that he would give his opinion about it; which
  he however, fearing to be compromised thereby, declined to do.
  After the death of Bishop Matthias, in A.D. 1500, a dislike
  of monarchy led to the appointment of four _Seniors_ instead
  of one bishop, two for Bohemia and two for Moravia. The most
  important and influential of these was Luke of Prague, who
  died in A.D. 1518, rightly regarded as the second founder
  of the union. He impressed a character upon the brotherhood
  essentially distinct in respect of constitution and doctrine
  from the Lutheran Reformation.--Continuation § 139, 19.

  § 119.9. =The Waldensians.=

    1. The range of the missionary enterprise of the
       =Lombard-German Waldensians= was widely extended during
       the 14th century. At the close of that period it stretched
       “from western Switzerland across the southern borders
       of the empire, from the upper and middle Rhine along
       the Main and through Franconia into Thuringia, from
       Bohemia up to Brandenburg and Pomerania, and with its
       last advances reached to Prussia, Poland, Silesia, Hungary,
       Transylvania, and Galicia.” The anonymous writer of Passau,
       about A.D. 1260 or 1316, reports from his own knowledge
       of numerous “Leonists,” who in forty-two communities, with
       a bishop at Einzinspach, in the diocese of Passau, were in
       his time the subject of inquisitorial interference, and in
       theory and practice bore all the characteristic marks of
       the Lombard Leonists. The same applies to the Austrian
       Waldensians, of whose persecution in A.D. 1391 we have
       an account by Peter of Pilichdorf. We may also with equal
       confidence pronounce the Winkelers, so called from holding
       their services in secret corners, who about this time
       appeared in Bavaria, Franconia, Swabia, and the Rhine
       Provinces, to be Waldensians of the same Lombard type.
       Their confessors, Winkelers in the narrower sense, were
       itinerant, celibate, and without fixed abode, carrying
       on missionary work, and administering the sacrament of
       penance to their adherents. Although, in order to avoid
       the attentions of the Inquisition, they took part in
       the Catholic services, and in case of need confessed to
       Catholic priests, they were nevertheless traced about
       A.D. 1400 to Strassburg. Thirty-two of them were thrown
       into prison, and induced under torture to confess. The
       Dominicans insisted that they should be immediately burned,
       but the council was satisfied with banishing them from the
       city. At a later period the Hussites obtained an influence
       over them. One of their most notable apostles at this time
       was Fr. Reiser of Swabia. In his travels he went to Bohemia,
       attached himself to the Hussites there, received from
       them priestly ordination, and in A.D. 1433 accompanied
       their representatives to the Basel Council. Then Procopius
       procured him a call to a pastorate in the little Bohemian
       town of Landscron, which, however, he soon abandoned.
       Encouraged by the reformatory tendency of the council,
       he now remained for a long time in Basel, then conducted
       missionary work in Germany, at first on his own account,
       afterwards at the head of a Taborite mission of twelve
       agents, in which position he styled himself _Fridericus Dei
       gratia Episcopus fidelium in Romana ecclesia Constantini
       donationem spernentium_. At last, in A.D. 1457, he went
       to Strassburg, with the intention of there ending his days
       in peace. But soon after his arrival he was apprehended,
       and in A.D. 1458, along with his faithful follower, Anna
       Weiler, put to death at the stake.--On the Waldensians
       in German Switzerland, and the Inquisition’s oft repeated
       interference with them, Ochsenbein gives a full report,
       drawn from original documents, specially full in regard
       to the great Inquisition trial at Freiburg, in A.D. 1430,
       consisting of ninety-nine wearisome and detailed examinations.
       Subsequently terrible persecutions, aiming at their
       extermination, became still more frequent in Switzerland.
       Also the Swiss Waldensians already bore unmistakable
       marks of having been influenced by the Hussites. Finally,
       Wattenbach has made interesting communications regarding
       the Waldensians in Pomerania and Brandenburg, based
       upon a manuscript once in the possession of Flacius, but
       afterwards supposed to have been lost, discovered again
       in the Wolfenbüttel library in A.D. 1884, though in a
       very defective form, which contains the original reports
       of 443 prosecutions for heresy in Pomerania, Brandenburg,
       and Thuringia. By far the greatest number of these trials
       were conducted between A.D. 1373 and 1394, by the Cœlestine
       provincial Peter, appointed inquisitor by the pope. From
       A.D. 1383 Stettin was the centre of his inquisitorial
       activity, and on the conclusion of his work he could boast
       that during the last two years he had converted to the
       Catholic faith more than 1,000 Waldensians. The victims of
       the Inquisition belonged almost exclusively to the peasant
       and artisan classes. Their objectionable doctrines and
       opinions are essentially almost the same as those of their
       ancestors of the 13th century. Although equally with their
       predecessors they abhorred the practice of the Catholic
       church, and declared all swearing and slaughter to be
       mortal sin, they yet in great part, and as it seems even
       without the application of torture, were persuaded to
       abjure their heresy, and incurred nothing more than a
       light penance. They did this, perhaps, only in the hope
       that their indulgent confessors would absolve them from
       their sin. The last protocols bring us down to A.D. 1458.
       Since a great number of these heretics were found again
       in Brandenburg, the elector caused one of their most
       distinguished leaders, the tailor Matthew Hagen, and
       three of his disciples to be taken prisoners to Berlin,
       and commissioned the Bishop of Brandenburg to investigate
       the case; but owing to his sickness this duty devolved
       upon John Cannemann, professor and doctor of theology. The
       elector was himself present at the trial. The investigation
       showed that the Waldensians of Brandenburg had evidently
       been influenced in their opinions by the Bohemian Taborites,
       and that they were constantly in close communion with them,
       and Hagen confessed that he had been there ordained by
       Fr. Ryss or Reiser to the clerical office. When Hagen
       persistently refused to retract, he was delivered over
       to the civil authorities for punishment, and was by them
       executed, probably at the stake. His three companions
       abjured their heresy, and on submitting to church discipline
       and wearing clothes marked with the sign of the cross, were
       pardoned. Cannemann then proceeded to Angermünde, where in
       the city and surrounding country crowds of such heretics
       resided; and there he succeeded without great difficulty
       in bringing them to abjure their errors and accept the
       Catholic confession.--The Waldensians in Bohemia and
       Moravia quite voluntarily amalgamated with the “_United
       Brethren_” there. The remnants of the German and Swiss
       Waldensians may have attached themselves to the Reformation
       of the 16th century, but probably for the most part to the
       Protestant sects of that age, some joining Schwenkfeld,
       and still more going with the Anabaptists, to whom they
       were essentially much more closely related than to Luther
       or Zwingli.--As to the ultimate fate of the Lombard
       Waldensians themselves, we know nothing. Probably many
       of them sought escape from the persecutions which raged
       against them among the French Waldensians in the valleys
       of Piedmont.

  § 119.9A.

    2. The remnants of the =French Waldensians= and their lay
       adherents down to the beginning of the 14th century had for
       the most part settled in the remote and little cultivated
       valleys on both sides of the Cottian Alps. This settlement,
       which bore the character of an assembly as well as that of
       an isolation, now rendered indispensable the organization
       of an independent congregational order, such as had never
       been attempted before. In the arrangements of this community,
       not only was the question of clerical rank simplified by
       the combination of the order of bishop or _majoralis_ with
       that of the presbyter, to which combined office was given
       the honourable designation of “_barbe_,” uncle, and instead
       of the hitherto annual tenure of this office was introduced
       a life tenure, but also to the laity was assigned a share
       in the church government at their synod meetings. A bull
       of John XXII., of A.D. 1332, informs us that then in the
       Piedmontese valleys _ita creverunt et multiplicati sunt
       hæretici, præcipue de secta Waldensium, quod frequenter
       congregationes per modum capitali facere inibi præsumpserunt,
       in quibus aliquando 500 Valdenses fuerunt insimul congregati_;
       yet certainly not merely clergy, as among the earlier
       congregations on the yearly tenure. The great, yea,
       extraordinarily great, number of the Waldensians in the
       Piedmontese valleys is proved by this, that from thence,
       since A.D. 1340, flourishing colonies of Waldensians were
       transplanted into Calabria and Apulia with the connivance
       of the larger proprietors in those parts. Those who had
       settled on the western side, in the province of Dauphiné,
       succumbed completely in A.D. 1545 to the oft repeated
       persecutions. The colonies of southern Italy, however,
       seem long to have led a quiet and little disturbed life
       under the protection of the territorial princes, until
       their adoption of Protestant views called down upon
       them the attention of the Inquisition, and led to their
       utter extermination in A.D. 1561. On the other hand, the
       Waldensians of Piedmont, in spite of continuous oppression
       and frequently renewed persecution, maintained their
       existence down to the present day. When in the beginning
       of the 15th century their residence came under the sway of
       the Duke of Savoy, the persecutions began, and lasted down
       to A.D. 1477, when a crusade for their extermination was
       summoned by Innocent VIII., which ended in the utter rout
       of the crusading army by Savoy and France. They had now a
       long period of repose, till their adoption of Protestant
       views in the 16th century anew awakened against them the
       horrors of persecution. In this time of rest brotherly
       intercourse was cultivated between the Waldensian groups
       and the Bohemian Brethren, who had hitherto maintained
       relations only with the German Waldensians. This movement
       originated with the Bohemians. Even at an earlier date,
       these, inspired by the wish to seek abroad what they could
       not obtain at home, namely, communion with a church free
       from Romish corruptions, had made a voyage of discovery
       in the east, which yielded no result. Now, in A.D. 1497,
       they determined to make another similar search, under the
       leadership of Luke of Prague, in the primitive haunts of
       the Waldensians in France and Italy. The deputies went
       forth, beginning with the south of France, and the remnants
       of the French communities in their settlements among the
       Piedmontese Alps. More detailed reports of their intercourse
       with these no longer exist, but it cannot be doubted that
       there was a mutual interchange of religious writings. It
       is a question therefore that has been much discussed as
       to which party was the chief gainer by this interchange.
       But it can now be no longer questioned that the Waldensians,
       as those who were far less advanced in the direction of
       the evangelical reformation, learnt much from the Bohemians,
       and by transferring it into their own literature, secured
       it as their permanent property.

  § 119.10. =The Dutch Reformers= sprang mostly from the Brothers
  of the Common Life (§ 112, 9).

    1. =John Pupper of Goch= in Cleves, prior of a cloister
       founded by him at Mecheln, died A.D. 1475. His works
       show him to have been a man of deep spirituality. Love,
       which leads to the true freedom of sons of God, is
       the _material_, the sole authority of Scripture is the
       _formal_, principle of his theology, which rests on a
       purely Augustinian foundation. He contends against the
       doctrine of righteousness by works, the meritoriousness
       of vows, etc.

    2. =John Ruchrath of Wesel=, professor in Erfurt, afterwards
       preacher at Mainz and Worms, died in A.D. 1481. On the
       basis of a strictly Augustinian theology he opposed the
       papal systems of anathemas and indulgences, and preached
       powerfully salvation by Jesus Christ only. For the church
       doctrine of transubstantiation he substituted one of
       impanation. He spiritualized the doctrine of the church.
       Against the ecclesiastical injunction of fasts, he wrote
       _De jejunio_; against indulgences, _De indulgentiis_;
       against the hierarchy, _De potestate ecclesiastica_. The
       Dominicans of Mainz accused and condemned him as a heretic
       in A.D. 1479. The old man, bent down with age and sickness,
       was forced to recant, and to burn his writings, and was
       sentenced to imprisonment for life in a monastery.

    3. =John Wessel= of Gröningen was a scholar of the Brothers
       of the Common Life at Zwoll, where Thomas à Kempis exerted
       a powerful influence over him. He taught in Cologne, Lyons,
       Paris, and Heidelberg, and then retired to the cloister
       of Agnes Mount, near Zwoll, where he died in A.D. 1489.
       His friends called him _Lux mundi_. Scholastic dialectics,
       mystical depths, and rich classical culture were in him
       united with a clear and accurate knowledge of science.
       Luther says of him: “Had I read Wessel before, my enemies
       would have said, Luther has taken everything from Wessel,
       so thoroughly do our ideas agree.” His views are in
       harmony with Luther’s, especially in what he teaches of
       Holy Scripture, the universal priesthood of Christians,
       indulgence, repentance, faith, and justification. He
       taught that not only popes but even councils may err and
       have erred; excommunication has merely outward efficacy,
       indulgence has to do only with ecclesiastical penalties,
       and God alone can forgive sins; our justification rests
       on Christ’s righteousness and God’s free grace. Purgatory
       meant for him nothing more than the intermediate position
       between earthly imperfection and heavenly perfection, which
       is attained only through various stages. The protection
       of powerful friends saved him from the persecution of
       the Inquisition. Many of his works were destroyed by the
       diligence of the mendicant friars. The most important of
       his extant writings is the _Farrago_, a collection of short
       treatises.[351]

    4. The priest of Rostock, =Nicholas Russ=, in the end of
       the 15th century, deserves honourable mention alongside
       of these Dutchmen. Living in intimate relations with
       Bohemian Waldensians, he was subjected to many indignities,
       and died a fugitive in Livonia. He wrote in the Dutch
       language a tract against the hierarchy, indulgences,
       worship of saints and relics, etc., which was translated
       into German by Flacius. A copy of it was found in Rostock
       library in A.D. 1850. It is entitled, “Of the Rope or
       of the Three Strings.” The rope that will raise man from
       the depths of his corruption must be made up of the three
       strings, faith, hope, and love. These three strings are
       described in succession, and so the book forms a complete
       compendium of Christian faith and life, with a sharp polemic
       against the debased church doctrine and morals of the age.

  § 119.11. =An Italian Reformer.=--=Jerome Savonarola=, born
  A.D. 1452, monk and from A.D. 1481 prior of the Dominican
  cloister of San Marco in Florence, was from A.D. 1489 in high
  repute in that city as an eloquent and passionate preacher of
  repentance, with even reckless boldness declaiming against the
  depravity of clergy and laity, princes and people. With his whole
  soul a Dominican, and as such an enthusiastic admirer of Thomas,
  practising rigid self-discipline by fasts and flagellations,
  he was led by the study of Augustine and Scripture to a pure
  and profound knowledge of the evangelical doctrine of salvation,
  which he sought, not in the merits and intercession of the saints,
  nor in the performance of good works, but only in the grace of
  God and justification through faith in the crucified Saviour
  of sinners. But with this he combined a prophetic-apocalyptic
  theory, according to which he thought himself called and fitted
  by Divine inspiration, like the prophets of the Old Testament,
  to grapple with the political problems of the age. And, in fact,
  he made many a hardened sinner tremble by revealing contemplated
  secret sins, and many of his political prophecies seem to have
  been fulfilled with surprising accuracy. Thus he prophesied
  the death of Innocent VIII. in A.D. 1492, and proclaimed the
  speedy overthrow of the house of the Medici in Florence, as
  well as the punishment of other Italian tyrants and the thorough
  reformation of the church by a foreign king crossing the Alps
  with a powerful army. And lo, in the following year, the king
  of France, Charles VIII., crossed the Alps to enforce his claims
  upon Naples and force from the pope recognition of the Basel
  reforms; the Medici were banished from Florence, and Naples
  unresistingly fell into the hands of the French. Thus the ascetic
  monk of San Marco became the man of the people, who now began
  with ruthless energy to carry out, not only moral and religious
  reformatory notions, but also his political ideal of a democratic
  kingdom of God. In vain did Alexander VI. seek by offer of a
  cardinal’s hat to win over the demagogical prophet and reformer;
  he only replied, “I desire no other red hat than that coloured
  by the blood of martyrdom.” In vain did the pope insist that
  he should appear before him at Rome; in vain did he forbid him
  the pulpit, from which he so powerfully moved the people. An
  attempt to restore the Medici also failed. At the carnival in
  A.D. 1497 Savonarola proved the supremacy of his influence over
  the people by persuading them, instead of the usual buffoonery,
  to make a bonfire of the articles of luxury and vanity. But
  already the political movements were turning out unfavourably,
  and his utterances were beginning to lose their reputation
  as true prophecies. Charles VIII. had been compelled to quit
  Italy in A.D. 1495, and Savonarola’s assurances of his speedy
  return were still unfulfilled. Popular favour vacillated, while
  the nobles and the libertine youth were roused to the utmost
  bitterness against him. The Franciscans, as members of a rival
  order, were his sworn enemies. The papal ban was pronounced
  against him in A.D. 1497, and the city was put under the
  interdict. A monk of his cloister, Fra Domenico Pescia, offered
  to pass the ordeal of fire in behalf of his master, if any of his
  opponents would submit to the same trial. A Franciscan declared
  himself ready to do so, and all arrangements were made. But
  when Domenico insisted upon taking with him a consecrated host,
  the trial did not come off, to the great disappointment of a
  people devotedly fond of shows. A fanatical mob took the prophet
  prisoner. His bitterest enemies were his judges, who, after
  torture had extorted from him a confession of false prophecy
  most repugnant to his inmost convictions, condemned him to
  death by fire as a deceiver of the people and a heretic. On
  23rd May, A.D. 1498, he was, along with Domenico and another
  monk, hung upon a gallows and then burned. The believing
  joy with which he endured death deepened the reverence of
  an ever-increasing band of adherents, who proclaimed him
  saint and martyr. His portrait in the cell once occupied
  by him, painted by Fra Bartolomeo, surrounded with the halo
  of a saint, shows the veneration in which he was held by his
  generation and by his order. His numerous sermons represent
  to us his burning oratory. His chief work is his _Triumphus
  crucis_ of A.D. 1497, an eloquent and thoughtful vindication
  of Christianity against the half pagan scepticism of the
  Renaissance, then dominant in Florence and at the court.
  An exposition of the 51st Psalm, written in prison and not
  completed, works out, with a clearness and precision never
  before attained, the doctrine of justification by faith. It
  was on this account republished by Luther in A.D. 1523.[352]


                    § 120. THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

  The classical literature of Greek, and especially of Roman,
antiquity was during the Middle Ages in the West by no means so
completely unknown and unstudied as is commonly supposed. Rulers
like Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, Alfred the Great, and the German
Ottos encouraged its study. Such scholars as Erigena, Gerbert, Barnard
Sylvester, John of Salisbury, Roger Bacon, etc., were relatively
well acquainted with it. Moorish learning from Spain and intercourse
with Byzantine scholars spread classical culture during the 12th
and 13th centuries, and the Hohenstaufen rulers were its eager and
liberal patrons. In the 14th century the founders of a national Italian
literature, Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, earnestly cultivated and
encouraged classical studies. But an extraordinary revival of interest
in such pursuits took place during the 15th century. The meeting of
Greeks and Italians at the Council of Florence in A.D. 1439 (§ 67, 6)
gave the first impulse, while the Turkish invasion and the downfall
of Constantinople in A.D. 1453 gave it the finishing touch. Immense
numbers of Byzantine scholars fled to Italy, and were accorded an
enthusiastic reception at the Vatican and in the houses of the Medici.
With the aid of printing, invented about A.D. 1450, the treasures of
classical antiquity were made accessible to all. From the time of this
immigration, too, classical studies took an altogether new direction.
During the Middle Ages they were made almost exclusively to subserve
ecclesiastical and theological ends, but now they were conducted in
a thoroughly independent spirit, for the purpose of universal human
culture. This “humanism” emancipated itself from the service of the
church, assumed toward Christianity for the most part an attitude of
lofty indifference, and often lost itself in a vain worship of pagan
antiquity. Faith was mocked at as well as superstition; sacred history
and Greek mythology were treated alike. The youths of all European
countries, thirsting for knowledge, crossed the Alps, to draw from
the fresh springs of the Italian academies, and took home with them
the new ideas, transplanting into distant lands in a modified form
the libertinism of the new paganism that had now over-run Italy.

  § 120.1. =Italian Humanists.=--Italy was the cradle of humanism,
  the Greeks who settled there (§ 62, 1, 2), its fathers. The first
  Greek who appeared as a teacher in Italy was Emmanuel Chrysoloras,
  in A.D. 1396. After the Council of Florence, =Bessarion= and
  =Gemisthus Pletho= settled there, both ardent adherents of
  the Platonic philosophy, for which they created an enthusiasm
  throughout all Italy. From A.D. 1453 Greek _littérateurs_ came
  in crowds. From their schools classical culture and pagan ideas
  spread through the land. This paganism penetrated even the
  highest ranks of the hierarchy. =Leo X.=[353] is credited with
  saying, “How many fables about Christ have been used by us and
  ours through all these centuries is very well known.” It may not
  be literally authentic, but it accurately expresses the spirit of
  the papal court. Leo’s private secretary, Cardinal =Bembo=, gave
  a mythological version of Christianity in classical Latin. Christ
  he styled “Minerva sprung from the head of Jupiter,” the Holy
  Spirit “the breath of the celestial Zephyr,” and repentance
  was with him a _Deos superosque manesque placare_. Even during
  the council of Florence Pletho had expressed the opinion that
  Christianity would soon develop into a universal religion not
  far removed from classical paganism; and when Pletho died,
  Bessarion comforted his sons by saying that the deceased had
  ascended into the pure heavenly spheres, and had joined the
  Olympic gods in mystic Bacchus dances. In the halls of the
  Medici there flourished a new Platonic school, which put Plato’s
  philosophy above Christianity. Alongside of it arose a new
  peripatetic school, whose representative, =Peter Pompanazzo
  [Pomponazzo]=, who died A.D. 1526, openly declared that from
  the philosophical point of view the immortality of the soul
  is more than doubtful. The celebrated Florentine statesman and
  historian =Macchiavelli=,[354] who died A.D. 1527, taught the
  princes of Italy in his “Prince,” in direct contradiction to
  Dante’s idealistic “Monarchia,” a realistic polity which was
  completely emancipated from Christianity and every system of
  morality, and presented the monster Cæsar Borgia (§ 110, 12)
  as a pattern of an energetic prince, consistently labouring for
  the end he had in view. Looseness of morals went hand in hand
  with laxity in religion. Obscene poems and pictures circulated
  among the humanists, and their practice was not behind their
  theory. Poggio’s lewd facetiæ, as well as Boccadelli’s indecent
  epigrams, fascinated the cultured Christian world as much by
  their lascivious contents as by their classical style. From the
  dialogues of Laurentius Valla on lust and the true good, which
  were meant to extol the superiority of Christian morals over
  those of the Epicureans and Stoics, comes the saying that the
  Greek courtesans were more in favour than the Christian nuns.
  The highly gifted poet, Pietro Aretino, in his poetical prose
  writings reached the utmost pitch of obscenity. He was called
  “the divine Aretino,” and not only Charles V. and Francis I.
  honoured him with presents and pensions, but also Leo X.,
  Clement VIII., and even Paul III. showed him their esteem and
  favour. In their published works the Italian humanists generally
  ignored rather than contested the church and its doctrines and
  morality. But =Laurentius Valla=, who died A.D. 1457, ventured
  in his _Adnotationes in N.T._ freely to find fault with and
  correct the Vulgate. He did even more, for he pronounced the
  Donation of Constantine (§ 87, 4) a forgery, and poured forth
  bitter invectives against the cupidity of the papacy. He also
  denied the genuineness of the correspondence of Christ with
  Abgarus [Abgar] (§ 13, 2), as well as that of the Areopagite
  writings (§ 47, 11) and questioned if the Apostles’ Creed was
  the work of the apostles (§ 35, 2). The Inquisition sought to
  get hold of him, but Nicholas V. (§ 110, 10) frustrated the
  attempt and showed him kindness. With all his classical culture,
  however, Valla retained no small reverence for Christianity. In
  a still higher degree is this true of =John Picus=, Prince of
  =Mirandola=, the phœnix of that age, celebrated as a miracle
  of learning and culture, who united in himself all the nobler
  strivings of the present and the past. When a youth of twenty-one
  he nailed up at Rome nine hundred theses from all departments
  of knowledge. The proposed disputation did not then come off,
  because many of those theses gave rise to charges of heresy,
  from which he was cleared only by Alexander VI. in A.D. 1493.
  The combination of all sciences and the reconciliation of all
  systems of philosophy among themselves and with revelation on
  the basis of the Cabbala was the main point in his endeavours.
  He has wrought out this idea in his _Heptaplus_, in which, by
  means of a sevenfold sense of Scripture, he succeeds in deducing
  all the wisdom of the world from the first chapter of Genesis.
  He died in A.D. 1494, in the thirty-first year of his age. In
  the last year of his life, renouncing the world and its glory,
  he set himself with all his powers to the study of Scripture,
  and meant to go from land to land preaching the Cross of Christ.
  His intentions were frustrated by death. His saying is a very
  characteristic one: _Philosophia veritatem quærit, theologia
  invenit, religio possidet_.

  § 120.2. =German Humanism.=--The home of German humanism was
  the University of =Erfurt=, founded A.D. 1392. At the Councils
  of Constance and Basel Erfurt, next to Paris, manifested
  the greatest zeal for the reformation of head and members,
  and continued to pursue this course during the twenty years’
  activity of John of Wesel (§ 119, 10). About A.D. 1460 the first
  representatives of humanism made their appearance there, a German
  Luder and a Florentine Publicius. From their school went forth
  among others Rudolph of Langen, who carried the new light into
  the schools of Westphalia, and John of Dalberg, afterwards Bishop
  of Worms. When these two had left Erfurt, =Maternus Pistorius=
  headed the humanist movement. Crowds of enthusiastic scholars
  from all parts of Germany gathered around him. As men of poetic
  tastes, who appreciated the ancient classics, they maintained
  excellent relations with the representatives of scholasticism.
  But in A.D. 1504 Busch, a violent revolutionist, appearing
  at Erfurt, demanded the destruction of the old scholastic
  text-books, and thus produced an absolute breach between the
  two tendencies. Maternus retired, and =Mutian=, an old Erfurt
  student, assumed the leadership in Gotha. Erfurt and Gotha were
  kept associated by a lively intercourse between the students
  resident at these two places. Mutian had no literary ambitions,
  and firmly declined a call to the new University of Wittenberg.
  All the more powerfully he inspired his contemporaries. His
  bitter opposition to hierarchism and scholasticism was expressed
  in keen satires. On retiring from public life, he devoted himself
  to the study of Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Shortly before
  his death he wrote down this as his confession of faith: _Multa
  scit rusticus, quæ philosophus ignorat; Christus vero pro nobis
  mortuus est, qui est vita nostra, quod certissime credo_. The
  leadership passed over to Eoban Hesse. The members of the society
  joined the party of Luther, with the exception of Crotus Rubianus.
  =Ulrich von Hutten= was one of the followers of Mutian, a knight
  of a noble Franconian family, inspired with ardent patriotism
  and love of freedom, who gave his whole life to battle against
  pedantry, monkery, and intolerance. Escaping in A.D. 1504 from
  Fulda, where he was being trained for the priesthood, he studied
  at Erfurt, fought in Maximilian’s army with the sword, in Mutian’s
  and Reuchlin’s ranks with the pen, and after the fall of Sickingen
  became a homeless wanderer, until he died in want, in A.D. 1523,
  on Ufenan, an island in the Lake of Zürich.[355]

  § 120.3. Next to Erfurt, =Heidelberg=, founded in A.D. 1386,
  afforded a congenial home for humanist studies. The most
  brilliant representative of humanism there was =Rudolph
  Agricola=, an admirer and disciple of À. Kempis and Wessel.
  His fame rests more on the reports of those who knew him
  personally than on any writings left behind by him. His pupils
  mostly joined the Reformation.--The University of =Wittenberg=,
  founded by Frederick the Wise in A.D. 1502, was the nursery of
  a wise and moderate humanism. Humanist studies also found an
  entrance into Freiburg, founded in A.D. 1455, into =Tübingen=,
  founded in A.D. 1477, where for a long time Reuchlin taught,
  and into =Ingolstadt=, founded in A.D. 1472, where the Duke
  of Bavaria spared no efforts to attract the most distinguished
  humanists. Conrad Celtes, a pupil of Agricola, taught at
  Ingolstadt until his removal to Vienna in A.D. 1497. Eck
  and Rhegius, too, were among its ablest alumni. As a bitter
  opponent of Luther, Eck gave the university a most pronounced
  anti-reformation character; whereas Rhegius preached the
  gospel in Augsburg, and spent his life in the service of the
  Reformation. Reuchlin also taught for a time in Ingolstadt,
  and the patriotism and reformatory tendencies of Aventinus
  the Bavarian historian received there the first powerful
  impulse. At =Nuremberg= the humanists found a welcome in the
  home of the learned, wealthy, and noble Councillor Pirkheimer.
  In Reuchlin’s controversy with the scholars of Cologne he showed
  himself an eager apologist, and headed the party of Reuchlin.
  He greeted Luther’s appearance with enthusiasm, and entertained
  the reformer at his own house on his return from the discussion
  with Cajetan (§ 122, 3), on account of which Eck made the papal
  bull against Luther tell also against him. What he regarded
  as Luther’s violence, however, soon estranged him, while the
  cloister life of his three sisters and three daughters presented
  to him a picture of Catholicism in its noblest and purest form.
  His eldest sister, Christas, abbess of the Clara convent at
  Nuremburg [Nuremberg], one of the noblest and most cultured
  women of the 16th century, had a powerful influence over him.
  He died in A.D. 1530.

  § 120.4. =John Reuchlin=, born in A.D. 1455 at Pforzheim, went
  to the celebrated school at Schlettstadt in Alsace, studied at
  Freiburg, Paris, Basel, and Orleans, taught law in Tübingen,
  and travelled repeatedly in Italy with Eberhard the Bearded
  of Württemberg. After Eberhard’s death he went to the court of
  the Elector-palatine Philip, and along with D’Alberg [Dalberg]
  did much for the reputation of the University of Heidelberg.
  Afterwards he was for eleven years president of the Swabian
  court of justiciary at Tübingen. When in A.D. 1513 the seat
  of this court was removed to Augsburg he retired to Stuttgart,
  was called in A.D. 1519 by William of Bavaria to Ingolstadt as
  professor of Greek and Hebrew. On the outbreak of the plague
  at Ingolstadt in A.D. 1520, he accepted a call back to Tübingen,
  where he died in A.D. 1522. He never gave in his adhesion to
  the reforming ideas of Luther. He left unanswered a letter
  from the reformer in A.D. 1518. But as a promoter of every
  scientific endeavour, especially in connection with the study
  of the original text of the O.T., Reuchlin had won imperishable
  renown. He was well entitled to conclude his _Rudimenta linguæ
  Hebraicæ_ of A.D. 1506 with Horace’s words, _Stat monumentum aëre
  perennino_, for that book has been the basis of all Christian
  Hebrew philology.[356] He also discussed the difficult subject
  of Hebrew accents in a special treatise, _De Acc. et Orthogr.
  Hebr._ 11. iii, and the secret doctrines of the Jews in his _De
  arte Cabbalistica_. He offered to instruct any Jew who wished
  it in the doctrines of Christianity, and also to care for his
  temporal affairs. His attention to rabbinical studies involved
  him in a controversy which spread his fame over all Europe.
  A baptized Jew, Pfefferkorn, in Cologne in A.D. 1507 exhibited
  a neophyte’s zeal by writing bitter invectives against the Jews,
  and in A.D. 1509 called upon the Emperor Maximilian to have all
  rabbinical writings burnt because of the blasphemies against
  Christ which they contained. The emperor asked the opinion of
  the universities of Mainz, Cologne, Erfurt, and Heidelberg,
  as well as of Reuchlin and the Cologne inquisitor Hoogstraten.
  Erfurt and Heidelberg gave a qualified, Reuchlin an unqualified
  answer in opposition to the proposal. The openly abusive
  Jewish writings, _e.g._ the notorious _Toledoth Jeschu_, he
  would indeed condemn, but all other books, _e.g._ the Talmud,
  the Cabbala, the biblical glosses and commentaries, books of
  sermons, prayers, and sacred songs, as well as all philosophical,
  scientific, poetic, and satirical writings of the Jews, he
  was prepared unconditionally to defend. Pfefferkorn contended
  against him passionately in his “Handspiegel” of A.D. 1511, to
  which Reuchlin replied in his “Augenspiegel.” The theological
  faculty of Cologne, mostly Dominicans, pronounced forty-three
  statements in the “Augenspiegel” heretical, and demanded its
  suppression. Reuchlin now gave free vent to his passion, and
  in his _Defensio c. calumniatores suos Colonienses_ denounced
  his opponents as goats, swine, and children of the devil.
  Hoogstraten had him cited before a heresy tribunal. Reuchlin
  did not appear, but appealed to Pope Leo X. (A.D. 1513). A
  commission appointed by Leo met at Spires in A.D. 1514, and
  declared him not guilty of heresy, found Hoogstraten liable
  in the costs of the process, which was enforced with hearty
  satisfaction by Franz von Sickingen in A.D. 1519. But meanwhile
  Hoogstraten had made a personal explanation of his affairs at
  Rome, and had won over the influential _magister sacri palatii_,
  Sylvester Prierias (§ 122, 2), who got the pope in A.D. 1520
  to annul the judgment and to condemn Reuchlin to pay the costs
  and observe eternal silence. The men of Cologne triumphed, but
  in the public opinion of Germany Reuchlin was regarded as the
  true victor.

  § 120.5. A multitude of vigorous and powerful pens were now
  in motion on behalf of Reuchlin. In the autumn of A.D. 1515
  appeared the first book of the =Epistolæ obscurorum virorum=,
  which pretended to be the correspondence of a friend with
  the Cologne teacher Ortuinus Gratius of Deventer. In the most
  delicious monkish Latin the secret affairs of the mendicant
  monks and their hatred of Reuchlin were set forth, so that
  even the Dominicans, according to Erasmus, for a time regarded
  the correspondence as genuine. All the more overwhelming was
  the ridicule which fell upon them throughout all Europe. The
  mendicants indeed obtained from Leo a bull against the writers
  of the book, but this only increased its circulation. The
  authors remained unknown; but there is no doubt they belonged
  to the Mutian party. Justus Jonas, a member of that guild,
  affirms that Crotus Rubianus had a principal hand in its
  composition. The idea of it was probably suggested by Mutian
  himself. Ulrich von Hutten repudiated any share in it, and
  on internal and external grounds this is more than probable.
  Busch, Urban, Petrejus, and Eoban Hesse most likely contributed
  to it. In order to keep up the deception, Venice was given as
  the place of publication, the name of the famous Aldus Manutius,
  the papal publisher of Venice, was put upon the title, and
  a pseudo-papal imprimatur was attached. The second book was
  issued in A.D. 1517 by Frobenius in Basel. The monkish party
  published as a counterblast _Lamentationes obscurorum virorum_
  at Cologne in A.D. 1518, but the lame and forced wit of the
  book marked it at once as a ridiculous failure. The monks and
  schoolmen were once and for ever morally annihilated.[357]

  § 120.6. =Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam= was the most brilliant
  of all the humanists, not only of Germany, but also of all Europe.
  Born in A.D. 1465, he was educated by the Brothers of the Common
  Life at Deventer and Herzogenbusch, and afterwards forced by his
  relatives to enter a monastery in A.D. 1486. In A.D. 1491 he was
  relieved from the monastic restraints by the Bishop of Cambray,
  and sent to finish his studies at Paris. He visited England in
  A.D. 1497, in the company of young Englishmen to whom he had been
  tutor. There the humanist theologian Colet of Oxford exerted over
  him a wholesome influence that told upon his whole future life.
  After spending a year and a half in England, he passed the next
  six years, sometimes in France, sometimes in the Netherlands;
  was in Italy from A.D. 1507 till A.D. 1510; then again for
  five years in England, for most of that time teaching Greek
  at Cambridge; then other six years in the Netherlands; and at
  last, in A.D. 1521, he settled with his publisher Frobenius in
  Basel, where he enjoyed intercourse with the greatest scholars
  of the day, and maintained an extensive correspondence. He
  refused every offer of official appointment, even the rank of
  cardinal, but in reality held undisputed sway as king in the
  world of letters. He did much for the advancement of classical
  studies, and in various ways promoted the Protestant Reformation.
  The faults of the scholastic method in the study of theology
  he unsparingly exposed, while the misdeeds of the clergy and
  the ignorance and sloth of the monks afforded materials for his
  merciless satires. The heathenish spirit of many of the humanists,
  as well as the turbulent and revolutionary procedure of Ulrich
  von Hutten, was quite distasteful to him; but his Pelagianising
  tendencies also prevented him from appreciating the true character
  of the gospel. He desired a reformation of the Church, but he had
  not the reformer’s depth of religious emotion, world-conquering
  faith, self-denying love, and heroic preparation for martyrdom.
  He was much too fond of a genial literary life, and his perception
  of the corruption of the church was much too superficial, so that
  he sought reformation rather by human culture than by the Divine
  power of the gospel. When the Reformation conquered at Basel in
  A.D. 1529, Erasmus withdrew to Freiburg. He returned to Basel
  in A.D. 1536 for conference with Frobenius, and died there under
  suspicion of heresy without the sacraments of the church. His
  friends the monks at an earlier period, on the occasion of a
  false report of his death, had said in their barbarous Latin that
  he died “_sine lux, sine crux, sine Deus_.” The most important of
  his works are his critical and exegetical treatises on the N.T.
  The first edition of his Greek N.T., with Latin translation,
  short notes, and three introductory sections, was published
  in A.D. 1516. In the second edition of A.D. 1519, one of
  these introductory sections, _Ratio veræ theologiæ_, appeared
  in a greatly extended form; and from A.D. 1522 it was issued
  separately, and passed through several editions. Scarcely less
  important were his paraphrases of all the biblical books except
  the Apocalypse, begun in A.D. 1517. He did much service too
  by his editions of the Fathers. On his polemic with Luther
  see § 125, 3. His _Ecclesiastes s. concionator evangelicus_
  of A.D. 1535 is a treatise on homiletics admirable of its kind.
  In his “Praise of Folly” (Ἐγκώμιον μωρίας, _s. Laus stultitiæ_)
  of A.D. 1511, dedicated to his friend Sir Thomas More, he
  overwhelms with ridicule the schoolmen, as well as the monks
  and the clergy; and in his “Colloquies” of A.D. 1518, by which
  he hoped to make boys _latiniores et meliores_, he let no
  opportunity pass of reproaching the monks, the clergy, and
  the forms of worship which he regarded as superstitious. Also
  his _Adagia_ of A.D. 1500 had afforded him abundant scope for
  the same sort of thing. A piety of the purest and noblest type,
  derived from the schools of the Brothers of the Common Life, and
  from intercourse with Colet, breathes through his _Enchiridion
  militis christiani_ of A.D. 1502.[358]--Continuation § 123, 3.

  § 120.7. =Humanism in England.=--In England we meet with two
  men in the end of the 15th century, closely related to Erasmus,
  of supreme influence as humanists in urging the claims of reform
  within the Catholic church. =John Colet= in A.D. 1496 returned
  to England after a long sojourn in Italy, where he had obtained,
  not only humanistic culture, but also, through contact with
  Savonarola and Mirandola, a powerful religious impulse. He then
  began, at Oxford, his lectures on the Pauline epistles, in which
  he abandoned the scholastic method and returned to the study
  of Scripture and the Fathers. There, in A.D. 1498, he attached
  himself closely to Erasmus and to young Thomas More, who was
  studying in that place. In A.D. 1505 Colet was made doctor and
  Dean of St. Paul’s, in which position he expounded with great
  success whole biblical books and large portions of others in his
  sermons. After his father’s death in A.D. 1510, he applied his
  great wealth to the founding of a grammar school at St. Paul’s
  for the instruction of more than 150 boys in classical, biblical,
  and patristic literature. A convocation of English bishops in
  A.D. 1512, to devise means for rooting out heresy (§ 119, 1),
  gave him the opportunity in his opening sermon to speak plainly
  to the assembled bishops. He told them that reform of their
  own order was the best way to protect the church against the
  incursion of heretics. This aroused the bitter wrath of the old,
  bigoted Bishop Fitzjames of London, who disliked him exceedingly
  on account of his reforming tendencies and his pastoral and
  educational activity. But the archbishop, Warham of Canterbury,
  repelled the bishop’s fanatical charge of heresy as well as King
  Henry’s suspicions in regard to the political sympathies of the
  simple, pious man. Colet died in A.D. 1519.--=Thomas More=, born
  in A.D. 1480, was recommended to the king by Cardinal Wolsey, and
  rose from step to step until in A.D. 1529 he succeeded his patron
  as Lord Chancellor of England. In bonds of closest intimacy
  with Colet and Erasmus, More also shared in their desires for
  reform, but applied himself, in accordance with his civil and
  official position, more to the social and political than to the
  ecclesiastical aspects of the question. His most comprehensive
  contribution is found in his famous satire, “Utopia,” of
  A.D. 1516, in which he sets forth his views as to the natural
  and rational organization of all social and political relations
  of life in contrast to the corrupt institutions of existing
  states. The religious side of this utopian paradise is pure
  deism, public worship being restricted to the use of what
  is common to all religions, and peculiarities of particular
  religions are relegated to special or private services. We
  cannot however from this draw any conclusion as to his own
  religious beliefs. More continued to the end a zealous Catholic
  and a strict ascetic, and was a man of a singularly noble and
  steadfast character. In the controversy between the king and
  Luther (§ 125, 3) he supported the king, and as chancellor he
  wrote, in direct contradiction to the principles of religious
  toleration commended in his “Utopia,” with venomous bitterness
  against the adherents of the anti-Catholic reformation. But
  he decidedly refused to acquiesce in the king’s divorce; and
  when Henry quarrelled with the pope in A.D. 1532 and began to
  carry out reforms in a Cæsaro-papistic manner (§ 139, 4), he
  resigned his offices, firmly refused to acknowledge the royal
  supremacy over the English church, and, after a long and severe
  imprisonment, was beheaded in A.D. 1535.[359]

  § 120.8. =Humanism in France and Spain.=--In =France= humanist
  studies were kept for a time in the background by the world-wide
  reputation of the University of Paris and its Sorbonne. But a
  change took place when the young king Francis I., A.D. 1515-1547,
  became the patron and promoter of humanism. One of its most
  famous representatives was =Budæus [Buddæus]=, royal librarian,
  who aided in founding a college for the cultivation of science
  free from the shackles of scholasticism, and exposed the
  corruptions of the papacy and the clergy. But much as he
  sympathized with the spirit of the Reformation, he shrank
  from any open breach with the Catholic church. He died in
  A.D. 1540. His like-minded contemporary, =Faber Stapulensis=,
  as a teacher of classical literature at Paris gathered crowds
  of pupils around him, and from A.D. 1507 applied himself almost
  exclusively to biblical exegetical studies. He criticised and
  corrected the corrupt text of the Vulgate, commented on the
  Greek text of the gospels and apostolic epistles, and on account
  of this, as well as by reason of a critical dissertation on Mary
  Magdalene of A.D. 1521, was condemned by the Sorbonne. Francis I.
  and his sister Margaret of Orleans protected him from further
  persecution. Also his former pupil, William Briçonnet, Bishop
  of Meaux, who was eagerly endeavouring to restore morality
  and piety among his clergy, appointed him his vicar-general,
  and gave him an opportunity to bring out his French translation
  of the New Testament from the Vulgate in A.D. 1523, which was
  followed by a translation of the Old Testament and a French
  commentary on the pericopes of the Sundays and festivals.
  As Faber here represented the Scriptures as the only rule of
  faith for all Christians, and taught that man is justified not
  by his works, but only by faith in the grace of God in Christ,
  the Sorbonne charged him with the Lutheran heresy, and Parliament,
  during the king’s imprisonment in Spain (§ 126, 5) in A.D. 1525,
  appointed a commission to search out and suppress heresy in the
  diocese of Meaux. Faber’s books were condemned to the flames,
  but he himself, threatened with the stake, escaped by flight to
  Strassburg. After his return the king provided for him a safe
  retreat at Blois, where he wrought at his translation of the Old
  Testament, which he completed in A.D. 1528. He spent his last
  years at Nérac, the residence of his patroness Margaret, now
  Queen of Navarre, where he died in A.D. 1536 in his 86th year.
  Though at heart estranged from the Catholic church, he never
  formally forsook it.--In =Spain= Cardinal Ximenes (§ 118, 7)
  acted as the Mæcenas of humanist studies. The most distinguished
  Spanish humanist was =Anton of Lebrija=, professor at Salamanca,
  a fellow labourer with Ximenes on the Complutensian Polyglott,
  and protected by him from the Inquisition, which would have
  called him to account for his criticism of the Vulgate. He died
  in A.D. 1522.

  § 120.9. =Humanism and the Reformation of the Sixteenth
  Century.=--Humanists, in common with the reformers, inveighed
  against the debased scholasticism as well as against the
  superstition of the age. They did so however on very different
  grounds, and conducted their warfare by very different methods.
  While the reformers employed the word of God, and strove
  after the salvation of the soul, the humanists employed wit
  and sarcasm, and sought after the temporal well-being of
  men. Hence the reaction of the despised scholasticism and the
  contemned monasticism against humanism was often in the right.
  A reformation of the church by humanism alone would have been
  a return to naked paganism. But, on the other hand, classical
  studies afforded men who desired a genuine reformation of
  the church a rich, linguistic, philosophical, and scientific
  culture, without which, as applied to researches in church
  history, the exposition of Scripture, and the revision of
  doctrine, the reforms of the sixteenth century could hardly
  have been carried out in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner.
  The most permanent advantage won for the church and theology
  by the revival of learning was the removal of =Holy Scripture=
  from under the bushel, and giving it again its rightful place
  as the lamp of the church. It pointed back from the Vulgate,
  of which since A.D. 1500, some ninety-eight printed editions
  had appeared, to the original text, condemned the allegorical
  method of exposition, awakened an appreciation of the grammatical
  and historical system of interpretation, afforded scientific
  apparatus by its philological studies, and by issuing printed
  Bibles secured the spread of the original text. From the time
  of the invention of printing the Jews were active in printing
  the Old Testament. From A.D. 1502 a number of Christian scholars,
  under the presidency of Ximenes, wrought at Alcala at the great
  Complutensian Polyglott, published in A.D. 1520. It contained the
  Hebrew and Greek texts, the Targums, the LXX., and the Vulgate,
  as well as a Latin translation of the LXX. and of the Targums,
  with a much-needed grammatical and lexical apparatus. Daniel
  Bomberg of Antwerp published at Venice various editions of the
  Old Testament, some with, some without, rabbinical commentaries.
  His assistants were Felix Pratensis, a learned Jew; and Jacob ben
  Chaijim, a rabbi of Tunis. As the costly Complutensian Polyglott
  was available only to a few, Erasmus did great service by his
  handy edition of the Greek New Testament, notwithstanding its
  serious critical deficiencies. Erasmus himself brought out five
  successive editions, but very soon more than thirty impressions
  were exhausted.




                            THIRD DIVISION.

             History of the Development of the Church under
                 Modern European Forms of Civilization.


      § 121. CHARACTER AND DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN CHURCH HISTORY.

  In the Reformation of the sixteenth century the intelligence of
Germany, which had hitherto been under the training and tutelage of
the Romish church, reached maturity by the application of the formal
and material principles of Protestantism,--the sole normative authority
of Scripture, and justification by faith alone without works of merit.
It emancipated itself from its schoolmaster, who, for selfish ends,
had made and still continued to make strenuous efforts to check every
movement towards independence, every endeavour after ecclesiastical,
theological, and scientific freedom, every struggle after evangelical
reform. Yet this emancipation was not completely effected in all the
purely German nationalities, much less among those Romanic and Slavonic
peoples which had bowed their necks to the papal hierarchy. The Romish
church of the Reformation not only adhered to the form and content of
its former unevangelical constitution, but also still further developed
and formally elaborated its creed in the same unevangelical direction,
and the result was a split in the western church into an Evangelical
Protestant and a Roman Catholic church. Then again the principles of
the Reformation were set forth in different ways, and Protestantism
branched off into two divisions, the Lutheran and the Reformed. Besides
these three new western churches and the one old eastern church, which
all rested upon the common œcumenical basis of the old Catholic church,
a variety of sects sprang out of them. Through these greater and lesser
divisions, modern church history, where, with some advantages and
some disadvantages, one church is pitted against another, possesses
a character entirely different from the church history of earlier times.

  Modern church history naturally falls into four divisions.
  The distinguishing characteristic of each is found partly in
  the opposition of particular churches to one another, partly
  in the antagonism of faith and unbelief. The transition from
  one to another corresponds generally with the boundaries of
  the centuries. The =sixteenth century= forms the Reformation
  period, in which the new Protestantism, parted from the old
  Roman Catholicism, cast off the deformatory elements which had
  attached themselves to it, and developed for itself a system
  of doctrine, worship, and constitution; while the Roman Catholic
  church, from the middle of the century, set to work upon a
  counter-Reformation, by which it succeeded in large measure
  in reconquering the field that had been lost. The =seventeenth
  century= was characterized on the Protestant side as the age
  of orthodoxy, in which confessionalism obtained undivided
  supremacy, deteriorating however in doctrine and life into
  a frigid formalism, which called forth the movement of Pietism
  as a corrective; but, on the Roman Catholic side, it was
  characterized as a period of continued successful restoration.
  In the =eighteenth century= begins the struggle against the
  dominant church and the prevailing conceptions of Christianity
  in the forms of deism, naturalism, and rationalism within
  both the Protestant and Catholic churches. The fourth division
  embraces the =nineteenth century=. The newly awakened faith
  strives vigorously with rationalism, and then, on the Protestant
  side, splits into unionism and confessionalism; while, on the
  Roman Catholic side, it makes its fullest development in a
  zealous ultramontanism. But rationalism again renews its youth
  under the cloak of science, and alongside of it appears a more
  undisguised unbelief in the distinctly antichristian forms of
  pantheism, materialism, and communism, which seeks to annihilate
  everything Christian in church and state, in science and faith,
  in social and political life.




                             FIRST SECTION.

                CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.




                        I. The Reformation.[360]


          § 122. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE WITTENBERG REFORMATION.

  At the beginning of the sixteenth century everything seemed to
combine in favour of those reforming endeavours which had been
held back during the Middle Ages. There was a lively perception of
the corruptions of the church, a deep and universal yearning after
reformation, the scientific apparatus necessary for its accomplishment,
a pope, Leo X., careless and indolent; a trafficker in indulgences,
Tetzel, stupidly bold and shameless; a noble, pious, and able prince,
Frederick the Wise (§ 123, 9), to act as protector of the new creed;
an emperor, Charles V. (§ 123, 5), powerful and hostile enough to
kindle the purifying fire of tribulation, but too much occupied with
political entanglements to be able to indulge in reckless and violent
oppression. There were also thousands of other persons, circumstances,
and relations helping, strengthening, and furthering the work. And now,
at the right hour, in the fittest place, and with the most suitable
surroundings, a religious genius, in the person of Luther, appeared
as the reformer, with the rarest combination of qualities of head and
heart, character and will, to engage upon that great work for which
Providence had so marvellously qualified him. This mighty undertaking
was begun by ninety-five simple theses, which he nailed to the door of
the church of Wittenberg, and the Leipzig Disputation marked the first
important crisis in its history.

  § 122.1. =Luther’s Years of Preparation.=--Martin Luther,
  a miner’s son, was born on November 10th, A.D. 1483. His
  childhood was passed under severe parental control and amid
  pinching poverty, and he went to school at Mansfeld, whither
  his parents had migrated; then at Magdeburg, where, among the
  Brothers of the Common Life, he had mainly to secure his own
  support as a singing boy upon the streets; and afterwards at
  Eisenach, where Madame Ursula Cotta, moved by his beautiful
  voice and earnest entreaty, took him into her house. In A.D. 1501
  he entered on the study of jurisprudence at Erfurt (§ 120, 2),
  took the degree of bachelor in A.D. 1502, and that of master in
  A.D. 1505. During a fearful thunderstorm, which overtook him as
  he travelled home, he was driven by terror to vow that he would
  become a monk, impressed as he was by the sudden death of an
  unnamed friend which had taken place shortly before. On the
  17th July, A.D. 1505, he entered the Augustinian convent at
  Erfurt. In deep concern about his soul’s salvation, he sought
  by monkish asceticism, fasting, prayer, and penances to satisfy
  his conscience, but the inward struggles only grew stronger. An
  old monk proclaimed to the weary inquirer, almost fainting under
  the anxiety of spirit and self-imposed tortures, the comforting
  declaration of the creed, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
  Still more powerful in directing him proved the conversation
  of his noble superior, John Staupitz (§ 112, 6). He showed him
  the way of true repentance and faith in the Saviour crucified
  not for _painted_ sins. Following his advice, Luther diligently
  studied the Bible, together with, of his own accord, Augustine’s
  writings. In A.D. 1507 he was ordained priest, and in A.D. 1508
  Staupitz promoted him to the University of Wittenberg, founded
  in A.D. 1502, where he lectured on the “Dialectics” and “Physics”
  of Aristotle; and in A.D. 1509 he was made _Baccalaureus
  biblicus_. In the autumn of the same year he went again,
  probably by Staupitz’ advice, to Erfurt, until, a year and a
  half afterwards, he obtained a definite settlement at Wittenberg.
  Highly important for his subsequent development was the journey
  which, in A.D. 1511, he took to Rome in the interests of his
  order. On the first view of the holy city, he sank upon his
  knees, and with his hands raised to heaven cried out, “I greet
  thee, holy Rome.” But he withdrew utterly disgusted with the
  godless frivolity and immorality which he witnessed among the
  clergy on every side, and dissatisfied with the externalism
  of the penitential exercises which he had undertaken. During
  his whole journey the Scripture sounded in his ear, “The just
  shall live by his faith.” It was a voice of God in his soul,
  which at last carried the blessed peace of God into his wounded
  spirit. After his return, in A.D. 1512, Staupitz gave him
  no rest until he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and
  now he gave lectures in the university on Holy Scripture, and
  afterwards preached in the city church of Wittenberg. He applied
  himself more and more, by the help of Augustine, to the study
  of Scripture and its fundamental doctrine of justification by
  faith alone. About this time too he was powerfully influenced
  by Tauler’s mysticism and the “Deutsche Theologie,” of which
  he published an edition in A.D. 1516.

  § 122.2. =Luther’s Theses of A.D. 1517.=--The æsthetic and
  luxurious pope Leo X. (§ 110, 14), avowedly for the building of
  St. Peter’s, really to fill his own empty coffers, had proclaimed
  a general indulgence. Germany was divided between three indulgence
  commissions. The elector-cardinal Albert of Mainz, archbishop
  of Magdeburg, and brother of Elector Joachim of Brandenburg,
  undertook the direction of the commission for his archiepiscopal
  province, for which he was to receive half the proceeds for the
  payment of his debts. The most shameless of the traffickers in
  indulgences employed by him was the Leipzig Dominican prior,
  John Tetzel. This man had been sentenced at Innsbrück to be
  drowned for adultery, but on the intercession of the Elector
  of Saxony had his sentence commuted to imprisonment for life.
  He now was taken from his prison in order to do this piece of
  work for Albert. With great success he went from place to place,
  and offered his wares for sale, proclaiming their virtues in the
  public market with unparalleled audacity. He went to Jüterbock,
  in the vicinity of Wittenberg, where he attracted crowds of
  purchasers from all around. Luther discovered in the confessional
  the corrupting influence of such procedure, and on the afternoon
  of All Saints’ Day, =October 31st, A.D. 1517=, he nailed on
  the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg ninety-five theses,
  explaining the meaning of the indulgence. Although they were
  directed not so much against the principle of indulgences as
  against their misunderstanding and abuse, they comprehended
  the real germ of the Reformation movement, negatively in the
  conception of repentance which they set forth, and positively
  in the distinct declaration that the grace of God in Christ can
  alone avail for the forgiveness of sin. With incredible rapidity
  the theses spread over all Germany, indeed over all Europe.
  Luther accompanied them with a sermon on indulgence and grace.
  The immense applause which its delivery called forth led the
  supporters of the old views to gird on their armour. Tetzel
  publicly burnt the theses at Jüterbock, and with the help of
  Wimpina posted up and circulated at Frankfort and other places
  counter-theses. The Wittenberg students purchased quantities
  of these theses, and in retaliation burnt them, but Luther did
  not approve their conduct. In April, A.D. 1518, Luther went
  to Heidelberg, to take part there in a regular chapter of the
  Augustinians, which was usually accompanied by public preaching
  and disputations by members of the order. The disputation, which
  on this occasion was assigned to Luther, gave him the welcome
  opportunity of making known to wider circles these philosophical
  and theological views which he had hitherto uttered only in
  Wittenberg. The professors of the University of Heidelberg
  repudiated and opposed them, but in almost every case mildly
  and with tolerance. On the other hand, many of the young
  theologians studying there enthusiastically accepted his
  doctrines, and several of them, _e.g._ Martin Bucer of
  Strassburg (§ 125, 1), John Brenz and Erhard Schnepf of Swabia
  (§ 133, 3), as well as Theobald Billicanus, afterwards reformer
  of Nördlingen, etc., there and then consecrated themselves to
  their life work.

  § 122.3. =Prierias, Cajetan, and Miltitz,
  A.D. 1518, 1519.=--Leo X. at first regarded the matter as an
  insignificant monkish squabble, and praised Brother Martin as
  a real genius. He gave no heed to Hoogstraten’s outcry of heresy,
  nor did he encourage the Dominican Prierias in his attack on
  Luther. The book of Prierias was a harmless affair. Luther gave
  it a short and crushing reply. Prierias answered in a second
  and third tract, which Luther simply republished with sarcastic
  and overwhelming prefaces. The pope then enjoined silence upon
  his luckless steward. In May, A.D. 1518, Luther wrote a humble
  epistle to the pope, and added a series of _Resolutiones_ in
  vindication of his theses. Staupitz is said to have revised
  both. Meanwhile it had been determined in Rome to deal with
  the Wittenberg business in earnest. The papal procurator made
  a complaint against Luther. A court was commissioned, which
  summoned him to appear in person at Rome to answer for himself.
  But, on the representations of the University of Wittenberg
  and the Elector Frederick the Wise, the pope charged Cardinal
  Cajetan, his legate at the Diet of Augsburg, to take up the
  consideration of the matter. Luther appeared, and made his
  appeal to the Bible. The legate however wished him to argue
  from the schoolmen, demanded an unconditional recantation,
  and at last haughtily dismissed “the beast with deep eyes
  and wonderful speculations in his head.” Luther made a formal
  appeal _a sanctissimo Domino Leone male informato ad melius
  informandum_, and quitted Augsburg in good spirits. The cardinal
  now sought to rouse Frederick against the refractory monk, but
  Luther’s buoyant and humble confidence won the noble elector’s
  heart. Cajetan continued a vigorous opponent of the reformed
  doctrine. But Luther’s superiority in Scripture knowledge
  had so impressed the cardinal, that he now applied himself
  closely to the study of the Bible in the original tongues;
  and thus, while firmly attached to the Romish system, he was
  led on many points, _e.g._ on Scripture and tradition, divorce,
  injunctions about meats, the use of the vernacular in public
  worship, the objectionableness of the allegorical interpretation,
  etc., to adopt more liberal views, so that he was denounced
  by some Roman Catholic controversialists as guilty of various
  heresies.--Luther had no reason in any case to look for any
  good from Rome. Hence he prepared beforehand an appeal for an
  œcumenical council, which the publisher, against Luther’s will,
  at once spread abroad. In Rome the cardinal’s pride was wounded
  by the failure of his undertaking. A papal bull defined the
  doctrine of indulgences, in order more exactly to guard against
  misrepresentations, and an accomplished courtier, the papal
  chamberlain, Carl von Miltitz, a Saxon, was sent to Saxony,
  in A.D. 1519, as papal nuncio, to convey to the elector the
  consecrated golden rose, and to secure a happy conclusion
  to the controversy. The envoy began by addressing a sharp
  admonition to Tetzel, and met Luther with hypocritical
  graciousness. Luther acknowledged that he had acted rashly,
  wrote a humble, submissive letter to the pope, and published
  “_An Instruction on some Articles ascribed to him by his
  Traducers_.” But after all the retractations which he made
  at the diet he still firmly maintained justification by faith,
  without merit of works. He promised the nuncio to abstain
  from all further polemic, on condition that his opponents
  also should be silent. But silent these would not be.

  § 122.4. =The Leipzig Disputation, A.D. 1519.=--John Eck
  of Ingolstadt had engaged in controversy with a zealous
  supporter and colleague of Luther, Andrew Bodenstein of
  Carlstadt, professor and preacher at Wittenberg, and Luther
  himself took part in the discussion between the two. This
  disputation came off at Leipzig, and lasted from June 27th
  to July 16th. But Eck’s vanity led him not only to seek the
  greatest possible fame from his present disputation, but also
  to drag in Luther by challenging his theses. Eck disputed for
  eight days with Carlstadt about grace and free will, and with
  abundant eloquence, boldness, and learning vindicated Romish
  semi-Pelagianism. Then he disputed for fourteen days with Luther
  about the primacy of the pope, about repentance, indulgences,
  and purgatory, and pressed him hard about the Hussite heresy.
  But Luther sturdily opposed him on the grounds of Scripture,
  and confirmed himself in the conviction that even œcumenical
  councils might err, and that not all Hussite doctrines are
  heretical. Both parties claimed the victory. Luther continued
  the discussion in various controversial treatises, and Eck,
  too, was not silent. New combatants also, for and against,
  from all sides appeared upon the scene. The liberal humanists
  (§ 120, 2) had at first taken little notice of Luther’s
  contention. But the Leipzig Disputation led them to change
  their attitude. Luther seemed to them now a new Reuchlin,
  Eck another specimen of Ortuinus Gratius. A biting satire of
  Pirkheimer (§ 120, 3), “Der abgehobelte Eck,” appeared in the
  beginning of A.D. 1520, exceeding in Aristophanic wit any of
  the epistles of the Obscurantists. It was followed by several
  satires by Ulrich von Hutten, who received new inspiration
  from Luther’s appearance at Leipzig. Hutten and Sickingen,
  with their whole party, undertook to protect Luther with body
  and soul, with sword and pen. This was a covenant of some
  advantage to the Reformation in its early years; but had it
  not been again abrogated, it might have diverted the movement
  into an altogether wrong direction. From this time forth Duke
  George of Saxony, at whose castle and in whose presence the
  disputation had been conducted, became the irreconcilable enemy
  of Luther and his Reformation.

  § 122.5. =Philip Melanchthon.=--At the Leipzig Disputation there
  also appeared a man fated to become of supreme importance in the
  carrying out of the Reformation. Born on February 16th, A.D. 1497,
  at Bretten in the Palatinate, Philip Melanchthon entered the
  University of Heidelberg in his thirteenth year, and at the
  age of sixteen published a Greek grammar. He took the degree
  of master at seventeen, and at twenty-one, in A.D. 1518, on the
  recommendation of his grand-uncle Reuchlin, he was made Professor
  of Greek in Wittenberg. His fame soon spread over all Europe, and
  attracted to him thousands of hearers from all parts. Luther and
  Erasmus vied with one another in lauding his talents, his fine
  culture and learning, and his contemporaries have given him the
  honourable title of _Præceptor Germaniæ_. He was an Erasmus of
  nobler form and higher power, a thorough contrast to Luther. His
  whole being breathed modesty, mildness, and grace. With childlike
  simplicity he received the recognised truths of the gospel. He
  bowed humbly before the powerful, practical spirit of Luther, who
  also, on his part, acknowledged with profound thankfulness the
  priceless treasure God had sent to him and to his work in this
  fellow labourer. Melanchthon wrote to his friend Œcolampadius
  at Basel an account of the Leipzig Disputation, which by chance
  fell into Eck’s hands. This occasioned a literary controversy,
  in which Eck’s vain over-estimation of himself appears in
  very striking contrast to the noble modesty of Melanchthon.
  He took part in the Reformation first in February, A.D. 1521,
  by a pseudonymous apology for Luther.[361]

  § 122.6. =George Spalatin.=--In consequence of his influential
  position at the court of the elector, which he obtained on
  Mutian’s (§ 120, 2) recommendation, after completing his
  philosophical, legal, and theological studies at Erfurt,
  George Burkhardt, born in A.D. 1484 at Spalt, in the diocese
  of Eichstadt, and hence called Spalatinus, played an important
  part in the German Reformation. Frederick the Wise, who had,
  in A.D. 1509, entrusted him with the education of his nephew
  John Frederick, appointed him, in A.D. 1514, his court chaplain,
  librarian, and private secretary, in which capacity he accompanied
  the elector to all the diets, and was almost exclusively the
  channel for communicating to him tidings about Luther. John the
  Constant, in A.D. 1525, made him superintendent of Altenburg,
  and took him with him to the diets of Spires, in A.D. 1526, 1529,
  and of Augsburg in A.D. 1530. John Frederick the Magnanimous, his
  former pupil, employed him in A.D. 1537 on important negotiations
  at the conference of the princes at Schmalkald [Schmalcald]
  (§ 134, 1). From A.D. 1527 Spalatin was specially busy with
  the visitation and organization of the Saxon church (§ 127, 1),
  conducted, in the interests of the Reformation, an extensive
  correspondence, and composed several works on the history of his
  times and the history of the Reformation.


          § 123. LUTHER’S PERIOD OF CONFLICT, A.D. 1520, 1521.

  The Leipzig Disputation had carried Luther to a more advanced
standpoint. He came to see that he could not remain standing half way,
that the carrying out of the Reformation principle, justification by
faith, was incompatible with the hierarchical system of the papacy
and its dogmatic foundation. But amid all the violence and subjective
one-sidedness which he showed at the beginning of this period of
conflict, he had sufficient control of himself to make clear the
spiritual character of his reforming endeavours, and firmly to reject
the carnal weapons which Ulrich von Hutten and his revolutionary
companions wished him to take up, thankful as he was for their warm
sympathy. His standpoint as a reformer is shown in the writings which
he published during this period. The Romish bull of excommunication
provoked him to strong words and extreme measures, and with heroic
boldness he entered Worms to present to the emperor and diet an
account of his doings. The papal ban was followed by the imperial
decree of outlawry. But the Wartburg exile saved him from the hands
of his enemies and--of his friends.

  § 123.1. =Luther’s Three Chief Reformation Writings,
  A.D. 1520.=--In the powerful treatise, “To His Imperial Majesty
  and the Christian Nobility of the German Nation on the Improvement
  of the Christian Condition,” which appeared in the beginning of
  August, A.D. 1520, Luther bombards first of all the three walls
  behind which the Romanists entrenched themselves, the superiority
  of the spiritual to the civil power, the sole right of the pope
  to interpret Scripture and to summon œcumenical councils. Then he
  commends to the laity, as consecrated by baptism to a spiritual
  priesthood, especially civil rulers ordained of God, the task
  of carrying out the reformation which God’s word requires, but
  the pope and clergy hinder; and then finally he makes a powerful
  appeal for carrying out this work in a practical way. He exposes
  the false pretensions of the papal curia, demands renunciation of
  annats and papal confirmation of newly elected bishops, complete
  abandonment of the interdict and the abuse of excommunication,
  the prohibition of pilgrimages and the begging of the monks, a
  limitation of holy days, reform of the universities, permission
  to the clergy to marry, reunion with the Bohemian Picards
  (§ 119, 8), etc.--The second work, “On the Babylonish Captivity
  of the Church,” is a dogmatic treatise, and is directed mainly
  against the misuse of the sacraments and the reckoning of them
  as seven, which have been made in the hands of the pope an
  instrument of tyranny over the church. Only three are recognised
  as founded on Scripture: baptism, penance, and the Lord’s Supper,
  with the remark that, strictly speaking, even penance, as wanting
  an outward sign, cannot be styled a sacrament. The doctrine of
  transubstantiation, the withholding of the cup from the laity,
  and the idea of a sacrifice in the mass are decidedly rejected.
  The third treatise, “On the Freedom of a Christian Man,” enters
  the ethical domain. It represents the life of the Christian,
  rooted in justifying faith, as complete oneness with Christ.
  His relation therefore to the world around is set forth in two
  propositions: A Christian man is a free lord over all things,
  and subject to no one; and a Christian man is a ministering
  servant of all things, and subject to every one. On the one
  hand, he has the perfect freedom of a king and priest set over
  all outward things; but, on the other hand, he yields complete
  submission in love to his neighbour, which, as consideration of
  the weak, his very freedom demands.[362]

  § 123.2. =The Papal Bull of Excommunication, A.D. 1520.=--In
  order to reap the fruits of his pretended victory at Leipzig,
  Eck had gone to Rome, and was sent back triumphant as papal
  nuncio with the bull _Exsurge Domini_ of June 16th. It charged
  Luther with forty-one heresies, recommended the burning of his
  works, and threatened to put him and his followers, if they
  did not retract in sixty days, under the ban. Miltitz renewed
  his attempts at conciliation, which, however, led to no result,
  although Luther, to show at least his good will, attended
  the conference, and, as a basis for a mutual understanding,
  published his treatise, “On the Freedom of a Christian Man,”
  in Oct., A.D. 1520. He accompanied this with a letter to the
  pope, in which he treated him with personal respect, as a
  sheep among wolves and as a Daniel sitting among lions; but
  there was in it no word of repentance or of any desire to
  retract. It could easily have been foreseen that these two
  documents would prove thoroughly distasteful to the Romish
  court. Meanwhile Eck had issued the bull. Luther published
  a scathing polemic against it, and renewed his appeal, made
  two years before, to an œcumenical council. In Saxony Eck
  gained only scorn and reproach with his bull; but in Lyons,
  Mainz, Cologne, etc., Luther’s works were actually burnt.
  It was then that Luther took the boldest step in his whole
  career. With a numerous retinue of doctors and students, whom
  he had invited by a notice posted up on the blackboard, on the
  10th Dec., A.D. 1520, at the Elster gate of Wittenberg, he cast
  into the blazing pile the bull and the papal decretals with the
  words, “Because thou hast troubled the saints of the Lord, let
  eternal fire consume thee.” It was the utter renunciation of the
  pope and his church, and with it he cut away every possibility
  of a return.

  § 123.3. =Erasmus, A.D. 1520.=--Erasmus (§ 120, 6) had been
  hitherto on good terms with Luther. They entertained for one
  another a genuine regard. Diverse as their positive tendencies
  were, they were at one in contending against scholasticism and
  monkery. Erasmus was not sorry to see such heavy blows dealt
  to the detested monks, and constantly refused to write against
  Luther; he had also, he confessed, no wish to learn from his
  own experience the sharpness of Luther’s teeth. When the papal
  bull appeared, without hesitation he disapproved it, and indeed
  refused to believe in its genuineness. He, as the oracle of his
  age, was applied to by many for his opinion of the matter. His
  judgment was that not the papal decision in itself but its style
  and form should be disapproved. He desired a tribunal of learned,
  pious men and three princes (the emperor and the kings of England
  and Hungary), to whose verdict Luther would have to submit. When
  Frederick the Wise consulted him, he expressed the opinion that
  Luther had made two mistakes, in touching the crown of the pope
  and the belly of the monks; he regretted in Luther’s proceedings
  a want of moderation and discretion. Not without profit did the
  elector hear the oracle thus discourse.--Continuation § 125, 3.

  § 123.4. =Luther’s Controversy with Emser,
  A.D. 1519-1521.=--Emser, secretary and orator in the service
  of Duke George, after the Leipzig Disputation, which he had
  attended, sought by letter-writing to alienate the Bohemians
  (§ 139, 19) from Luther, representing him as having there spoken
  bitterly against them. This roused Luther to make a passionate
  reply. After several pamphlets of a violent character had been
  issued by both combatants, Emser issued his charge in a full and
  comprehensive treatise, to which Luther replied in his work, “The
  Answer of Martin Luther to the Unchristian, Ultra-ecclesiastical,
  and Over-ingenious Book of Emser at Leipzig.” They had also a
  sharp passage at arms with one another, in A.D. 1524, over the
  canonization of Bishop Benno of Meissen, in which Emser, by his
  duke’s order, took a zealous part (§ 129, 1). But all the later
  writings in this controversy Luther left unanswered. Emser, with
  great bitterness, assailed Luther’s translation of the Bible, in
  which he professed to have found 1,400 heretical falsifications
  and more than 1,000 lexical blunders. Luther was candid enough to
  acknowledge that several of his animadversions were not unfounded.
  On Emser’s own translation, which appeared shortly before his
  death in A.D. 1527, see § 149, 14.

  § 123.5. =The Emperor Charles V.=--The Emperor Maximilian
  had died on 12th Jan., A.D. 1519. The Elector of Saxony, as
  administrator of the empire, managed to determine the election,
  which took place on 28th June, A.D. 1519, against the French
  candidate, Francis I., who was supported by the pope, in favour
  of the young king of Spain, Charles I., grandson of Maximilian.
  Detained at home by Spanish affairs, it was 23rd Oct., A.D. 1520,
  before he was crowned at Aachen. All hopes were now directed
  toward the young emperor. It was expected that he would put
  himself at the head of the religious and national movement in
  Germany. But Charles, uninspired by German sentiment, and even
  ignorant of the German language, had other interests, which he
  was not inclined to subordinate to German politics. The German
  crown was with him only an integral part of his power. Its
  interests must accommodate themselves to the common interests
  of the whole dominions, upon which the sun never set. The German
  movement he regarded as one, indeed, of high importance, but he
  regarded it not so much from its religious as from its political
  side. It afforded him the means for keeping the pope in check
  and obliging him to sue for his favour. Two things required he
  of the pope as the price of suppressing the German movement:
  renunciation of the French alliance, and repeal of the papal
  brief by which a transformation had been recommended of the
  Spanish Inquisition, the main buttress of absolute monarchy
  in Spain. The pope granted both demands, and the hopes of the
  Germans in their new emperor, that he would finally free their
  nation from the galling yoke of Rome, were thus utterly blasted.

  § 123.6. =The Diet at Worms, A.D. 1521.=--Immediately after the
  arrival of the bull the emperor gave it the full force of law in
  the Netherlands, where he was then staying. He did not at once
  venture to make the same proclamation for Germany, specially from
  regard to Frederick the Wise, Luther’s own prince, who insisted
  that he should not be condemned unheard. Personal negotiations
  between Frederick and the emperor and his councillors at Cologne,
  in November, A.D. 1520, ended with a demand that the elector
  should bring Luther to the diet, summoned to meet at Worms,
  on 28th January, A.D. 1521; but at the desire of Aleander, the
  papal nuncio, who energetically protested against the proposal
  that civil judges should treat of matters of faith with an
  already condemned heretic, the emperor, in December, withdrew
  this summons. In the beginning of February there came a papal
  brief, in which he was urgently entreated to give effect to
  the bull throughout Germany. Aleander even sketched an imperial
  mandate for its execution, but was not able to prevent the
  emperor from laying it before his councillors for their opinion
  and approval. This was done in the middle of February. And
  now there arose a quite unexpected storm of opposition. The
  councillors demanded that Luther should be brought under an
  imperial safe conduct to Worms, there to answer for himself.
  His attacks on Romish abuses they would not and could not regard
  as crimes, for they themselves, with Duke George at their head,
  had presented to the pope a complaint containing 101 counts. On
  the other hand, they declared that if Luther would not retract
  his doctrinal vagaries, they would be prepared to carry out
  the edict. They persisted in this attitude when another scheme
  was proposed to them, which insisted on the burning of Luther’s
  writings. In the beginning of March a third proposal was made,
  which asked only for the temporary sequestration of his works.
  And to this they agreed. The emperor, though against his own
  will, submitted to their demand, and cited the reformer of
  Wittenberg to answer for himself at Worms. On 6th March he
  signed a summons, accompanied with a safe conduct, both intended,
  as Aleander said in writing to Rome, rather to frighten him
  from coming than with any desire for his presence. But the
  result was not as they desired. The courier appointed to deliver
  this citation was not sent, but instead of him, on the 12th, an
  imperial herald, who delivered to Luther a respectful invitation
  beginning with the address, “Noble, dear, and worshipful sir.”
  This herald was to bring him honourably and safely to Worms,
  and to conduct him back again in safety. All this was done behind
  the back of Aleander, who first came to know about it on the 15th,
  and certainly was not wrong in attributing the emperor’s change
  of mind to a suspicion of French political intrigues, in which
  Leo X., notwithstanding his negotiations for an alliance with
  the emperor, was understood to have had a share. Two weeks later,
  however, such suspicions were seen to be unfounded. Too late the
  sending of the herald was regretted, and an effort was made to
  conciliate the nuncio by the publication of the sequestrating
  mandate, which had been hitherto suppressed.

  § 123.7. =Luther= was meanwhile not idle at Wittenberg, while
  waiting with heroic calm the issue of the Worms negotiations.
  He preached twice daily, delivered lectures at the university,
  taught and exhorted by books, letters, and conversations,
  fought with his opponents, especially Emser, etc. While Luther
  was engaged with these multifarious tasks the imperial herald
  arrived. He now set everything aside, and on 2nd April boldly
  and confidently obeyed the summons. The fears of his Wittenberg
  friends and the counsels to turn back which reached him on
  his way were rejected with a heroic consciousness that he
  was in the path of duty. He had written on 14th March to
  Spalatin, _Intrabimus Wormatiam invitis omnibus portis inferni
  et potentatibus aëris_; and again from Oppenheim he wrote him,
  that he would go to Worms even if there were as many devils
  there as tiles upon the roofs. Still another attempt was
  made upon him at Oppenheim. The emperor’s confessor, Glapio,
  a Franciscan, who was by no means a blind worshipper of the
  Roman curia, thought it possible that a good understanding
  might be reached. He was of opinion that if Luther would
  only withdraw the worst of his books, especially that on
  the Babylonish Captivity, and acknowledge the decisions of
  the Council of Constance, all might be agreeably settled. With
  this in his mind he applied to the Elector of Saxony, and when
  he received no encouragement there, to Franz von Sickingen, who
  invited Luther, on his arrival at Ebernburg, near Worms, to an
  interview with Glapio; but Luther declined the invitation.--His
  journey all through was like a triumphal march. On 16th April,
  amid a great concourse of people, he entered Worms, along with
  his friends Justus Jonas and Nic. Amsdorf, as well as his legal
  adviser Jerome Schurf. He was called to appear on the following
  day. He admitted that the books spread out before him were his,
  and when called on to retract desired one day’s adjournment.
  On the 18th the trial proper began. Luther distinguished three
  classes of his writings, systematic treatises, controversial
  tracts against the papacy and papal doctrine, and controversial
  tracts against private individuals, and did not know that he
  had said anything in them that he could retract. He was asked
  to give a direct answer. He then gave one “without horns or
  teeth,” saying that he could and would retract nothing unless
  proved false from Scripture, or on other good and clear grounds,
  and concluded with the words, “Here stand I; I can no otherwise!
  God help me, Amen.” Among the German knights and princes he had
  won many hearts, but had made no favourable impression on the
  emperor, who, when Luther denounced the absolute authority of
  councils, stopped proceedings and dismissed the heretical monk.
  On the following day, without consulting the opinion of the
  councillors, he passed sentence of unconditional condemnation.
  But the councillors would not have the matter settled in this
  fashion, and the emperor was obliged, on 24th April, to reopen
  negotiations before a select commission, under the presidency of
  the Archbishop of Treves. Of no avail was a private conference
  of the archbishop and Luther on the 25th, in which the prelate
  accompanied his exhortation to retract with the promise of
  a rich priorate in his neighbourhood under his own and the
  emperor’s protection and favour. Luther supported his refusal
  by confident reference to the words of Gamaliel, Acts v. 38.
  On 26th April he left Worms unhindered; for the emperor had
  decidedly refused to yield to the vile proposal that the safe
  conduct of a heretic should be violated.--In consequence of
  Luther’s persistent refusal to retract anything, the majority
  of the diet pronounced themselves ready to agree to the
  emperor’s judgment against him. The latter now assigned to
  Aleander the drawing up of a new mandate, which should in the
  severest terms proclaim the ban of the empire against Luther
  and all his friends. After it had been approved in an imperial
  cabinet council, and was ready for printing in its final form
  in Latin and German, with the date 8th May, it was laid before
  the emperor for signature, which, however, he put off doing
  from day to day, and finally, in spite of all the nuncio’s
  remonstrances, he decided that it must be produced before the
  diet. When it appeared that this must be done, the two nuncios
  were all impatient to have it passed soon. But it was only on
  the 25th May, after the close of the diet, and after several
  princes, especially the Electors of Saxony and the Palatinate,
  had gone, that Charles let them present the edict, to which
  all present agreed. On the 26th May, after Divine service
  in church, he solemnly signed the Latin and German forms,
  which were published with blast of trumpets on the following
  day, and on Wednesday the sequestrated books of Luther were
  burnt.--Undoubtedly political motives occasioned this long
  delay in signing the documents. Perhaps he suspected the pope
  of some new act of political treachery; probably also he wished
  to postpone the publication of the edict until the imperial
  councillors had promised to contribute to his proposed journey
  to Rome, and perhaps until the nobles dissenting from the
  proceedings against Luther had departed.

  § 123.8. =The Wartburg Exile, A.D. 1521, 1522.=--Some days
  after Luther had dismissed the imperial herald, his carriage
  was stopped in a wood near Eisenach by two disguised knights
  with some retainers. He was himself carried off with show of
  violence, and brought to the Wartburg, where he was to remain
  in knight’s dress under the name of Junker Georg without himself
  knowing anything more of the matter. It was indeed a contrivance
  of the wise elector, though probably he took no active share
  in the matter, so that he could declare at Worms that he knew
  nothing of the Saxon monk. The most contradictory reports were
  spread. Sometimes the Cardinal Albert of Brandenburg (§ 122, 2)
  was thought of as the perpetrator of the act, sometimes Franz
  von Sickingen (§ 124, 2), sometimes a Franconian nobleman who
  was on intimate terms with Frederick. And as the news rapidly
  spread that Luther’s body, pierced with a sword, had been found
  in an old silver mine, the tumult in Worms became so great that
  Aleander had good cause to fear for his life.--From the Wartburg
  Luther maintained a lively correspondence with his friends, and
  even to the general public he proved, by edifying and stirring
  tracts, that he still lived, and was not inclined to be silenced
  or repressed. He completed the exposition of the _Magnificat_,
  wrought upon the Latin exposition of the Psalms, issued the
  first series of his “Church Postils,” wrote an “Instruction
  to Penitents,” a book “On Confession, whether the Pope have
  the Power to Enjoin it,” another “Against the Abuses of the
  Mass,” also “On Priestly and Monkish Vows,” etc. When Cardinal
  Albert, in September, A.D. 1521, proclaimed a pilgrimage with
  unlimited indulgence to the relic shrine at Halle (§ 115, 9),
  Luther wrote a scathing tract, “Against the New Idol at Halle.”
  And when Spalatin assured him that the elector would not suffer
  its being issued, he declined to withhold it, but sent him
  the little book, with imperative orders to give it over to
  Melanchthon for publication. While Spalatin still delayed
  its issue, Luther left his castle, pushed his way toward
  Wittenberg through the very heart of Duke George’s territories,
  and suddenly appeared among his friends in the dress of a knight,
  with long beard and hair. When he heard that the mere report
  of what he was proposing to do had led those in Halle to stop
  the traffic in indulgences, he decided not to proceed with the
  publication, but instead he addressed a letter to Albert, in
  which the archbishop had to read many a strong word about “the
  knavery of indulgences,” “the Pharaoh-like hardened condition
  of ecclesiastical tyrants,” etc. The prelate sent a most humble,
  apologetic, and gracious reply to the bold reformer. Luther then
  returned to his protective exile, as he had left it, unmolested.
  But the longer it continued the more insupportable did this
  electoral guardianship become. He would rather “burn on glowing
  coals than spend thus a half idle life.” But it was just this
  enforced exile that saved Luther and the Reformation from utter
  overthrow. Apart from the dangers of the ban of the empire,
  which would have perhaps obliged him to throw himself into
  the arms of Hutten and his companions, and thus have turned
  the Reformation into a revolution this confinement in the
  Wartburg was in various ways a blessing to Luther and his
  work. It was of importance that men should learn to distinguish
  between Luther’s work and Luther’s person, and of yet greater
  importance was the discipline of this exile upon Luther himself.
  He was in danger of being drawn out of the path of positive
  reformation into that of violent revolutionism. The leisure
  of the Wartburg gave him time for calm reflection on himself
  and his work, and the extravagances of the Wittenberg fanatics
  and the wild excuses of the prophets of Zwickau (§ 124, 1)
  could be estimated with a freedom from prejudice that would
  have been impossible to one living and moving in the midst of
  them. Besides, he had not reached that maturity of theological
  knowledge needed for the conduct of his great undertaking, and
  was in many ways fettered by a one-sided subjectivism. In his
  seclusion he could turn from merely destructive criticism to
  construction, and by undisturbed study of Scripture became
  able to enlarge, purify, and confirm his religious knowledge.
  But most important of all was the plan which he formed in the
  Wartburg, and so far as the New Testament is concerned carried
  out there, of translating the whole of the Scriptures.[363]

  § 123.9. =The Attitude of Frederick the Wise to the
  Reformation.=--Frederick the Wise, A.D. 1486-1525, has usually
  been styled “the Promoter of the Reformation.” Kolde, however,
  has sought to represent him as favouring Luther because of
  his interest in the University of Wittenberg founded by him,
  the success of which was largely owing to Luther, and because
  of his patriotic desire to have German questions settled at
  home rather than in Rome. This author supposes that after the
  Diet of Worms Frederick took no particular interest in the
  Reformation, beyond watching to see how things would turn out.
  To all this Köstlin has replied that Frederick’s whole attitude
  during the Diet of Worms betrayed a warm and hearty interest
  in evangelical truth; that his correspondence with Tucher of
  Nuremberg, A.D. 1518-1523, supports this view; that in one
  of these letters he addresses his correspondent with evident
  satisfaction as a good Lutheran; that in another he incloses
  a copy of Luther’s _Assertio omnium articulorum_; that at a
  later period he forwards him a copy of Luther’s New Testament,
  and expresses the hope that he will gain spiritual blessing
  from its perusal. He himself found it his greatest comfort
  in the hour of death, partook of the communion in both kinds
  after the reformed manner, which takes away all ground for
  the suspicion that he yielded only to the importunities of
  his brother John and his chaplain Spalatin. And even though
  Frederick, as late as A.D. 1522, continued to increase the
  rich collection of relics which he had previously made for
  his castle church, this only proves that not all at once but
  only bit by bit he was able to break away from his earlier
  religious tendencies and predilections.


        § 124. DETERIORATION AND PURIFICATION OF THE WITTENBERG
                      REFORMATION, A.D. 1522-1525.

  During Luther’s absence, the Reformation at Wittenberg advanced
only too rapidly, and at last ran out into the wildest extravagances.
But Luther hastened thither, regulated the movement, and guided it
back into wise evangelical ways. This fanaticism arose in Wittenberg,
but soon spread into other parts. The Reformation was at the same time
threatened with danger from another quarter. The religious movement
came into contact with the struggle of the German knights against the
princes and that of the German peasants against the nobles, and was
in danger of being identified with these revolutionary proceedings
and sharing their fate. But Luther stood firm as a wall against all
temptations, and thus these dangers were avoided.

  § 124.1. =The Wittenberg Fanaticism, A.D. 1521, 1522.=--In
  A.D. 1521 an Augustinian, Gabriel Didymus or Zwilling, preached
  a violent tirade against vows and private masses. In consequence
  of this sermon, thirteen of the brethren of his order at once
  withdrew. Two priests in the neighbourhood married. Carlstadt
  wrote against celibacy and followed their example. At the
  Wittenberg convent, secessions from the order were allowed
  at pleasure, and mendicancy, as well as the sacrifice of the
  mass, was abolished. But matters did not stop there. Didymus,
  and still more Carlstadt, spread a fanatical spirit among the
  people and the students, who were encouraged in the wildest
  acts of violence. The public services were disturbed in order
  to stop the idolatry of the mass, images were thrown out of
  the churches, altars were torn down, and a desire evinced
  to put an end to theological science as well as to clerical
  orders. A fanatical spirit began now also to spread at Zwickau.
  At the head of this movement stood the tailor Nicolas Storch
  and a literate Marcus Stübner, who boasted of Divine revelations;
  while Thomas Münzer, with fervid eloquence, proclaimed the new
  gospel from the pulpit. Restrained by energetic measures taken
  against them, the Zwickau prophets wandered abroad. Münzer went
  to Bohemia, Storch and Stübner to Wittenberg. There they told
  of their revelations and inveighed against infant baptism as
  a work of Satan. The excitement in Wittenberg became greater
  day by day. The enemies of the Reformation rejoiced; Melanchthon
  could give no counsel, and the elector was confounded. Then
  could Luther no longer contain himself. Against the elector’s
  express command he left the Wartburg on 3rd March, A.D. 1522,
  wrote him a noble letter, availed himself of his knight’s
  incognito on the way, and appeared publicly at Wittenberg.
  For a week he preached daily against fanaticism, and got
  complete control of the wild revolutionary elements. The
  prophets of Zwickau left Wittenberg. Carlstadt remained, but
  for a couple of years held his peace. Luther and Melanchthon
  now laboured to secure a positive basis for the Reformation.
  Melanchthon had already made a beginning in A.D. 1521 by the
  publication of his _Loci communes rerum theologicarum_. Luther
  now, in A.D. 1522, against the decided wish of his friend,
  published his _Annotationes in epist. t. Pauli ad Rom. et
  Cor._ In Sept. of the same year appeared Luther’s translation
  of the N.T. Besides these he also issued several treatises
  in defence of the Reformation.

  § 124.2. =Franz von Sickingen, A.D. 1522, 1523.=--A private
  feud led Franz von Sickingen to attack the Elector and Archbishop
  of Treves in A.D. 1522, but soon other interests were involved,
  and he was joined by the whole party of the knights. Sickingen’s
  opponent was a prelate and a pronounced enemy of the Reformation,
  and he was also a prince and a peer of the empire. In both
  characters he was opposed by Sickingen, who called for support
  in the name of religion and freedom. The knights, discontented
  with the imperial government and bureaucracy, with princes and
  prelates, crowded to his standard. Sickingen would also have
  gladly secured the monk of Wittenberg as an ally, but Luther
  was not to be won. Sickingen’s enterprise failed. The Elector
  of the Palatinate and the young Landgrave of Hesse hasted to
  the help of their beleaguered neighbours. The knights were
  overthrown one after another; Sickingen died of mortal wounds
  in May, A.D. 1523, immediately after the taking of the shattered
  Ebernburg. The power of the knights was utterly broken. The
  Reformation thus lost indeed brave and noble protectors, but
  it was itself saved.

  § 124.3. =Andrew Bodenstein of Carlstadt, A.D. 1524,
  1525.=--Even after the suppression of the Wittenberg
  fanaticism, Carlstadt continued to entertain his revolutionary
  views, and it was only with difficulty that he restrained himself
  for a few years. In A.D. 1524 he left Wittenberg and went to
  Orlamünde. With bitter invectives against Luther’s popism, he
  there resumed his iconoclasm, and brought forward his doctrine
  of the Lord’s Supper, in which the real presence of the body
  and blood of Christ was absolutely denied (§ 131, 1). In order
  to prevent disturbance, Luther, by the order of the elector,
  went to Jena, and there in Carlstadt’s presence preached most
  emphatically against image breakers and sacramentarians. This
  roused Carlstadt’s indignation. When Luther visited Orlamünde,
  he was received with stone throwing and curses. Carlstadt was
  now banished from his territories by the elector. He then went
  to Strassburg, where he sought to win over the two evangelical
  pastors, Bucer and Capito. Luther issued a letter of warning,
  “To the Christians of Strassburg.” Carlstadt went to Basel,
  and published violent tracts against Luther’s “unspiritual
  and irrational theology.” Luther replied in A.D. 1525,
  earnestly, thoroughly, and firmly in his treatise, “Against
  the Heavenly Prophets, or Images and the Sacraments.” Carlstadt
  had secured the support of the Swiss reformers, who continued
  the controversy with Luther. He involved himself in the Peasants’
  War, and afterwards, by Luther’s intercession with the elector,
  obtained leave to return to Saxony. He retracted his errors,
  but soon again renewed his old disorderly practices; and, after
  a singularly eventful career, died as professor and preacher
  at Basel during the plague of A.D. 1541.

  § 124.4. =Thomas Münzer, A.D. 1523, 1524.=--The prophets
  when expelled from Wittenberg did not remain idle, but set
  themselves to produce all sort of disorders in church and state.
  At the head of these disturbers stood Thomas Münzer. After his
  expulsion from Zwickau, he had gone to Bohemia, and was there
  received as an apostle of the Taborite doctrine (§ 119, 7).
  In A.D. 1523 he returned to Saxony, and settled at Allstadt
  [Allstädt] in Thuringia, and when driven out by the elector
  he went to Mühlhausen. In both places he soon obtained a large
  following. The Wittenberg Reformation was condemned no less
  than the papacy. Not the word of Scripture but the Spirit was
  to be the principle of the Reformation; not only everything
  ecclesiastical but also everything civil was to be spiritualized
  and reorganized. The doctrine of the evangelical freedom of
  the Christian was grossly misconceived, the sacraments despised,
  infant baptism denounced, and sole weight laid on the baptism
  of the Spirit. Princes should be driven from their thrones,
  the enemies of the gospel destroyed by the sword, and all
  goods be held in common. When Luther wrote a letter of warning
  on these subjects to the church at Mühlhausen, Münzer issued
  an abusive rejoinder, in which he speaks contemptuously of
  Luther’s “honey-sweet Christ,” and “cunningly devised gospel.”
  From Mühlhausen, Münzer went forth on a proselytising crusade
  in A.D. 1524, to Nuremberg, and then to Basel, but found little
  response in either city. His revolutionary extravagances were
  more successful among the peasants of Southern Germany.

  § 124.5. =The Peasant War, A.D. 1524, 1525.=--The peasants of
  the empire had long groaned under their heavy burdens. Twice
  already, in A.D. 1502, 1514, had they risen in revolt, with
  little advantage to themselves. When Luther’s ideas of the
  freedom of a Christian man reached them, they hastily drew
  conclusions in accordance with their own desires. Münzer’s
  fanatical preaching led to the adoption of still more decidedly
  communistic theories. In August, A.D. 1524, in the Black Forest,
  a rebellion broke out, which was, however, quickly suppressed.
  In the beginning of A.D. 1525 troubles burst forth afresh.
  The peasants stated their demands in twelve articles, which
  they insisted upon princes, nobles, and prelates accepting.
  All Franconia and Swabia were soon under their power, and
  even many cities made common cause with them. Münzer, however,
  was not satisfied with this success. The twelve articles were
  too moderate for him, and still more distasteful to him were
  the terms that had been made with the nobles and clergy. He
  returned to Thuringia and settled again at Mühlhausen. From
  thence he spread his fanaticism through the whole land and
  organized a general revolt. With merciless cruelty thousands
  were massacred, all cloisters, castles, and palaces were
  ruthlessly destroyed. Boldly as Luther had attacked the
  existing ecclesiastical tyranny, he resolutely left civil
  matters alone. He preached that the gospel makes the soul
  free, but not the body or property. He had profound sympathy
  for the sorely oppressed peasants, and so long as their
  demands did not go beyond the twelve articles, he hoped to
  be able to regulate the movement by the power of the word.
  The revolutionists had themselves in their twelfth article
  offered to abandon any of their claims that might be found
  to have no countenance from the word of God. When Münzer’s
  disorders began in Thuringia, Luther visited the cities most
  threatened and exhorted them to quiet and obedience. But the
  death of the elector on 5th May called him back to Wittenberg.
  From thence he now published his “Exhortations to Peace on the
  Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants,” in which he speaks
  pointedly to the consciences of the nobles no less than of the
  peasants. But when the agitation continued to spread, and one
  enormity after another was perpetrated, he gave vent to his
  wrath in no measured terms in his book, “Against the Robbing
  and Murdering Peasants.” He there, with burning words, called
  upon the princes vigorously to stamp out the fanatical rebellion.
  Philip of Hesse was the first to take the field. He was joined
  by the new Elector of Saxony, Frederick’s brother, =John the
  Constant=, A.D. 1525-1532, as well as by George of Saxony and
  Henry of Brunswick. On 15th May, A.D. 1525, the rebels were
  annihilated after a severe struggle at Frankenhausen. Münzer
  was taken prisoner and beheaded. Even in Southern Germany the
  princes were soon in all parts masters of the situation. In
  this war 100,000 men had lost their lives and the most fertile
  districts had been turned into barren wastes.


             § 125. FRIENDS AND FOES OF LUTHER’S DOCTRINE,
                            A.D. 1522-1526.

  Luther’s fellow labourers in the work of the gospel increased
from day to day, and so too the number of the cities in Northern and
Southern Germany in which pure doctrine was preached. But Wittenberg
was the heart and centre of the whole movement, the muster-ground for
all who were persecuted and exiled for the sake of the gospel, the
gathering point and nursery of new preachers. Among the theological
opponents of Luther’s doctrine appears a crowned head, Henry VIII.
of England, and also “the king of literature,” Erasmus of Rotterdam,
entered the lists against him. But neither the one nor the other, to
say nothing of the rude invectives of Thomas Murner, was able to shake
the bold reformer and check the rapid spread of his opinions.

  § 125.1. =Spread of Evangelical Views.=--The most powerful
  heralds of the Reformation were the monkish orders. Cloister
  life had become so utterly corrupt that the more virtuous of
  the brethren could no longer endure it. Anxious to breathe a
  healthier atmosphere, evangelists inspired by a purer doctrine
  arose in all parts of Germany, first and most of all among
  the Augustinian order (§ 112, 6), which almost to a man went
  over to the Reformation and had the glory of providing its
  first martyr (§ 128, 1). The order regarded Luther’s honour
  as its own. Next to them came the Franciscans, prominent during
  the Middle Ages as a fanatical opposition (§ 98, 4; 108, 5;
  112, 2), of whom many had the courage to free themselves of
  their shackles. From their cloisters proceeded, _e.g._, the
  two famous popular preachers, Eberlin of Günzburg and Henry
  of Kettenbach in Ulm, the Hamburg reformer Stephen Kempen,
  the fervent Lambert reformer of Hesse, Luther’s friend
  Myconius of Gotha, and many more. Other orders too supplied
  their contingent, even the Dominicans, to whom Martin Bucer,
  the Strassburg reformer, belonged. Blaurer of Württemberg
  was a Benedictine, Rhegius a Carmelite, Bugenhagen a
  Premonstratensian, etc. At least one of the German bishops,
  George Polenz of Samland, openly joined the movement, preached
  the gospel in Königsberg, and inspired the priests of his diocese
  with the same views. Other bishops, such as those of Augsburg,
  Basel, Bamberg, Merseburg, sympathised with the movement or at
  least put no hindrance in its way. But the secular clergy gave
  crowds of witnesses. In all the larger and even in some of the
  smaller towns of Germany Luther’s doctrines were preached from
  the pulpits with the approval of the magistrates, and where these
  were refused the preachers took to the market-places and fields.
  Where ministers were wanting, artisans and knights, wives and
  maidens, carried on the work.--One of the first cities which
  opened its gates freely to the gospel was Strassburg. Nowhere
  were Luther’s writings more zealously read, discussed, printed,
  and circulated than in that city. Shortly before Geiler of
  Kaisersberg (§ 115, 11) had prepared the soil for receiving
  the first seed of the Reformation. From A.D. 1518 Matthew Zell
  had wrought as pastor at St. Laurence in Münster. When the
  chapter forbade him the use of the stone pulpit erected for
  Geiler, the joiners’ guild soon made him a wooden pulpit, which
  was carried in solemn procession to Münster, and set up beside
  the one that had been closed against him. Zell was soon assisted
  by Capito, Bucer, Hedio, and others.

  § 125.2. =“The Sum of Holy Scripture” and its Author.=--This
  work, called also _Deutsche Theologie_, appeared anonymously
  at Leyden in A.D. 1523, and was confiscated in March, A.D. 1524.
  In various Dutch editions and in French, Italian, and English
  translations, it was soon widely spread over Europe; but
  so vigorously was it suppressed, that by the middle of the
  century it had disappeared and was forgotten. In A.D. 1877
  the Waldensian Comba discovered and published an old Italian
  version, and Benrath translated into German in A.D. 1880 an
  old Dutch edition of A.D. 1526, and succeeded in unravelling
  for the most part its interesting history. He found that it
  was composed in Latin, and on the entreaty of the author’s
  friends rendered into Dutch. This led to the discovery, in
  the possession of Prof. Toorenenberger of Amsterdam, of the
  Latin original, which had appeared anonymously at Strassburg
  in A.D. 1527 with the title, _Æconomica christiana_. Benrath
  has also discovered the author to be Hendrik van Bommel, who
  was in the first half of A.D. 1520 priest and rector of a
  sisterhood at Utrecht, expelled in A.D. 1536 from Cleves,
  from A.D. 1542 to 1560 evangelical teacher and preacher at
  Wesel, dying in A.D. 1570 as pastor at Duisburg. The “Sum” is
  evidently influenced by those works of Luther which appeared
  up to A.D. 1523, its thoroughly popular, edifying, and positive
  contents are based upon a careful study of Scripture, and it is
  throughout inspired by the one grand idea, that the salvation
  of sinful men rests solely on the grace of God in Christ
  appropriated by faith.

  § 125.3. =Henry VIII. and Erasmus.=--Henry VIII. of England,
  as a second son, had been originally destined for the church.
  Hence he retained a certain predilection for theological
  studies and was anxious to be regarded as a learned theologian.
  In A.D. 1522 he appeared as the champion of the Romish doctrine
  of the seven sacraments in opposition to Luther’s book on the
  “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” treating the peasant’s
  son with lordly contempt. Luther paid him in the same coin, and
  treated his royal opponent with less consideration than he had
  shown to Emser and Eck. The king obtained what he desired, the
  papal honorary title of _Defensor fidei_, but Luther’s crushing
  reply kept him from attempting to continue the controversy.
  He complained to the elector, who consoled him by reference
  to a general council (comp. § 129, 1). The pretty tolerable
  relations between Erasmus and Luther now suffered a severe
  shock. Erasmus, indebted to the English king for many favours,
  was roused to great bitterness by Luther’s unmeasured severity.
  He had hitherto refused all calls to write against Luther. Many
  pulpits charged him with having a secret understanding with the
  heretic; others thought he was afraid of him. All this tended
  to drive Erasmus into open hostility to the reformer. He now
  diligently studied Luther’s writings, for which he obtained
  the pope’s permission, and seized upon a doctrine which would
  not oblige him to appear as defender of Romish abuses, though
  to gauge and estimate it in its full meaning he was quite
  incompetent. Luther’s life experiences, joined with the study
  of Paul’s epistles and Augustine’s writings, had wrought in
  him the conviction that man is by nature incapable of doing
  any good, that his will is unfree, and that he is saved without
  any well doing of his own by God’s free grace in Christ. With
  Luther, as with Augustine, this conviction found expression
  in the doctrine of absolute predestination. Melanchthon had
  also formulated the doctrine in the first edition of his _Loci
  communes_. This fundamental doctrine of Luther was now laid hold
  upon by Erasmus in A.D. 1524 in his treatise, Διατριβή _de libra
  arbitrio_, pronounced dangerous and unbiblical, while his own
  semi-Pelagianism was set over against it. After the lapse of
  a year, Luther replied in his treatise, _De servo arbitrio_,
  with all the power and confidence of personal, experimental
  conviction. Erasmus answered in his _Hyperaspistes diatribes
  adv. Lutheri servum arbitrium_ of A.D. 1526, in which he gave
  free vent to his passion, but did not advance the argument
  in the least. Luther therefore saw no need to continue the
  discussion.[364]

  § 125.4. =Thomas Murner.=--The Franciscan, Thomas Murner of
  Strassburg, had published in A.D. 1509 his “Fools’ Exorcism”
  and other pieces, which gave him a high place among German
  satirists. He spared no class, not even the clergy and
  the monks, took Reuchlin’s part against the men of Cologne
  (§ 120, 4), but passionately opposed Luther’s movement. His
  most successful satire against Luther is entitled, “On the
  Great Lutheran Fool as Exorcised by Dr. Murner, A.D. 1522.”
  It does not touch upon the spiritual aspect of the Reformation,
  but lashes with biting wit the revolutionary, fanatical, and
  rhetorical extravagances which were often closely associated
  with it. Luther did not venture into the lists with the savagely
  sarcastic monk, but the humanists poured upon him a flood of
  scurrilous replies.

  § 125.5. A notable Catholic witness on behalf of the
  Reformation is the “=Onus ecclesiæ=,” an anonymous tract of
  A.D. 1524, written by Bishop Berthold Pirstinger of Chiemsee.
  In apocalyptic phraseology it describes the corruption of
  the church and calls for reformation. The author however
  denounces Luther as a sectary and revolutionist, though he
  distinctly accepts his views of indulgences. He would reform
  the church from within. Four years after, the same divine
  wrote a “_Tewtsche Theologey_,” in which, with the exception
  of the doctrine of indulgence, the whole Romish system is
  vindicated and the corruptions of the church are ignored.


          § 126. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMATION IN THE EMPIRE,
                            A.D. 1522-1526.

  In consequence of the terms of his election, Charles V. had, at
the Diet of Worms, to agree to the erection of a standing imperial
government at Nuremberg, which in his absence would have the supreme
direction of imperial affairs. Within this commission, though presided
over by Archduke Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, a majority was
soon found which openly favoured the new religion. Thus protected
by the highest imperial judicature, the Reformation was able for
a long time to spread unhindered and so made rapid progress (§ 125, 1).
The Nuremberg court succumbed indeed to the united efforts of its
political opponents, among whom were many nobles of an evangelical
spirit, but all the more energetically did these press the interests
of the Reformation. And their endeavours were so successful, that
it was determined that matters should be settled without reference
to pope and council at a general German national assembly. But the
papal legate Campegius formed at Regensberg [Regensburg], in A.D. 1524,
a league of the Catholic nobles for enforcing the edict of Worms,
against which the evangelical nobles established a defensive league
at Torgau, in A.D. 1526. The general national assembly was vetoed by
the emperor, but the decision of the Diet of Spires of A.D. 1526 gave
to all nobles the right of determining the religious matters of their
provinces after their own views.

  § 126.1. =The Diet at Nuremberg, A.D. 1522, 1523.=--The
  imperial court held its first diet in the end of A.D. 1522.
  Leo X. had died in Dec., A.D. 1521, and Hadrian VI. (§ 149, 1),
  strictly conservative in doctrine and worship, a reformer of
  discipline and hierarchical abuses, had succeeded with the
  determination “to restore the deformed bride of Christ to her
  pristine purity,” but vigorously to suppress the Lutheran heresy.
  His legate presented to the diet a letter confessing abuses and
  promising reforms, but insisting on the execution of the edict
  of Worms. The diet declared that in consequence of the admitted
  corruptions of the church, the present execution of the Worms
  edict was not to be thought of. Until a general council in a
  German city, with guaranteed freedom of discussion, had been
  called, discussion should be avoided, and the word of God, with
  true Christian and evangelical explanation, should be taught.

  § 126.2. =The Diet at Nuremberg, A.D. 1524.=--A new diet was
  held at Nuremberg on 14th Jan., A.D. 1524. It dealt first of
  all with the question of the existence of the imperial court.
  The reformatory tendencies of the government showed that what
  was vital to this court was so also to the Reformation. This
  party had important supporters in the arch-catholic Ferdinand,
  who hoped thus to strengthen himself in his endeavour to obtain
  the Roman crown, in the Elector of Mainz, the prime mover in
  the traffic in indulgences, who had personal antipathies to
  the foes of the court, in the elector of Saxony, its proper
  creator, and in the princes of Brandenburg. But there were
  powerful opponents: the Swabian league, the princes of Treves,
  the Palatinate and Hesse, who had been successful in opposition
  to Sickingen, and the imperial cities, which, though at one
  with the court in favouring the Reformation, were embittered
  against it because of its financial projects. The papal legate
  Campegius also joined the opposition. Hadrian VI. had died in
  A.D. 1523, and was succeeded by =Clement VII.=, A.D. 1523-1534.
  A skilful politician with no religious convictions, he determined
  to strengthen in every possible way the temporal power of
  the papal see. His legate was a man after his own mind. The
  opposition prevailed, and even Ferdinand after a struggle gave
  in. The newly organized governing body was only a shadow of
  the old, without power, influence, or independence. Thus a
  second (§ 124, 2) powerful support was lost to the Reformation,
  and the legate again pressed for the execution of the edict
  of Worms. But the evangelicals mustering all their forces,
  especially in the cities, secured a majority. They were indeed
  obliged to admit the legality of the edict; they even promised
  to carry it out, but with the saving clause “as far as possible.”
  A council in the sense of the former diet was demanded, and
  it was resolved to call a general national assembly at Spires,
  to be wholly devoted to religious and ecclesiastical questions.
  In the meantime the word of God in its simplicity was to be
  preached.

  § 126.3. =The Convention at Regensburg, A.D. 1524.=--While the
  evangelical nobles, by their theologians and diplomatists, were
  eagerly preparing for Spires, an assembly of the supporters
  of the old views met at Regensburg, June and July, A.D. 1524.
  Ignoring the previous arrangement, they proceeded to treat
  of the religious and ecclesiastical questions which had
  been reserved for the Spires Diet. This was the result of
  the machinations of Campegius. The Archduke Ferdinand, the
  Bavarian dukes, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and most of the
  South German bishops, joined the legate at Regensburg in
  insisting upon the edict of Worms. Luther’s writings were
  anew forbidden, their subjects were strictly enjoined not to
  attend the University of Wittenberg; several external abuses
  were condemned, ecclesiastical burdens on the people lightened,
  the number of festivals reduced, the four Latin Fathers, Ambrose,
  Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory, set up as the standard of
  faith and doctrine, while it was commanded that the services
  should be conducted unchanged after the manner of these Fathers.
  Thus was produced that rent in the unity of the empire which
  never again was healed.--The imperial and the papal policies
  were so bound up with one another, that the proceedings of the
  Nuremberg diets, with their national tendencies, were distasteful
  to the emperor; and so in the end of July there came an imperial
  rescript, making attendance at the national assembly a _crimen
  læsæ majestatis_, punishable with ban and double-ban. The nobles
  obeyed, and the assembly was not held. With it Germany’s hopes
  of a peaceful development were shattered.

  § 126.4. =The Evangelical Nobles, A.D. 1524.=--Several nobles
  hitherto indifferent became now supporters of the Reformation.
  Philip of Hesse, moved by an interview with Melanchthon, gave
  himself enthusiastically to the cause of evangelical truth.
  Also the Margrave Casimir, George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Duke
  Ernest of Lüneburg, the Elector Louis of the Palatinate, and
  Frederick I. of Denmark, as Duke of Schleswig and Holstein, did
  more or less in their several countries for the furtherance of
  the Reformation cause. The grand-master of the Teutonic order,
  Albert of Prussia, returned from the Diet of Nuremberg, where
  he had heard Osiander preach, doubtful of the scripturalness
  of the rule of his order. He therefore visited Wittenberg to
  consult Luther, who advised him to renounce the rule, to marry,
  and obtain heirs to his Prussian dukedom (§ 127, 3). The cities
  took up a most decided position. At two great city diets at
  Spires and Ulm in A.D. 1524, it was resolved to allow the
  preaching of a pure gospel and to assist in preventing the
  execution of the edict of Worms in their jurisdiction.

  § 126.5. =The Torgau League, A.D. 1526.=--Friends and foes of
  the Reformation had joined in putting down the peasant revolt.
  Their religious divergences however immediately after broke
  out afresh. George consulted at Dessau in July, A.D. 1525, with
  several Catholic princes as to means for preventing a renewal
  of the outbreak, and they unanimously decided that the condemned
  Lutheran sect must be rooted out as the source of all confusion.
  Soon afterwards two Leipzig citizens, who were found to have
  Lutheran books in their possession, were put to death. But
  Elector John of Saxony had a conference at Saalfeld with Casimir
  of Brandenburg, at which it was agreed at all hazards to stand
  by the word of God; and at Friedewald in November Hesse and the
  elector pledged themselves to stand true to the gospel. A diet
  at Augsburg in December, for want of a quorum, had reached no
  conclusion. A new diet was therefore summoned to meet at Spires,
  and all the princes were cited to appear personally. Duke George
  meanwhile gathered the Catholic princes at Halle and Leipzig,
  and they resolved to send Henry of Brunswick to Spain to the
  emperor. Shortly before his arrival, the emperor had concluded
  a peace at Madrid with the king of France, who had been taken
  prisoner in the battle of Pavia. Francis I., feeling he could
  not help himself, had agreed to all the terms, including
  an undertaking to join in suppressing the heretics. Charles
  therefore fully believed that he had a free hand, and determined
  to root out heresy in Germany. Henry of Brandenburg brought
  to the German princes an extremely firm reply, in which this
  view was expressed. But before its arrival the elector and the
  landgrave had met at Gotha, and had subsequently at Torgau, the
  residence of the elector, renewed the league to stand together
  with all their might in defence of the gospel. Philip undertook
  to gain over the nobles of the uplands. But the fear of the
  empire hindered his success. The elector was more fortunate
  among the lowland nobles. On 9th June the princes of Saxony,
  Lüneberg [Lüneburg], Grubenhagen, Anhalt, and Mansfeld met at
  Magdeburg, and subscribed the Torgau League. Also the city of
  Magdeburg, emancipated since A.D. 1524 from the jurisdiction
  of its archbishop, Albert of Mainz, and accepting the Lutheran
  confession, now joined the league.

  § 126.6. =The Diet of Spires, A.D. 1526.=--The diet met on
  25th June, A.D. 1526. The evangelical princes were confident;
  on their armour was the motto, _Verbum Dei manet in æternum_.
  In spite of all the prelates’ opposition, three commissions were
  approved to consider abuses. When the debates were about to begin,
  the imperial commissioners tabled an instruction which forbade
  them to make any change upon the old doctrines and usages, and
  finally insisted upon the execution of the edict of Worms. The
  evangelicals however took comfort from the date affixed to the
  document. They knew that since its issue the relation of pope
  and emperor had become strained. Francis I. had been relieved
  by the pope from the obligation of his oath, and the pope
  had joined with Francis in a league at Cognac, to which also
  Henry VIII. of England adhered. All Western Europe had combined
  to break the supremacy gained by the Burgundian-Spanish dynasty
  at Pavia, and the duped emperor found himself in straits. Would
  he now be inclined to stand by his instruction? The commissioners,
  apparently at Ferdinand’s wish, had kept back the document till
  the affairs of the Catholics became desperate. The evangelical
  nobles felt encouraged to send an embassy to the emperor,
  but before it started the emperor realized their wishes. In
  a letter to his brother he communicated a scheme for abolishing
  the penalties of the edict of Worms and referring religious
  questions to a council. At the same time he called for help
  against his Italian enemies. Seeing then that in present
  circumstances it did not seem advisable to revoke, still less
  to carry out the edict, the only plan was to give to each prince
  discretionary power in his own territory. This was the birthday
  of the territorial constitution on a formally legitimate basis.


      § 127. ORGANIZATION OF THE EVANGELICAL PROVINCIAL CHURCHES,
                            A.D. 1526-1529.

  The nobles had now not only the right but also had it enjoined on
them as a duty to establish church arrangements in their territories
as they thought best. The three following years therefore marked the
period of the founding and organizing of the evangelical provincial
churches. The electorate of Saxony came first with a good example.
After this pattern the churches of Hesse, Franconia, Lüneburg, East
Friesland, Schleswig and Holstein, Silesia, Prussia, and a whole group
of Low German states modelled their constitution and worship.

  § 127.1. =The Organization of the Church of the Saxon
  Electorate, A.D. 1527-1529.=--Luther wrote in A.D. 1528 an
  instruction to visitors of pastors in the electorate, which
  showed what and how ministers were to preach, indicated the
  reforms to be made in worship, protested against abuse of the
  doctrine of justification by urging the necessity of preaching
  the law, etc. The whole territory was divided under four
  commissions, comprising lay and clerical members. Ignorant
  and incompetent religious teachers were to be removed, but
  to be provided for. Teachers were to be settled over churches
  and schools, and superintendents over them were to inspect
  their work periodically, and to these last the performance
  of marriages was assigned. Vacant benefices were to be applied
  to the improvement of churches and schools; and those not vacant
  were to be taxed for maintenance of hospitals, support of the
  poor, founding of new schools, etc. The dangers occasioned by
  the often incredible ignorance of the people and their teachers
  led to Luther’s composing his two catechisms in A.D. 1529.

  § 127.2. =The Organization of the Hessian Churches,
  A.D. 1526-1528.=--Philip of Hesse had assembled the peers
  temporal and spiritual of his dominions in Oct., A.D. 1526,
  at Homberg, to discuss the question of church reform. A
  reactionary attempt failed through the fervid eloquence
  of the Franciscan Lambert of Avignon, a notable man, who,
  awakened in his cloister at Avignon by Luther’s writings,
  but not thoroughly satisfied, set out for Wittenberg, engaged
  on the way at Zürich in public disputation against Zwingli’s
  reforms, but left converted by his opponent, and then passed
  through Luther’s school at Wittenberg. There he married
  in A.D. 1523, and after a long unofficial and laborious
  stay at Strassburg, found at last, in A.D. 1526, a permanent
  residence in Hesse. He died in A.D. 1530.--Lambert’s personality
  dominated the Homberg synod. He sketched an organization of the
  church according to his ideal as a communion of saints with a
  democratic basis, and a strict discipline administered by the
  community itself. But the impracticability of the scheme soon
  became evident, and in A.D. 1528 the Hessian church adopted the
  principles of the Saxon church visitation. Out of vacant church
  revenues the University of Marburg was founded in A.D. 1527 as
  a second training school in reformed theology. Lambert was one
  of its first teachers.

  § 127.3. =Organization of other German Provincial Churches,
  A.D. 1528-1530.=--George of =Franconian-Brandenburg=, after his
  brother Casimir’s death, organized his church at the assembly of
  Anspach after the Saxon model. =Nuremberg=, under the guidance
  of its able secretary of council, Lazarus Spengler, united
  in carrying out a joint organization. In =Brunswick-Lüneburg=,
  Duke Ernest, powerfully impressed by the preaching of Rhegius
  at Augsburg, introduced the evangelical church organization
  into his dominions. In =East Friesland=, where the reigning
  prince did not interest himself in the matter, the development
  of the church was attended to by the young nobleman Ulrich of
  Dornum. In =Schleswig= and =Holstein= the prelates offered no
  opposition to reorganization, and the civil authorities carried
  out the work. In =Silesia= the princes were favourable, Breslau
  had been long on the side of the Reformation, and even the
  grand-duke who, as king of Bohemia, was suzerain of Silesia,
  felt obliged to allow Silesian nobles the privileges provided
  by the Diet of Spires. In =Prussia= (§ 126, 4), Albert of
  Brandenburg, hereditary duke of these parts, with the hearty
  assistance of his two bishops, provided for his subjects an
  evangelical constitution.

  § 127.4. =The Reformation in the Cities of Northern Germany,
  A.D. 1524-1531.=--In these cities the Reformation spread rapidly
  after their emancipation from episcopal control. It was organized
  in =Magdeburg= as early as A.D. 1524 by Nic. Amsdorf, sent for
  the purpose by Luther (§ 126, 5). In =Brunswick= the church was
  organized in A.D. 1528 by Bugenhagen of Wittenberg. In =Bremen=
  in A.D. 1525 all churches except the cathedral were in the
  hands of the Lutherans; in A.D. 1527 the cloisters were turned
  into schools and hospitals, and then the cathedral was taken
  from the Catholics. At =Lübeck=, nobles, councillors, and
  clergy had oppressed and driven away the evangelical pastors;
  but the councillors in their financial straits became indebted
  to sixty-four citizens, who stipulated that the pastors must
  be restored, the Catholics expelled, the cloisters turned into
  hospitals and schools, and finally Bugenhagen was called in to
  prepare for their church a Lutheran constitution.


         § 128. MARTYRS FOR EVANGELICAL TRUTH, A.D. 1521-1529.

  On the publication of the edict of Worms several Catholic
princes, most conspicuously Duke George of Saxony, began the
persecution. Luther’s followers were at first imprisoned, scourged,
and banished, and in A.D. 1521 a bookseller who sold Luther’s books
was beheaded. The persecution was most severe in the Netherlands,
a heritage of the emperor independent of the empire. Also in Austria,
Bavaria, and Swabia many evangelical confessors were put to death by
the sword and at the stake. The peasant revolt of A.D. 1525 increased
the violence of the persecution. On the pretence of punishing rebels,
those who took part in the Regensburg Convention (§ 126, 3) were
expelled the country, thousands of them with no other fault than
their attachment to the gospel. The conclusion of the Diet of Spires
in A.D. 1526 (§ 126, 6) added new fuel to the flames. While the
evangelical nobles, taking advantage of that decision, proceeded
vigorously to the planting and organizing of the reformed church,
the enemies of the Reformation exercised the power given them in
cruel persecutions of their evangelical subjects. The vagaries
of Pack (§ 132, 1) led to a revival and intensification of the
spirit of persecution. In Austria, during A.D. 1527, 1528, a church
visitation had been arranged very much in the style of that of Saxony,
but with the object of tracking out and punishing heretics. In Bavaria
the highways were watched, to prevent pilgrims going to preaching over
the borders. Those caught were at first fined, but later on they were
drowned or burned.

  =The first martyrs for evangelical truth= were two young
  Augustinian monks of Antwerp, Henry Voes and John Esch, who
  died at the stake in A.D. 1523, and their heroism was celebrated
  by Luther in a beautiful hymn. They were succeeded by the
  prior of the cloister, Lampert Thorn, who was strangled in
  prison. The Swabian League, which was renewed after the rising
  of the Diet of Spires, with the avowed purpose of rooting
  out the Anabaptists, directed its cruel measures against
  all evangelicals. The Bishop of Constance in A.D. 1527 had
  John Hüglin burnt as an opposer of the holy mother church.
  The Elector of Mainz cited the court preacher, George Winkler,
  of Halle, for dispensing the sacrament in both kinds at
  Ascheffenburg [Aschaffenburg]. Winkler defended himself, and
  was acquitted, but was murdered on the way. Luther then wrote
  his tract, “Comfort to the Christians of Halle on the Death
  of their Pastor.” In North Germany there was no bloodshedding,
  but Duke George had those who confessed their faith scourged
  by the gaoler and driven from the country. The Elector Joachim
  of Brandenburg with his nobles resolved in A.D. 1527 to give
  vigorous support to the old religion. But the gospel took deep
  root in his land, and his own wife Elizabeth read Luther’s
  writings, and had the sacrament administered after the Lutheran
  form. But the secret was revealed, and the elector stormed and
  threatened. She then escaped, dressed as a peasant woman, to
  her cousin the Elector of Saxony.


        § 129. LUTHER’S PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LIFE, A.D. 1523-1529.

  Only in December, A.D. 1524, did Luther leave the cloister, the
last of its inhabitants but the prior, and on 13th June, A.D. 1525,
married Catherine Bora, of the convent of Nimptschen, of whom he
afterwards boasted that he prized her more highly than the kingdom
of France and the governorship of Venice. Though often depressed
with sickness, almost crushed under the weight of business, and
harassed even to the end by the threats of his enemies against his
life, he maintained a bright, joyous temper, enjoyed himself during
leisure hours among his friends with simple entertainments of song,
music, intellectual conversation, and harmless, though often sharp
and pungent, interchange of wit. Thus he proved a genuine comfort
and help in all kinds of trouble. By constant writing, by personal
intercourse with students and foreigners who crowded into Wittenberg,
by an extensive correspondence, he won and maintained a mighty
influence in spreading and establishing the Reformation. By Scripture
translation and Scripture exposition, by sermons and doctrinal
treatises, he impressed upon the people his own evangelical views.
A peculiarly powerful factor in the Reformation was that treasury
of sacred song (§ 142, 3) which Luther gave his people, partly in
translations of old, partly in the composition of new hymns, which
he set to bright and pleasing melodies. He was also most diligent in
promoting education in churches and schools, in securing the erection
of new elementary and secondary schools, and laid special stress on
the importance of linguistic studies in a church that prized the pure
word of God.

  § 129.1. =Luther’s Literary Works.=--In A.D. 1524 appeared the
  first collection of spiritual songs and psalms, eight in number,
  with a preface by Luther. His reforms of worship were extremely
  moderate. In A.D. 1523 he published little tracts on baptism
  and the Lord’s Supper, repudiating the idea of a sacrifice in
  the mass, and insisting on communion in both kinds. In A.D. 1527
  he wrote his “German Mass and Order of Public Worship” (§ 127, 1)
  which was introduced generally throughout the elector’s dominions.
  He wrote an address to burgomasters and councillors about the
  improvement of education in the cities. Besides his polemic
  against Erasmus and Carlstadt, against Münzer and the rebellious
  peasants, as well as against the Sacramentarians (§ 131), he
  engaged at this time in controversy with Cochlæus. A papal
  bull for the canonization of Bishop Benno of Meissen (§ 93, 9)
  called forth in A.D. 1524 Luther’s tract, “Against the new God
  and the old Devil being set up at Meissen.” He was persuaded by
  Christian II. of Denmark to write, in A.D. 1526, a very humble
  letter to Henry VIII. of England (§ 125, 3), which was answered
  in an extremely venomous and bitter style. When his enemies
  triumphantly declared that he had retracted, Luther answered,
  in A.D. 1527, with his book, “Against the Abusive Writing of
  the King of England,” in which he resumed the bold and confident
  tone of his earlier polemic. A humble, conciliatory epistle
  sent in A.D. 1526 to Duke George was no more successful. He
  now unweariedly continued his Bible translation. The first
  edition of the whole Bible was published by Hans Lufft in
  Wittenberg, in A.D. 1534. A collection of sayings of Luther
  collected by Lauterbach, a deacon of Wittenberg, in A.D. 1538,
  formed the basis of later and fuller editions of “Luther’s
  Table Talk.” A chronologically arranged collection was made
  ten years later, and was published in A.D. 1872 from a MS. in
  the Royal Library at Dresden. Aurifaber in his collection did
  not follow the chronological order, but grouped the utterances
  according to their subjects, but with many arbitrary alterations
  and modifications. The saying falsely attributed to Luther, “Who
  loves not wine, women, and song?” etc., is assigned by Luther
  himself to his Erfurt landlady, but has been recently traced to
  an Italian source.

  § 129.2. The famous Catholic Church historian Döllinger, who in
  his history of the Reformation had with ultramontane bitterness
  defamed Luther and his work, twenty years later could not forbear
  celebrating Luther in a public lecture as “the most powerful
  patriot and the most popular character that Germany possessed.”
  In A.D. 1871 he wrote as follows: “It was Luther’s supreme
  intellectual ability and wonderful versatility that made him
  the man of his age and of his nation. There has never been a
  German who so thoroughly understood his fellow countrymen and
  was understood by them as this Augustinian monk of Wittenberg.
  The whole intellectual and spiritual making of the Germans
  was in his hands as clay in the hands of the potter. He has
  given more to his nation than any one man has ever done:
  language, popular education, Bible, sacred song; and all that
  his opponents could say against him and alongside of him seemed
  insipid, weak, and colourless compared with his overmastering
  eloquence. They stammered, he spoke. It was he who put a stamp
  upon the German language as well as upon the German character.
  And even those Germans who heartily abhor him as the great
  heretic and betrayer of religion cannot help speaking his words
  and thinking his thoughts.”


     § 130. THE REFORMATION IN GERMAN SWITZERLAND, A.D. 1519-1531.

  While Luther’s Reformation spread in Germany, a similar movement
sprang up in the neighbouring provinces of German Switzerland. Its
earliest beginnings date back as far as A.D. 1516. The personal
characteristics of its first promoter, and the political democratic
movement in which it had its rise, gave it a complexion entirely
different from that of the Lutheran Reformation. The most conspicuous
divergence occurred in the doctrine of the supper (§ 131), and since
the Swiss views on this point were generally accepted in the cities
of the uplands, the controversy passed over into the German Reformed
Church and hindered common action, notwithstanding common interests
and common dangers.

  § 130.1. =Ulrich Zwingli.=--Zwingli, born at Wildhaus in
  Toggenburg on January 1st, A.D. 1484, a scholar of the famous
  humanist Thomas Wyttenbach at Basel, was, after ten years’
  service as pastor at Glarus, made pastor of Maria-Einsiedeln
  in A.D. 1516. The crowding of pilgrims to the famous shrine
  of Mary at that place led him to preach against superstitious
  notions of meritorious performances. But far more decisive
  in determining his attitude toward the Reformation was his
  appointment on January 1st, A.D. 1519, as Lent priest at Zürich,
  where he first became acquainted with Luther’s works, and took
  sides with him against the Romish court party. Zwingli soon
  took up a distinctive position of his own. He would be not
  only a religious, but also a political reformer. For several
  years he had vigorously opposed the sending of Swiss youths as
  mercenaries into the armies of foreign princes. His political
  opponents, the oligarchs, whose incomes depended on this traffic,
  opposed also his religious reforms, so that his support was
  wholly from the democracy. Another important distinction between
  the Swiss and German movements was this, that Zwingli had grown
  into a reformer not through deep conviction of sin and spiritual
  conflicts, but through classical and biblical study. The writings
  of Pico of Mirandola (§ 120, 1), too, were not without influence
  upon him. To him, therefore, justification by faith was not
  in the same degree as to Luther the guiding star of his life
  and action. He began the work of the Reformation not so much
  with purifying the doctrine, as with improving the worship,
  the constitution, the ecclesiastical and moral life. His
  theological standpoint is set forth in these works: _Comment.
  de vera et falsa relig._, A.D. 1525; _Fidei ratio ad Car.
  Imp._, A.D. 1530; _Christian. fidei brevis at clara expos._, ed.
  Bullinger, A.D. 1536; _De providentia Dei_; and _Apologeticus_.
  Of the two principles of the anti-Romish Reformation (§ 121)
  the Wittenberg reformer placed the material, the Zürich reformer
  the formal, in the foreground. The former only rejected what was
  not reconcilable with Scripture; the latter repudiated all that
  was not expressly enjoined in Scripture. The former was cautious
  and moderate in dealing with forms of worship and mere externals;
  the latter was extreme, immoderate, and violent. Luther retained
  pictures, altars, the ornaments of churches, and the priestly
  character of the service, purifying it simply from unevangelical
  corruptions; Zwingli denounced all these things as idolatry,
  and burnt even organ pipes and clock bells. Luther recognised
  no action of the Holy Spirit apart from the word and sacrament;
  Zwingli separated it from these, and identified it with mere
  subjective feeling. The sacraments were with him mere memorial
  signs; justification solely by the merits of Christ as a
  joyous assurance of salvation had for him a negative rather
  than a positive significance, _i.e._ opposition to the Romish
  doctrine of merits; original sin was for him only hereditary
  moral sickness, a _naturalis defectus_, which is not itself
  sin, and virtuous heathens, like Hercules, Theseus, Socrates,
  and Cato were admitted as such into the society of the blessed,
  without apparently sharing in the redemption of Christ. His
  speculations, which led on one side almost to pantheism,
  favoured a theory of predestination, according to which the
  moral will has no freedom over against Providence.[365]

  § 130.2. =The Reformation in Zürich, A.D. 1519-1525.=--In
  A.D. 1518 a trafficker in indulgences, the Franciscan Bernard
  Samson, of Milan, carried on his disreputable business in
  Switzerland. At Zwingli’s desire Zürich’s gates were closed
  against him. In A.D. 1520 the council gave permission to priests
  and preachers in the city and canton to preach only from the
  O. and N.T. All this happened under the eyes of the two papal
  nuncios staying in Zürich; but they did not interfere, because
  the curia was extremely anxious to get auxiliaries for the
  papal army for an attack on Milan. Zwingli was promised a rich
  living if he would no more preach against the pope. He refused
  the bait, and went on his way as a reformer. The continued
  indulgence of the curia allowed the Reformation to take even
  firmer root. Zwingli published, in A.D. 1522, his first work,
  “Of Election, and Freedom in Use of Food,” and the Zürichers
  ate flesh and eggs during Lent of A.D. 1522. He also claimed
  liberty to marry for the clergy. At this time Lambert came from
  Avignon to Zürich (§ 127, 2). He preached against the new views,
  disputed in July with Zwingli, and confessed himself defeated
  and convinced. Zwingli’s opponents had placed great hopes in
  Lambert’s eloquence and dialectic skill. All the greater was
  the effect of the unexpected result of the disputation. The
  council, now impressed, commanded that the word of God should
  be preached without human additions. But when the adherents of
  the Romish party protested, it arranged a public disputation on
  29th Jan., A.D. 1523, on sixty-seven theses or _conclusiones_
  drawn up by Zwingli: “All who say, The gospel is nothing without
  the guarantee of the Church, blaspheme God;--Christ is the one
  way to salvation;--Our righteousness and our works are good
  so far as they are Christ’s, neither right nor good so far as
  they are our own,” etc. A former friend of Zwingli, John Faber,
  but quite changed since he had made a visit to Rome, and now
  vicar-general of the Bishop of Constance, undertook to support
  the old doctrines and customs against Zwingli. Being restricted
  to Scripture proof he was forced to yield. The cloisters were
  forsaken, violent polemics were published against the canon
  of the mass and the worship of saints and images. The council
  resolved to decide the question of the mass and images by a
  second disputation in October, A.D. 1523. Leo Judä, Lent priest
  at St. Peter’s in Zürich, contended against image worship,
  Zwingli against the mass. Scarcely any opposition was offered
  to either of them. At Pentecost, A.D. 1524, the council had
  all images withdrawn from the churches, the frescoes cut down,
  and the walls whitewashed. Organ playing and bell ringing
  were forbidden as superstitious. A new simple biblical formula
  of baptism was introduced, and the abolition of the mass, in
  A.D. 1525, completed the work. At Easter of this year Zwingli
  celebrated a lovefeast, at which bread was carried in wooden
  trenchers, and wine drunk from wooden cups. Thus he thought the
  genuine Christian apostolic rite was restored. In A.D. 1522 he
  had married a widow of forty-three years of age, but he publicly
  acknowledged it only in A.D. 1524. He penitently confesses that
  his pre-Reformation celibate life, like that of most priests
  of his age, had not been blameless; but the moral purity of his
  later life is beyond suspicion.

  § 130.3. =Reformation in Basel, A.D. 1520-1525.=--In Basel, at
  an early period, Capito and Hedio wrought as biblical preachers.
  But so soon as they had laid a good foundation they accepted a
  call to Mainz, in A.D. 1520, which they soon again quitted for
  Strassburg, where they carried on the work of the Reformation
  along with Bucer. Their work at Basel was zealously and
  successfully continued by Röublin. He preached against the mass,
  purgatory, and saint worship, often to 4,000 hearers. On the
  day of Corpus Christi he produced a Bible instead of the usual
  relics, which he scornfully called dead bones. He was banished,
  and afterwards joined the Anabaptists. A new epoch began in
  Basel in A.D. 1523. =Œcolampadius= or John Hausschein, born
  at Weinsberg in A.D. 1482, Zwingli’s Melanchthon, was preacher
  in Basel in A.D. 1516, and was on intimate terms there with
  Erasmus. He accepted a call in A.D. 1518 to the cathedral of
  Augsburg, but a year after withdrew into an Augsburg convent
  of St. Bridget. There he studied Luther’s writings, and, in
  A.D. 1522, found shelter from persecution in Sickingen’s castle,
  where he officiated for some months as chaplain. He then returned
  to Basel, became preacher at St. Martin’s, and was soon made,
  along with Conrad Pellican (§ 120, 4, footnote), professor in
  the university. Around these two a group of younger men soon
  gathered, who energetically supported the evangelical movement.
  They dispensed baptism in the German language, administered the
  communion in both kinds, and were indefatigable in preaching.
  In A.D. 1524 the council allowed monks and nuns, if they so
  wished, to leave their cloisters. Of special importance for
  the progress of the Reformation in Basel was the arrival in
  A.D. 1524 of William Farel from Dauphiné (§ 138, 1). He had
  been obliged to fly from France, and was kindly received by
  Œcolampadius, with whom he stayed for some months. In February
  he had a public disputation with the opponents of the Reformation.
  University and bishop had interdicted it, but all the more
  decided was the council that it should come off. Its result
  was a great impulse to the Reformation, though Farel in this
  same year, probably at the suggestion of Erasmus, whom he
  had described as a new Balaam, was banished by the council
  (§ 138, 1).[366]

  § 130.4. =The Reformation in the other Cantons,
  A.D. 1520-1525.=--In =Bern=, from A.D. 1518 Haller, Kolb, and
  Mayer carried on the work of the Reformation as political and
  religious reformers after the style of Zwingli. Nic. Manuel,
  poet, satirist, and painter, supported their preaching by his
  satirical writings against pope, priests, and superstition
  generally. Also in his Dance of Death, which he painted on
  the walls of a cloister at Bern, he covered the clergy with
  ridicule. In A.D. 1523 the council allowed departures from the
  convents, and several monks and nuns withdrew and married. The
  opposition called in the Dominican John Haim, as their spokesman,
  in A.D. 1524. Between him and the Franciscan Mayer there arose
  a passionate discussion, and the council exiled both. But Haller
  continued his work, and the Reformation took firmer root from
  day to day.--In =Muhlhausen [Mühlhausen]=, where Ulr. von Hutten
  spent his last days, the council issued a mandate in A.D. 1524
  which gave free course to the Reformation. At =Biel=, too,
  it was allowed unrestricted freedom. In East Switzerland,
  =St. Gall= was specially prominent under its burgomaster Joachim
  v. Watt, who zealously advanced the interests of the Reformation
  by word, writing, and action. John Karsler, who had studied
  theology in Wittenberg in A.D. 1522, and was then obliged,
  in order to avoid reading the mass, to learn and practise the
  trade of a saddler, preached the gospel here in the Trades’
  Hall in his saddler’s apron in A.D. 1524, and took the office
  of reformed pastor and Latin preceptor in A.D. 1537. He died in
  A.D. 1574 as President of St. Gall. In =Schaffhausen= Erasmus
  Ritter, called upon to oppose in discussion the reformed pastor
  Hofmeister, owned himself defeated, and joined the reform party.
  In the canton =Vaud= Thos. Platter, the original and learned
  sailor, afterwards rector of the high school at Burg, laid the
  foundations of the Reformation. In =Appenzel= and =Glarus= the
  work gradually advanced. But in the Swiss midlands the nobles
  raised opposition in behalf of their revenues, and the people
  of Berg, whose whole religion lay in pilgrimages, images, and
  saints, constantly opposed the introduction of the new views.
  Lucerne and Freiburg were the main bulwarks of the papacy in
  Switzerland.

  § 130.5. =Anabaptist Outbreak, A.D. 1525.=--In Switzerland,
  though the reformers there had taken very advanced ground,
  a number of ultra-reformers arose, who thought they did not
  go far enough. Their leaders were Hätzer (§ 148, 1), Grebel,
  Manz, Röublin, Hubmeier, and Stör. They began disturbances
  at Zolticon near Zürich. Hubmeier held a council at Waldshut,
  Easter Eve, A.D. 1525, and was rebaptized by Röublin. During
  Easter week 110 received baptism, and subsequently more than
  300 besides. The Basel Canton, where Münzer had been living,
  broke out in open revolt against the city. St. Gall alone
  had 800 Anabaptists. Zürich at Zwingli’s request at once took
  decided measures. Many were banished, some were mercilessly
  drowned. Bern, Basel, and St. Gall followed this example.[367]

  § 130.6. =Disputation at Baden, A.D. 1526.=--The reactionary
  party could not decline the challenge to a disputation, but
  in the face of all protests it was determined to be held in
  the Catholic district of Baden. The champions and representatives
  of the cantons and bishops appeared there in May, A.D. 1526,
  Faber and Eck leading the papists and Haller of Bern and
  Œcolampadius of Basel representing the party of reform. Zwingli
  was forbidden by the Zürich council to attend, but he was kept
  daily informed by Thos. Platter. Eck’s theses were combatted one
  after another. It lasted eight days. Eck outcried Œcolampadius’
  weak voice, but the latter was immensely superior in intellectual
  power. At last Thomas Murner (§ 125, 4) appeared with forty
  abusive articles against Zwingli. Œcolampadius and ten of
  his friends persisted in rejecting Eck’s theses; all the
  rest accepted them. The Assembly of the States pronounced
  the reformers heretics, and ordered the cantons to have them
  banished.

  § 130.7. =Disputation at Bern, A.D. 1528.=--The result of
  the Bern disputation was ill received by the democrats of
  Bern and Basel. A final disputation was arranged for at
  =Bern=, which was attended by 350 of the clergy and many
  noblemen. Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Haller, Capito, Bucer,
  and Farel were there. It continued from 7th to 27th January,
  A.D. 1528. The Catholics were sadly wanting in able disputants,
  and they sustained an utter defeat. Worship and constitution
  were radically reformed. Cloisters were secularized; preachers
  gave their official oath to the civil magistrates. There were
  serious riots over the removal of the images. The valuable
  organ in the minster of St. Vincent was broken up by the
  ruthless iconoclasts. A political reformation was carried
  out along with the religious, and all stipendiaries received
  their warning.

  § 130.8. =Complete Victory of the Reformation at Basel, St. Gall,
  and Schaffhausen, A.D. 1529.=--The Burgomaster von Watt brought
  to =St. Gall= the news of the victorious issue of the disputation
  at Bern. This gave the finishing blow to the Catholic party.
  Thus in A.D. 1528, certainly not without some iconoclastic
  excesses, the Reformation triumphed.--In =Basel=, the council
  was divided, and so it took but half measures. On Good Friday,
  A.D. 1528, some citizens broke the images in St. Martin’s
  Church. They were apprehended. But a rising of citizens obliged
  the council to set them free, and several churches from which
  the images had been withdrawn were given over to the reformers.
  In December, A.D. 1528, the trades presented a petition asking
  for the final abolition of idolatry. The Catholic party and
  the reformed took to arms, and a civil war seemed imminent.
  The council, however, succeeded in quelling the disturbance
  by announcing a disputation where the majority of the citizens
  should decide by their votes. But the Catholic minority
  protested so energetically that the council had again recourse
  to half measures. The dissatisfaction of the reformed led
  to an explosion of violent image breaking in Lent, A.D. 1529.
  Huge bonfires of images and altars were set a blaze. The strict
  Catholic members of the council fled, the rest quelled the
  revolt by an unconditional surrender. Even Erasmus gave way
  (§ 120, 6). Œcolampadius had married in A.D. 1528. He died
  in A.D. 1531. In =Schaffhausen= up to A.D. 1529 matters were
  undecided, but the proceedings at Basel and Bern gave victory
  to the reformed party. The drama here ended with a double
  marriage. The abbot of All Saints married a nun, and Erasmus
  Ritter married the abbot’s sister. Images were removed without
  tumult and the mass abolished.

  § 130.9. =The first Treaty of Cappel, A.D. 1529.=--In the five
  forest cantons the Catholics had the upper hand, and there every
  attempted political as well as religious reform was relentlessly
  put down. Zürich and Bern could stand this no longer. Unterwalden
  now revolted, and found considerable support in the other four
  cantons, and the position of the cities became serious. The
  forest cantons now turned to Austria, the old enemy of Swiss
  freedom, and concluded at Innsbrück in A.D. 1529 a formal league
  with King Ferdinand for mutual assistance in matters touching
  the faith. Trusting to this league, they increased their cruel
  persecutions of the reformed, and burnt alive a Zürich preacher,
  Keyser, whom they had seized on the public highway on neutral
  territory. Then the Zürichers rose up in revolt. With their
  decided preponderance they might certainly have crushed the
  five cantons, and then all Switzerland would have surrounded
  Zwingli in the support of reform. But Bern was jealous of
  Zürich’s growing importance, and even many Zürichers for fear
  of war urged negotiations for peace with the old members of the
  league. Thus came about the First Treaty of Cappel in A.D. 1529.
  The five cantons gave up the Austrian league document to be
  destroyed, undertook to defray the costs of the war, and agreed
  that the majority in each canton should determine the faith of
  that canton. As to freedom of belief it was only said that no
  party should make the faith of the other penal. This was less
  than Zwingli wished, yet it was a considerable gain. Thurgau,
  Baden, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, Neuenburg, Toggenburg, etc.,
  on the basis of this treaty, abolished mass, images, and altars.

  § 130.10. =The Second Treaty of Cappel, A.D. 1531.=--Even
  after the treaty the five cantons continued to persecute
  the reformed, and renewed their alliance with Austria. Their
  undue preponderance in the assembly led Zürich to demand a
  revision of the federation. This led the forest cantons to
  increase their cruelties upon the reformed. Zürich declared
  for immediate hostilities, but Bern decided to refuse all
  commercial intercourse with the five cantons. At the diet at
  Lucerne, the five cantons resolved in September, A.D. 1531,
  to avert famine by immediately declaring war. They made their
  arrangements so secretly that the reformed party was not the
  least prepared, when suddenly, on the 9th October, an army of
  8,000 men, bent on revenge, rushed down on the Zürich Canton.
  In all haste 2,000 men were mustered, who were almost annihilated
  in the battle of Cappel on 11th October. There, too, Zwingli
  fell. His body was quartered and burnt, and the ashes scattered
  to the winds. Zürich and Bern soon brought a force of 20,000
  men into the field, but the courage of their enemies had grown
  in proportion as all confidence and spirit departed from the
  reformed. Further successes led the forest cantons, which had
  hitherto acted only on the defensive, to proceed on the offensive,
  and the reformed were constrained to accept on humbling terms
  the Second Treaty of Cappel of A.D. 1531. This granted freedom
  of worship to the reformed in their own cantons, but secured the
  restoration of Catholicism in the five cantons. The defeated had
  also to bear the costs of the war, and to renounce their league
  with Strassburg, Constance, and Hesse. The hitherto oppressed
  Catholic minority began now to assert itself on all hands, and
  in many places were more or less successful in securing the
  ascendency. So it was in Aargau, Thurgau, Rapperschwyl, St. Gall,
  Rheinthal, Solothurn, Glarus, etc.


      § 131. THE SACRAMENTARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 1525-1529.[368]

  Luther in his “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” of A.D. 1520,
had, in opposition to prevailing views, which made the efficacy of the
sacraments dependent on the objective receiving without regard to the
faith of the receiver, _opus operatum_, pressed forward the subjective
side in a somewhat extreme manner. During the earlier period of
his career as a reformer, and indeed even at a later period, as his
letter to the men of Strassburg shows, he was in danger of going to
the extreme of overlooking or denying the real objective and Divine
contents of the sacrament. But decided as the opposition was to the
scholastic theory of transubstantiation, and convinced as he was that
the bread and wine were to be regarded as mere symbols, the text of
Scripture seemed clearly to say to him that he must recognise there
the presence of the true body and blood of Christ. His anxiety to
avoid the errors of the fanatics, and his simple acceptance of the
word of Scripture, led him to that conviction which inspired him to
the end, that IN, WITH, and UNDER the bread and wine the true body
and blood of the Lord are received, by believers unto salvation, by
unbelievers unto condemnation.

  =Carlstadt= (§ 124, 3) had denied utterly the presence of the
  body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament. He sought to set
  aside the force of the words of institution by giving to τοῦτο
  an absurd meaning: Christ had pointed to His own present body,
  and said, “This here is My body, which in death I will give
  for you, and in memory thereof eat this bread.” When Carlstadt,
  expelled from Saxony, came to Strassburg, he sought to interest
  the preachers there, Bucer and Capito, in himself and his
  sacramental view. But Luther was not moved by their attempts
  at conciliation. =Zwingli=, too, took the side of Carlstadt.
  In essential agreement with Carlstadt, but putting the matter
  on another basis, Zwingli interpreted the words of institution,
  “This is,” by “This signifies,” and reduced the significance
  of the sacrament to a symbolical memorial of Christ’s suffering
  and death. In an epistle to the Lutheran Matthew Alber at
  Reutlingen in A.D. 1524 he set forth this theory, and sided
  with Carlstadt against Luther. He developed his views more
  fully in his dogmatic treatise, _Commentarius de vera et falsa
  relig._, A.D. 1525, where he characterizes Luther’s doctrine
  as an _opinio non solum rustica sed etiam impia et frivola_.
  =Œcolampadius=, too, took part in the controversy as supporter
  of his friend Zwingli when attacked by Bugenhagen, and wrote in
  A.D. 1525 his _De genuina verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum,
  expositione_. He wished to understand the σῶμα of the words of
  institution as equivalent to “sign of the body.” Œcolampadius
  laid his treatise before the Swabian reformers Brenz and Schnepf;
  but these, in concert with twelve other preachers, answered in
  the _Syngramma Suevicum_ of A.D. 1525 quite in accordance with
  Luther’s doctrine. The controversy continued to spread. Luther
  first openly appeared against the Swiss in A.D. 1526 in his
  “Sermon on the Sacrament against the Fanatics,” and to this
  Zwingli replied. Luther answered again in his tract, “That
  the words, This is My body, stand firm;” and in A.D. 1528 he
  issued his great manifesto, “Confession in regard to the Lord’s
  Supper” (§ 144, 2, note). Notwithstanding the endeavours of the
  Strassburgers at conciliation the controversy still continued.
  Zwingli’s statement was the shibboleth of the Swiss Reformation,
  and was adopted also in many of the upland cities. Strassburg,
  Lindau, Meiningen, and Constance accepted it; even in Ulm,
  Augsburg, Reutlingen, etc., it had its supporters.--Continuation,
  § 132, 4.


      § 132. THE PROTEST AND CONFESSION OF THE EVANGELICAL NOBLES,
                            A.D. 1527-1530.

  For three years after the diet at Spires in A.D. 1526 no public
proceedings were taken on religious questions. The success of the
Reformation however during these years roused the Catholic party to
make a great effort. At the next diet at Spires, in A.D. 1529, the
Catholics were in the majority, and measures were passed which, it
was hoped, would put an end to the Reformation. The evangelicals
tabled a formal protest (hence the name Protestants), and strove
hard to have effect given to it. The union negotiations with the
Swiss and uplanders were not indeed successful, but in the Augsburg
Confession of A.D. 1530 they raised before emperor and empire a
standard, around which they henceforth gathered with hearty goodwill.

  § 132.1. =The Pack Incident, A.D. 1527, 1528.=--In A.D. 1527
  dark rumours of dangers to the evangelicals began to spread.
  The landgrave, suspecting the existence of a conspiracy of the
  German Catholic princes, gave to an officer in Duke George’s
  government, Otto von Pack, 10,000 florins to secure documents
  proving its existence. He produced one with the ducal seal,
  which bound the Catholic princes of Germany to fall upon
  the elector’s territories and Hesse, and to divide the lands
  among them, etc. The landgrave was all fire and fury, and
  even the Elector John joined him in a league to make a vigorous
  demonstration against the purposed attack. But Luther and
  Melanchthon pressed upon the elector our Lord’s words, “All
  they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” and
  convinced him that he ought to abide the attack and restrict
  himself to simple defence. The landgrave, highly offended
  at the failure of his project, sent a copy of the document
  to Duke George, who declared the whole affair a tissue of
  lies. Philip had begun operations against the elector, but
  was heartily ashamed of himself when he came to his sober
  senses. Pack when interrogated became involved in contradictions,
  and was found to be a thoroughly bad subject, who had been
  before convicted of falsehood and intrigues. The landgrave
  expelled him from his territories. He wandered long a homeless
  exile, and at last, in A.D. 1536, was executed by Duke George’s
  orders in the Netherlands. All this seriously injured the
  interests of the gospel. Mutual distrust among the Protestant
  leaders continued, and sympathy was created for the Catholic
  princes as men who had been unjustly accused.

  § 132.2. =The Emperor’s Attitude, A.D. 1527-1529.=--The
  faithlessness of the king of France and the ratification of
  the League of Cognac (§ 126, 6) led to very strained relations
  between the pope and the emperor. Old Frundsberg raised an
  army in Germany, and the German peasants, without pay or reward,
  crossed the Alps, burning with desire to humiliate the pope.
  On 6th May, A.D. 1527, the imperial army of Spaniards and
  Germans stormed Rome. The so-called sack of Rome presented
  a scene of plunder and spoliation scarcely ever paralleled.
  Clement VII., besieged in St. Angelo, was obliged to surrender
  himself prisoner. But once again Germany’s hopes were cast
  to the ground by the emperor. Considering the opinion that
  prevailed in Spain, and influenced by his own antipathy to the
  Saxon heresy, besides other political combinations, he forgot
  that he had been saved by Lutheran soldiers. In June, A.D. 1528,
  at Barcelona, he concluded a peace with the pope and promised
  to use his whole power in suppressing heresy. By the Treaty of
  Cambray, in July, A.D. 1529, the French war also was finally
  brought to a conclusion. In this treaty both potentates promised
  to uphold the papal chair, and Francis I. renewed his undertaking
  to furnish aid against heretics and Turks. Charles now hastened
  to Italy to be crowned by the pope, meaning then by his personal
  attentions to settle the affairs of Germany.

  § 132.3. =The Diet at Spires, A.D. 1529.=--In the end of
  A.D. 1528 the emperor issued a summons for another diet at
  Spires, which met on 21st Feb., A.D. 1529. Things had changed
  since A.D. 1526. The Catholics were roused by the Pack episode,
  halting nobles were terrorized by the emperor, the prelates
  were present in great numbers, and the Catholics, for the
  first time since the Diet at Worms, were in a decided majority.
  The proposition of the imperial commissioners to rescind the
  conclusions of the diet of A.D. 1526 was adopted by a majority,
  and formulated as the diet’s decision. No innovations were to
  be introduced until at least a council had been convened, mass
  was everywhere to be tolerated, the jurisdiction and revenues
  of the bishops were in all cases to be fully restored. It was
  the death-knell of the Reformation, as it gave the bishops
  the right of deposing and punishing preachers at their will.
  As Ferdinand was deaf to all remonstrances, the evangelicals
  presented a solemn protest, with the demand that it should
  be incorporated in the imperial statute book. But Ferdinand
  refused to receive it. The =Protestants= now took no further
  steps, but drew up a formal statement of their case for the
  emperor, appealed to a free council and German national assembly,
  and declared their constant adherence to the decisions of the
  previous diet. This document was signed by the Elector of Saxony,
  the Landgrave of Hesse, George of Brandenburg, the two dukes
  of Lüneburg, and Prince Wolfgang of Anholt [Anhalt]. Of the
  upland cities fourteen subscribed it.

  § 132.4. =The Marburg Conference, A.D. 1529.=--The Elector of
  Saxony and Hesse entered into a defensive league with Strassburg,
  Ulm, and Nuremberg at Spires. The theologians present agreed
  only with hesitation to admit the Zwinglian Strassburg. The
  landgrave at the same time formed an alliance with Zürich,
  which attached itself to the interests of Francis I. of
  France. Thus began the most formidable coalition which had
  ever yet been formed against the house of Austria. But one
  point had been overlooked which broke it all up again, _viz._
  the religious differences between the Lutheran and Zwinglian
  confessions. Melanchthon returned to Wittenburg [Wittenberg]
  with serious qualms of conscience; Luther had declared against
  any league, most of all against any fraternising with the
  “Sacramentarians,” and the elector to some extent agreed with
  him. Even the Nuremberg theologians had their scruples. The
  proposed league was to have been ratified at Rotach in June.
  The meeting took place, but no conclusion was reached. The
  landgrave was furious, but the elector was resolute. Philip
  now summoned leading theologians on both sides to a =conference
  at Marburg= in his castle, which lasted from 1st till 3rd Oct.,
  A.D. 1529. On the one side were Luther, Melanchthon, Justus
  Jonas, from Wittenberg, Brenz from Swabia, and Osiander from
  Nuremberg; on the other side, Zwingli from Zürich, Œcolampadius
  from Basel, Bucer and Hadio [Hedio] from Strassburg. After, by
  the landgrave’s well-meant arrangement, Zwingli had discussed
  privately with Melanchthon, and Luther with Œcolampadius, during
  the first day, the public conference began on the second. First
  of all several points were discussed on the divinity of Christ,
  original sin, baptism, the word of God, etc., in reference
  to which suspicions of Zwingli’s orthodoxy had been current
  in Wittenberg. On all these Zwingli willingly abandoned his
  peculiar theories and accepted the doctrines of the œcumenical
  church. But his views of the Lord’s Supper he stoutly maintained.
  He took his stand upon John vi. 63, “The flesh profiteth
  nothing;” but Luther wrote with chalk on the table before
  him, “This is My body,” as the word of God which no one may
  explain away. No agreement could be reached. Zwingli declared
  that notwithstanding he was ready for brotherly fellowship,
  but this Luther and his party unanimously refused. Luther said,
  “You are of another spirit than we.” Still Luther had found
  his opponents not so bad as he expected, and also the Swiss
  found that Luther’s doctrine was not so gross and capernaitic
  as they had imagined. They agreed on fifteen articles, in
  the fourteenth of which they determined on the basis of the
  œcumenical church doctrine to oppose the errors of Papists
  and Anabaptists, and in the fifteenth the Swiss admitted that
  the true body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, but
  they could not admit that they were corporeally in the bread
  and wine. Three copies of these Marburg articles were signed
  by the theologians present.--Continuation, § 133, 8.

  § 132.5. =The Convention of Schwabach and the Landgrave
  Philip.=--A convention met at Schwabach in Oct., A.D. 1529,
  at which a confession of seventeen articles was proposed
  to the representatives of the Swiss, but rejected by them.
  Meanwhile the imperial answer to the decisions of the diet
  had arrived from Spain, containing very ungracious expressions
  against the Protestants. The evangelical nobles sent an embassy
  to the emperor to Italy; but he refused to receive the protest,
  and treated the ambassadors almost as prisoners. They returned
  to Germany with a bad report. Hitherto there had been only a
  defensive federation against attacks of the Swabian League or
  other Catholic princes. Luther’s hope that the emperor might
  yet be won was shattered. The question now was, what should be
  done if an onslaught upon the reformed should be made by the
  emperor himself. The jurists indeed were of opinion that the
  German princes were not unconditionally subject to the emperor;
  they too have authority by God’s grace, and in the exercise of
  this are bound to protect their subjects. But Luther did not
  hesitate for a moment to compare the relation of the elector
  to the emperor with that of the burgomaster of Torgau to the
  elector; for he maintained the idea of the empire as firmly
  as that of the church. He insisted that the princes should not
  withstand the emperor, and that they should bear everything
  patiently for God’s sake. Only if the emperor should proceed
  to persecute their own subjects for their faith should
  they renounce their obedience. The landgrave’s negotiations
  with Zwingli also led to no result. For political purposes,
  notwithstanding the opposition of Wittenberg, there was formed a
  coalition of all the Protestants of the north with the exception
  of Denmark, extending also to the south and embracing even
  Venice and France. The Swiss would stop the way of the emperor
  over the Alps; Venice would be of service with her fleet, and
  the most Christian king of France was to be summoned as the
  protector of political and religious freedom of Germany. But
  these fine plans were seen to be vain dreams when the time for
  putting them in practice came round.

  § 132.6. =The Diet of Augsburg, A.D. 1530.=--From Boulogne,
  where the pope crowned him, the emperor summoned a diet to
  meet at Augsburg, at which for the first time in nine he was
  to be personally present. He would once again seek to induce
  the Protestants quietly to return to the old faith, and so
  his missive was very conciliatory. But before its arrival new
  irritations had arisen at Augsburg. The Elector John allowed
  the preachers accompanying him, Spalatin and Agricola, to
  engage freely in preaching. The emperor was greatly displeased
  at this, and sent him a request to withdraw this permission,
  which, however, he did not regard. On 15th June, accompanied
  by the papal legate Campegius (§ 126, 2, 3), he made a brilliant
  entrance, the Protestants, on the ground of 2 Kings v. 17, 18,
  offering no opposition to all the civil and ecclesiastical
  reception ceremonies. This gave the emperor greater confidence
  in renewing the demand to stop the preaching. But the Protestants
  stood firm, and Margrave George called down the unmeasured
  wrath of the emperor by his decided but humble declaration,
  that before he would deny God’s word, he would kneel where
  he stood and have his head struck off. Just as decidedly he
  refused the emperor’s call to join the Corpus Christi procession
  on the following day, even with the addition that it was “to the
  glory of Almighty God.” At last they yielded the matter of the
  preaching so far as to discontinue it during the emperor’s stay,
  on the other party undertaking to discontinue controversial
  discourses. On 20th June the diet opened. The matter of the
  Turkish war was on the emperor’s motion postponed, to allow
  of the thorough discussion of the religious questions.

  § 132.7. =The Augsburg Confession, 25th June, A.D. 1530.=--In
  view of the diet the evangelical theologians prepared for the
  elector a short confession in the form of a revision of the
  seventeen Schwabach Articles, the so called Torgau Articles.
  Melanchthon employed the days that preceded the opening of
  the diet in drawing up on the basis of the Torgau Articles,
  in constant correspondence with the evangelical theologians,
  the =Augsburg Confession=, _Confessio Augustana_. This concise,
  clear, and decided though temperate document received the hearty
  approval of Luther, who, as still under the ban, was kept back
  by the elector at Coburg. It contained twenty-one _Articuli
  fidei præcipui_, and also seven _Articuli in quibus recensentur
  abusus mutati_. On 24th June the Protestants said they desired
  their confession to be publicly read. But it was with difficulty
  that they obtained the emperor’s consent to allow its being read
  on the 25th June, and even then not in the public hall, but in
  a much smaller episcopal chapel, where only members of the diet
  could find room. The two chancellors of the electorate, Baier
  and Brück, appeared, the one with a German, the other with
  a Latin copy of the confession. The emperor wished the Latin,
  but the elector insisted that on German soil the German copy
  should be read. When this was done Dr. Brück handed both copies
  to the emperor, who kept the Latin one and gave the German one
  to the Elector of Mainz. Both were subscribed by Elector John,
  Margrave George, Duke Ernest of Lüneburg, Landgrave Philip,
  Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, and the cities of Nuremberg and
  Reutlingen. The confession made a favourable impression
  on many of the assembled princes, and many prejudices were
  dissipated; while the evangelicals were greatly strengthened by
  the unanimous confession of their faith before the emperor and
  the empire. The Catholic theologians Faber, Eck, Cochlæus, and
  Wimpina were ordered by the emperor to controvert the confession.
  Meanwhile Melanchthon entered into negotiations with the legate
  Campegius, in which his love of peace went so far as to withdraw
  all demands for marriage of the clergy, and the giving of the
  cup to the laity, and to allow the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
  of the bishops, reserving the question about the mass to the
  decision of a council. But these weak concessions found little
  or no favour among the other Protestants, and the legate could
  make no binding engagement until he consulted Rome. On 3rd Aug.
  the confutation of the Catholic theologians was read. The
  emperor declared that it maintained the views by which he
  would stand. He expected the princes would do the same. He
  was defender of the Church, and was not disposed to suffer
  ecclesiastical schism in Germany. The Protestants demanded for
  closer inspection a copy of the confutation. This was refused.
  The landgrave now left the diet. To the elector he said that
  he gave over to him and to God’s word body and goods, land
  and people; and to the representatives of the cities he wrote:
  “Say to the cities that they are not women, but men. There is
  no fear; God is on our side.” The zealous Papist Duke William of
  Bavaria declared to Eck, “If I hear well, the Lutherans sit upon
  the Scripture and we alongside of it.” The cities siding with
  Zwingli, Strassburg, Memmingen, Constance, and Lindau, presented
  their own confession drawn up by Bucer and Capilo [Capito], the
  _Confessio Tetrapolitana_. In its eighteenth article it taught
  that Christ gives in the sacrament His true body and His true
  blood to be eaten and drunk for the feeding of the soul. The
  emperor had a Catholic reply read, with which he expressed
  satisfaction. Luther had meanwhile from Coburg supported those
  contending for the confession by prayer, counsel, and comfort.
  He preached frequently, wrote many letters, negotiated with
  Bucer (§ 133, 8), wrought at the translation of the prophets,
  and composed several evangelical works of edification.

  § 132.8. =The Conclusions of the Diet of Augsburg.=--The firm
  bright spirit of the minority made it seem to the Catholic
  majority too considerable to allow of an open breach. A further
  attempt was therefore made to reach some agreement. A commission
  was appointed, comprising from either side two princes, two
  doctors of canon law, and three theologians. On the twenty-one
  doctrinal articles, with the exception of that on the sacraments,
  they were practically agreed, but the Protestants were called
  upon to abandon everything in regard to constitution and customs.
  Thus the attempt failed. Five imperial cities took the side
  of the emperor, the rest attached themselves to the Protestant
  princes. The Protestants wished to read Melanchthon’s apology
  for the Augsburg Confession against the charge of the Catholic
  confutation, but the emperor with unbending stubbornness refused.
  This was the most decided piece of work Melanchthon ever did.
  At the close of the diet, 22nd Sept., the Protestant princes
  were informed that time for reflection would be allowed them
  till 15th April of the following year; meanwhile they should
  not enforce any innovations and should allow confession and
  the mass in their territories. The early calling of a council
  was expressly promised. The princes of the church had all their
  rights restored. The emperor declared his firm determination to
  enforce in its full rigour the edict of Worms, and commissioned
  the public prosecutor to proceed against the disobedient even
  to the length of putting them under the ban. The judicature was
  formally and expressly empowered to carry out the conclusions
  of the diet. Finally, the emperor expressed the wish that on
  account of his frequent absence his brother Ferdinand should
  be chosen King of Rome. The election was accordingly soon
  carried out at Frankfort; but the elector lodged a protest
  against it.


             § 133. INCIDENTS OF THE YEARS A.D. 1531-1536.

  The Protestants now made an earnest effort to effect a union by
forming in A.D. 1531 the Schmalcald League. To this decided action
and the political difficulties of the emperor we owe the Peace of
Nuremburg [Nuremberg] of A.D. 1532. The bold step of the landgrave
freed Württemberg from the Austrian yoke and papal oppression. At
the same time the Reformation triumphed in Anhalt, Pomerania, and
several Westphalian cities. All Westphalia might have been one but
for the Anabaptists. Bucer’s unwearied efforts at last succeeded by
the Wittenberg concordat in opening the way for the Schmalcald League
into the cities of the Uplands. The league now comprised an imposing
array of powerful members.

  § 133.1. =The Founding of the Schmalcald League,
  A.D. 1530, 1531.=--The conferring upon the court of justiciary
  the power to execute the decrees of the Diet of Augsburg was
  most dangerous to the Protestants. For protection against this
  design, the Protestant nobles at a convention at Schmalcald in
  Dec., A.D. 1530, formed the bold resolution, that all should
  stand as one in resisting every attack of the court. But when
  the question came to be discussed, whether in case of need they
  should go the length of armed resistance to the emperor opinion
  was divided. The views of the jurists finally prevailed over
  those of the theologians, and the elector insisted on a league
  against every aggressor, even should it be the emperor himself.
  At a new convention at Schmalcald in March, A.D. 1531, a league
  on these terms was concluded for six years. The members of it
  were the electorate of Saxony, Hesse, Lüneburg, Anhalt, Mansfeld,
  and eleven cities.

  § 133.2. =The Peace of Nuremberg, A.D. 1532.=--The energetic
  combination of the Protestants had now rendered them formidable,
  and the Sultan Soliman was threatening a new attack. If the
  Protestants were to be conquered, an agreement must be come
  to with the Turks; if the Turks were to be humbled, a peaceable
  settlement with the Protestants was indispensable. Ferdinand’s
  policy at first inclined to the latter direction, and by his
  advice the emperor summoned a diet at Regensburg, and till the
  meeting forbade any prosecutions on the basis of the decrees of
  the Diet of Augsburg. But soon the catastrophe in Switzerland
  (§ 130, 10) changed Ferdinand’s policy. It seemed to him now
  the fittest time to deal a similar blow to the evangelicals in
  Germany. He therefore sent an embassy to the sultan, empowered
  to make the most humiliating conditions of peace. But Soliman
  rejected all proposals with scorn, and in April, A.D. 1532,
  advanced with an army of 300,000 men. Meanwhile the Diet of
  Regensburg had opened on 17th April, A.D. 1532. The Protestants
  no longer presented a humble petition, as they had done two
  years before, but they firmly made their demands. There was
  no longer talk of compromise or suffrance. They demanded
  peace in matters of religion; the annulling of all religious
  prosecutions; and, finally, a free general council, where
  matters should be decided solely by God’s word. So long as
  Ferdinand had any hope of getting a favourable answer from
  the Turks, he would not seriously consider proposals for peace.
  But when that hope was shattered, and Soliman’s terrible host
  approached, there was no time to lose. At Nuremberg the peace
  was concluded on 23rd July, A.D. 1532. The faithful elector
  was allowed to see the happy day, but died in that same year.
  He was succeeded by his son, =John Frederick the Magnanimous=,
  A.D. 1532-1547. A noble army was soon raised from the imperial
  guards. Soliman suffered various misfortunes on land and water,
  and withdrew without accomplishing anything. The emperor now
  went to Italy, and insisted on the pope calling a general
  council. But the pope thought the time had not come for that.
  Also the annulling of prosecutions promised in the treaty
  remained long unfulfilled. Pending prosecutions, mostly about
  restitution of ecclesiastical goods and jurisdiction, were
  pronounced to be not matters of religion, but of spoliation
  and breach of the peace. The Protestants made a formal complaint
  in Jan., A.D. 1534. This was disregarded, and arrangements
  were being made to put certain nobles under the ban when events
  occurred at Württemberg which changed the aspect of affairs.

  § 133.3. =The Evangelization of Württemberg,
  A.D. 1534, 1535.=--The Swabian League in the interest of
  Austria had obtained the banishment of Duke Ulrich in A.D. 1528,
  and frustrated every attempt to secure his return. His son
  Christopher had been educated at the court of Ferdinand,
  and in A.D. 1532 accompanied the emperor to Spain. He made
  his escape into the Alps, and publicly claimed his German
  inheritance. The Landgrave Philip, Ulrich’s personal friend,
  had long resolved to reconquer Württemberg for him. At last,
  in the spring of A.D. 1534, with aid of French gold, he carried
  out his plan. At Laufen Ferdinand’s army was almost annihilated,
  and he himself was obliged in the Peace of Cadau of A.D. 1534
  to restore Ulrich to Württemberg as an under-feudatory, but
  with seat and vote in the imperial diet, and to allow him a
  free hand in carrying out the Reformation in his territory.
  Luther’s views had from the first found hearty reception in
  Württemberg. The oldest and most distinguished of the Swabian
  reformers, whose reputation had spread far beyond Württemberg,
  was John Brenz (§§ 131, 1; 132, 4; 135, 2; 136, 6, 8). He
  was preacher in Swabian Halle from A.D. 1522, provost in
  Stuttgart from A.D. 1553, and died in A.D. 1570. But Ferdinand’s
  government had stretched its arm so far as to visit with death
  all manifestations of sympathy with the Reformation. All the
  more rapidly did the work of evangelization now proceed. Ulrich
  brought with him Ambrose Blaurer, a disciple of Zwingli and
  friend of Bucer, and Erhard Schnapf, a decided supporter of
  Luther; to the former he assigned the evangelization of the
  upper, and to the latter the evangelization of the lower
  division of his territories. Both had agreed in accepting
  a common formula of Reformation principles. By the founding
  of the University of Tübingen, organized after the pattern
  of Marburg, Ulrich rendered important service to the cause
  of Protestant learning. Several neighbouring courts and cities
  were encouraged to follow Württemberg’s example.

  § 133.4. =The Reformation in Anhalt and Pomerania,
  A.D. 1532-1534.=--Wolfgang of =Anhalt= had at an early date
  introduced the Reformation on the banks of the Saale and into
  Zerbst. Another prince of Anhalt, George, at first an opponent
  of Luther, but converted by means of his writings, began in
  A.D. 1532 the Reformation of the country east of the Elbe. And
  when the Bishop of Brandenburg refused to ordain his married
  priests, he sent them to be ordained by Luther in Wittenberg.
  Much more violent was the Reformation of =Pomerania=. Nobles
  and clergy sought to rouse the people against Lutheranism.
  Prince Barnim was an ardent supporter of Luther, but his brother
  George was bitterly opposed. On George’s death, his son Philip
  joined with Barnim in introducing the Reformation into the land.
  At the Assembly of Treptow, in Dec., A.D. 1534, they presented
  a scheme of Reformation, which the nobles heartily accepted. It
  was carried into operation by Bugenhagen by a church visitation
  after the pattern of that of Saxony.

  § 133.5. =The Reformation in Westphalia, A.D. 1532-1534.=--In
  the Westphalian cities much was accomplished by Luther’s hymns.
  Pideritz, priest of =Lamgo=, was a supporter of Eck; but wishing
  to see the working of the new views for himself, he went to
  Brunswick, and returned to inaugurate the Reformation in his
  own city. At =Soest=, the Catholic council condemned to death
  a workman who had spoken of it with disrespect. Two blundering
  attempts were made upon the scaffold, and the victim at last
  was conducted home by the crowd in triumph. He died next day.
  The council precipitately fled from the city. And thus in July,
  A.D. 1533, Catholicism lost its last prop in that place. In
  =Paderborn=, where liberty of preaching had been enjoyed, the
  Elector of Cologne (§ 135, 7) had some of the leading Lutherans
  imprisoned; and when some on the rack confessed to a treasonable
  correspondence with the Landgrave of Hesse, of which they had
  been falsely accused, he condemned them to death. But moved
  by the request of an old man to share their death, and by
  the weeping of the wives and maidens, Hermann spared their
  lives. In =Münster=, Luther’s doctrines were preached as early
  as A.D. 1531 by Rottmann, and soon the evangelicals won the
  ascendency, so that council and clergy left the city. The Bishop
  of Waldeck, after an unsuccessful attempt by force of arms, was
  obliged in A.D. 1533 to grant unconditional religious freedom.
  The neighbouring cities were about to follow the example of
  the capital, when a catastrophe occurred which resulted in the
  complete restoration of Catholicism.

  § 133.6. =Disturbances at Münster, A.D. 1534, 1535.=--Rottmann
  had added to his Zwinglian creed the renunciation of infant
  baptism, and prepared the way for Anabaptist excesses. John
  of Leyden appeared in A.D. 1534, gained great popularity as
  a preacher, and the council was weak enough to grant legal
  recognition to the fanatics. Mad enthusiasts flocked into the
  city. One of their prophets proclaimed it as God’s will that
  unbelievers should be expelled. This was done on 27th February,
  A.D. 1534. Seven deacons divided what was left among the
  believers. In May the bishop laid siege to the city. This had
  the effect of confining the mad disorder to Münster. After the
  destruction of all images, organs, and books, with exception
  only of the Bible, community of goods was introduced. John of
  Leyden got the council set aside as required by his revelations,
  and appointed a theocratic government of twelve elders, who
  took their inspiration from the prophet. He proclaimed polygamy,
  himself taking seventeen wives, while Rottmann contented himself
  with four. In vain did the moral conscience of the inhabitants
  protest. The objectors were executed. One of his fellow prophets
  proclaimed John king of the whole world. He set up a showy
  and expensive establishment, and committed the most frightful
  abominations. He regarded himself as called to inaugurate the
  millennium, sent out twenty-eight apostles to extend his kingdom,
  and named twelve dukes who should rule the world under him.
  The besiegers made an unsuccessful attempt in August, A.D. 1534,
  to storm the city. Had not aid been sent them before the end
  of the year from Hesse, Treves, Cleves, Mainz, and Cologne,
  they would have been obliged to raise the siege. Even then they
  could only think of reducing the city by famine. It was already
  in great straits. On St. John’s night, A.D. 1535, a deserter
  led the troops to the walls. After a stubborn resistance the
  Anabaptists were beaten. Rottmann threw himself into the hottest
  of the fight, and there perished. John, with his chief officers,
  was taken prisoner, put to death with frightful tortures on
  22nd Jan., A.D. 1536, and then hung in chains from St. Lambert’s
  tower. Catholicism was thus restored to absolute supremacy.

  § 133.7. =Extension of the Schmalcald league, A.D. 1536.=--A
  war with France had broken out in A.D. 1536, which taxed all
  the emperor’s resources. Francis I. had made a league with
  Soliman for a combined attack upon the emperor. Instead therefore
  of punishing the Protestant princes for their proceedings in
  Württemberg, he was obliged to do all he could to conciliate
  them, as Francis was bidding for their alliance. Ferdinand
  therefore, from the summer of A.D. 1535, sought to ingratiate
  himself with the Protestants. In November he received a visit
  of the elector in Vienna, and granted the extension of the Peace
  of Nuremberg to all nobles who since its ratification had become
  Protestants. The elector then went to an assembly at Schmalcald,
  where the Schmalcald League was extended for ten years, the
  French embassy dismissed, and the opposition to Austria abandoned.
  On the basis of the Vienna compact Württemberg, Pomerania, Anhalt,
  and several cities were added to the league. Signature of the
  Augsburg Confession was the indispensable condition of reception.
  Bucer managed to win over the upland cities to accept this
  condition.

  § 133.8. =The Wittenberg Concordat of A.D. 1536.=--Bucer and
  ultimately Œcolampadius, made such concessions on the doctrine
  of the sacraments as satisfied Luther, but they were rejected
  by Bullinger of Zürich. In December, A.D. 1535, there was a
  conference at Cassel between Bucer and Melanchthon. A larger
  conference was afterward held at Wittenberg, at which Bucer
  and Capito from Strassburg, and eight other distinguished
  theologians from the uplands, were present. As they accepted
  the formula “in, with, and under,” the only question remaining
  was whether unbelievers partook of the body of Christ. They
  admitted this in regard to the unworthy, but not, as Luther
  wished, in regard to the godless and unbelieving. Luther was
  satisfied. On 25th May, A.D. 1536, Melanchthon composed the
  “Wittenberg Concord,” which was signed by all, and ratified
  by the common partaking of the sacrament. In consequence of
  this union effort, three of the Swiss theologians, Bullinger,
  Myconius, and Grynæus seceded, and produced the _Confessio
  Helvetica prior_, in which the Zwinglian doctrine of the
  sacraments was moderately but firmly maintained.


             § 134. INCIDENTS OF THE YEARS A.D. 1537-1539.

  Clement VII. made many excuses for postponing the calling of a
council. At last, in A.D. 1533, he declared himself willing to do
so in the course of the year; but he required of the Protestants
unconditional acceptance of its decisions, to which they would not
agree. His successor, Paul III., A.D. 1534-1549, called one to meet
at Mantua in A.D. 1537. Luther composed for it as a manifesto the
Schmalcald Articles; but finally the Protestants renewed their demand
for a free council in a German city. In A.D. 1538 the Catholic nobles
concluded the Holy Alliance at Nuremberg for carrying out the decrees
of the Diet of Augsburg; but the political difficulties of the emperor
compelled him to make new concessions to the Protestants in the
Frankfort Interim of A.D. 1539. But in the same year the duchy of
Saxony and the electorate of Brandenburg went over to the Reformation.
By the beginning of A.D. 1540 almost all North Germany was won. Duke
Henry of Brunswick alone held out for the old faith.

  § 134.1. =The Schmalcald Articles, A.D. 1537.=--In A.D. 1535
  Paul III. sent his legate Vergerius (§ 139, 24) into Germany
  to fix a place of meeting for the council. At Wittenberg he
  conferred with Luther and Bugenhagen, who scarcely expecting
  the council were indifferent as to the place. The council was
  formally summoned to meet at Mantua on May 23rd, A.D. 1537. At
  a diet at Schmalcald in Feb., A.D. 1537, the Protestants stated
  their demands. Luther, by the elector’s orders, had drawn up
  the articles of which the council must treat. These Schmalcald
  Articles are distinctly polemical, and indicate boldly the
  limits of the papal hierarchy demanded by evangelicals. The
  first part states briefly four uncontested positions on the
  Trinity and the Person of Christ; the second part deals with
  the office and work of Christ or our redemption, and marks
  abruptly the points of difference between the two confessions;
  the third part treats of those points which the council may
  further discuss. In the second part Luther unconditionally
  rejected the primacy of the pope, as not of Divine right and
  inconsistent with the character of a true evangelical Church.
  When the articles had been subscribed by the theologians,
  Melanchthon added under his name: “As to the pope, I hold
  that if he will not oppress the gospel, for the sake of the
  peace and unity of those Christians who are or may be under
  him, his superiority over bishops _jure humano_ might be allowed
  by us.” Melanchthon’s tracts on “The Power of the Pope” and the
  “Jurisdiction of Bishops” were also subscribed by the theologians
  and added to the Schmalcald Articles. It was then decided that
  in order to secure a free Christian council it must be held in
  a German city. The elector even made the bold proposal to have
  a counter-council summoned, say, at Augsburg, by Luther and his
  fellow bishops.

  § 134.2. =The League of Nuremberg, A.D. 1538.=--The Protestant
  princes were astonished at the close of the Schmalcald
  convention to be told by Vice-Chancellor Held, on behalf
  of the emperor, that he did not recognise the Peace of
  Cadau or the Vienna Compact, and that the prosecutions
  would be resumed. They therefore resumed their old attitude
  of opposition. But Held visited all the Catholic courts in
  order to complete the formation of a Catholic league for
  the suppression of Protestantism. Ferdinand, who knew well
  that Held exceeded his instructions, was very angry, for the
  emperor was in the greatest straits, but he could not offer
  direct opposition without offending the Catholic princes. So
  on July 10th, A.D. 1538, the Holy Alliance was actually formed
  at Nuremberg, embracing George of Saxony, Albert of Brandenburg,
  Henry and Eric of Brunswick, King Ferdinand, and the Archbishop
  of Salzburg. The Schmalcald nobles prepared to meet force with
  force. A general bloody engagement seemed unavoidable.

  § 134.3. =The Frankfort Interim, A.D. 1539.=--As the emperor
  needed help against Soliman, he recalled Held, and sent in
  his place John, formerly Archbishop of Leyden. The electors
  of Brandenburg and the Palatinate went as mediators with the
  new envoy to Frankfort, where negotiations were opened with
  the Protestants present, who demanded an unconditional, lasting
  peace, and a judiciary court with Protestant as well as Catholic
  members. These demands were at first refused, but pressing
  need obliged the emperor to reopen negotiations, proposing
  that a diet should be held, consisting of learned theologians
  and simple, peaceable laymen, to effect a final union of
  Christians in faith and worship. He would also grant suspension
  of all proceedings against the Protestants for eighteen months.
  The Protestants accepted in this “Frankfort Interim” what had
  been greatly sought for at the Diet of Nuremberg. It was a
  victory of the Schmalcald over the Nuremberg League. The public
  confidence in Protestantism grew, and the cause rapidly spread
  into new regions.

  § 134.4. =The Reformation in Albertine Saxony, A.D. 1539.=--Duke
  George of Saxony, A.D. 1500-1539, was a devoted adherent of the
  old faith. Of his four sons only one survived, and he almost
  imbecile. He had him married, but he died two months after
  the marriage. The old prince was in perplexity, for his brother
  Henry, an ardent supporter of the Reformation, was his next
  heir. He could ill brook the idea of having the whole work of
  his life immediately undone. On the day of the death of his last
  son he proposed to his nobles a scheme of succession, according
  to which his brother Henry should succeed him only if he joined
  the Nuremberg League; otherwise it should go to the emperor
  or the King of Rome. Duke Henry rejected the proposal, and
  Duke George died before he could produce another scheme. With
  loud rejoicing the people received their new prince, and their
  allegiance was sworn to him at Leipzig. Luther was there, for
  the first time for twenty years, and preached with extraordinary
  success. The Reformation proceeded rapidly throughout the whole
  district. The King of Rome wished indeed to question George’s
  claim, but the Schmalcald League resolved to stand by him, so
  that Ferdinand thought it prudent to take no further steps.

  § 134.5. =The Reformation in Brandenburg and Neighbouring
  States, A.D. 1539.=--Henry of Neumark joined the Schmalcald
  League, and introduced the Reformation into his territories;
  but his brother Joachim II. of Brandenburg, A.D. 1535-1571,
  for several years adhered to the old faith without forbidding
  evangelical preaching, which gradually made an impression on
  his own mind. In the beginning of A.D. 1539, with the approval
  of his nobles, he gave his adhesion to the reformed doctrines.
  The city of Berlin asked for communion in both kinds, and a
  considerable section of the nobles of Brandenburg expressed a
  hearty longing for the pure gospel. On November 1st, A.D. 1539,
  Joachim assembled all the preachers of his land in the Nicolai
  Church at Spandau, the Bishop of Brandenburg held the first
  evangelical communion, and the whole court and many knights
  received the communion in both kinds. The people followed the
  example of the prince. Joachim sketched a service which let
  several of the old ceremonies remain, but justification by
  faith was the central point of the doctrine, and communion
  in both kinds the centre of the worship. The Duchess Elizabeth
  of Calenberg-Brunswick followed her brother’s example. After
  the death of her husband Eric, who was otherwise minded, she
  exercised her influence as regent for the spread of the reformed
  religion. The Cardinal-archbishop and Elector of Mainz, Albert
  of Brandenburg, sought to preserve his archiepiscopal diocese of
  Magdeburg, but his constant calls for money would be responded
  to only on condition that he granted liberty of preaching. At
  his Halle residence he made vigorous resistance, but there too
  was obliged to yield. Before his eyes, Justus Jonas, Luther’s
  most trusted friend and fellow labourer, Prof. and Provost of
  Wittenberg since A.D. 1521, carried on the work of Reformation
  in the city. The cardinal, in a rage, left Halle and the “idol
  of Halle” (§ 123, 8) for Mainz.--Mecklenburg also about this
  time adopted the evangelical constitution, mainly promoted by
  one of its princes, Magnus Bishop of Schwerin. The Abbess of
  Quedlinburg, Anna von Stolberg, had not ventured, so long as
  Duke George of Saxony lived, to bring forward her evangelical
  confession; but now without opposition she reformed her convent
  and the city.


                § 135. UNION ATTEMPTS OF A.D. 1540-1546.

  The Frankfort Interim revived the idea of a free union among those
who in the main agreed upon matters of faith and worship. With the
object of realizing this idea a whole series of religious conferences
were held. But near as its realization at one time seemed to be all
the measures taken proved one after another abortive, because the
emperor would not recognise the conclusions of any conference at
which a papal legate was not present. And just at this time, when
the imposing might of the Protestant nobles excited the brightest
hopes, the Protestant princes themselves laid the grounds of their
deepest humiliation: the landgrave by his double marriage, and the
elector by his quarrels with the ducal Saxon court.

  § 135.1. =The Double Marriage of the Landgrave,
  A.D. 1540.=--Landgrave Philip of Hesse had married Christina,
  a daughter of the deceased Duke George of Saxony. Various causes
  had led to an estrangement between them, and a strong sensuous
  nature, which he had been unable to control, had driven him to
  repeated acts of unfaithfulness. His conscience reproved him;
  he felt himself unworthy to be admitted to communion, great
  as his desire for it was, and doubted of his soul’s salvation.
  From regard to his wife he could not think of a divorce. Then
  came the idea, suggested by the O.T. polygamy that had not been
  abrogated in the N.T., that with consent of his wife he might
  enter into a regular second marriage with Margaret von der Saale,
  one of his sister’s lady’s-maids. In Nov., A.D. 1539, he sent
  Bucer to Wittenberg in order to get the advice of Luther and
  Melanchthon. The alternative was either continued adultery, or
  an honourable married life with a second wife taken with consent
  of the first. Luther and Melanchthon entreated him earnestly
  for his own and for the gospel’s sake to avoid this terrible
  scandal, but haltingly admitted that the latter alternative
  was less heinously wicked than the former. They added, however,
  that in order to avoid scandal the marriage should be private,
  and their answer regarded not as a theological opinion, but
  confidential counsel. The landgrave had the marriage consummated
  in May, A.D. 1540. But the story soon spread. The court of
  Albertine Saxony was deeply incensed, the elector beside
  himself with rage, the theologians in most extreme embarrassment.
  Melanchthon started to attend a religious conference at Hagenau,
  but the excitement over the unhappy business prostrated him
  on a sick-bed at Weimar. The emperor threatened Philip with
  the infliction of capital punishment, which by the law of the
  empire was attached to the crime of bigamy. At last the elector
  called a convention of Saxon and Hessian theologians at Eisenach
  to consult about the matter. Luther refused to treat it as a
  question of law, and demanded absolute privacy as the condition
  of permission. Among the opponents of the Reformation, it was
  Duke Henry of Brunswick who insisted upon exacting the utmost
  penalties of the law. He indeed was least fitted by his own
  character to assume the part of defender of morals. It was
  well known that he was then living in adultery with Eva von
  Trott, after her pretended death and burial. In his perplexity,
  Philip turned to the imperial chancellor Granvella, who was
  willing to intercede for him, but on conditions to which the
  landgrave could not accede. At last, at the Diet of Regensburg,
  in A.D. 1541, Philip undertook to further the imperial interests
  and to join no union in any way inimical to these; and upon
  these terms the emperor agreed to grant him a full indemnity.

  § 135.2. =The Religious Conference at Worms,
  A.D. 1540.=--Negotiations for peace with France having failed,
  the emperor still required the support of the Protestant
  party. He therefore agreed to the holding of a religious
  conference at =Worms=, in order to reach if possible a good
  mutual understanding on the basis of Holy Scripture. It was
  held in Nov., A.D. 1540, under the presidency of Granvella.
  On one side were Melanchthon, Bucer, Capito, Brenz, and Calvin;
  on the other, Eck, Gropper, canon of Cologne, the Spaniard
  Malvenda, etc. But the emperor had insisted on the papal
  nuncio Marone taking part, and this, contrary to his intention,
  brought the whole affair to naught. For Marone first of all
  presented a number of formal objections, and when at last,
  in Jan., A.D. 1541, the conference began, and awakened the
  utmost apprehensions for the papacy, he rested not till
  Granvella, even before the first article on original sin had
  been discussed, dissolved the conference in the name and by
  command of the emperor. But the emperor did not give up the
  idea of conciliation, and called a diet at Regensburg, at
  which the negotiations were to be renewed.

  § 135.3. =The Religious Conference at Regensburg,
  A.D. 1541.=--The diet at Regensburg was opened on April 5th,
  A.D. 1541. The emperor, anxious to reach a peaceable conclusion,
  named as members of the conference Eck, Gropper, and Julius
  von Pflugk, Dean of Meissen, on the one side; and Melanchthon,
  Bucer, and Pistorius, on the other side; with Granvella and
  Frederick, count-palatine, as presidents. The nuncio Contarini
  was representative of the curia. By such a gathering the emperor
  hoped to reach the wished for conclusion. In Italy (§ 139, 22)
  there had sprung up a number of men well instructed in Scripture,
  who sought to reform the doctrine of the church by adopting the
  principle of justification by faith without touching the primacy
  of the pope and the whole hierarchical system. Contarini was one
  of the leaders of this party. He had come to an understanding
  with the emperor that justification by faith, the use of
  the cup in communion by the laity, and marriage of priests
  should be allowed for Germany, and that, on the other hand,
  the Protestants were to agree to the primacy of the pope. The
  _justitia imputativa_ was acknowledged by both parties; and
  even when Contarini, on the basis of that imputation, insisted
  upon a _justitia inhærens_, _i.e._ not merely a declaring but
  a making righteous, seeing that he grounded it solely on the
  merits of Christ, the Protestants acquiesced. Differences arose
  over the doctrine of the church, which were reserved for another
  occasion. And now they came to the sacrament of the altar.
  Communion in both kinds was agreed to by both; but trouble
  arose over the word transubstantiation. Not only Eck, who had
  opposed all concessions, but even Contarini, who had his orders
  from Rome, would not yield. No more would the Protestants.
  The conference had therefore to be dissolved. The emperor
  wished both parties to accept the articles agreed on as
  a common standard, and to have toleration granted upon the
  disputed points; but the Catholic majority would not agree
  to this. The Regensburg Interim, therefore, as the decision
  of the diet is usually called, extends the Nuremberg Peace
  (§ 133, 2) to all presently members of the Schmalcald League,
  and enforced upon Protestants only the accepted articles.

  § 135.4. =The Regensburg Declaration, A.D. 1541.=--The emperor,
  in order to satisfy the naturally dissatisfied Protestants,
  made a special declaration, annulling the prosecutions decree
  of the Augsburg Diet and relieving the adherents of the Augsburg
  Confession from all disabilities. Also the injunction that no
  one should withhold their dues from the clergy was extended
  to the Protestant ministers. But on the very day when the
  declaration was issued the emperor held a private session
  with the Catholic majority, in which the Nuremberg League was
  renewed and the pope received into it. Thus he hoped to receive
  help from all parties and to ward off internecine conflict till
  a more convenient season. He concluded a separate treaty with
  the landgrave and the Elector Joachim II., both undertaking
  to support imperial interests. The elector expressly promised
  not to join the Schmalcald League; and the landgrave promised
  to oppose all consorting of the league not only with foreign
  powers (England and France), but also with the Duke of Cleves,
  with whom the emperor had a standing feud. In return the
  landgrave was granted an amnesty for all previous delinquencies
  and undisturbed liberty in matters of religion. The emperor’s
  negotiations with the Elector of Saxony broke down over the
  Cleves dispute, for the Duke of Cleves was his brother-in-law.

  § 135.5. =The Naumburg Bishopric, A.D. 1541, 1542.=--Since
  A.D. 1520 the Lutheran doctrines had spread in the diocese
  of Naumburg. When the bishop died, in A.D. 1511, the chapter
  elected the learned and mild provost Julius von Pflugk. But
  the elector regarded it as proper in a Lutheran state to have a
  Lutheran bishop, and so refused to confirm Pflugk’s appointment,
  and had Nic. von Arnsdorf (§ 127, 4) ordained bishop by Luther,
  in A.D. 1542, “without chrism, butter, suet, lard, tar, grease,
  incense, and coals.” The civil administration of the diocese was
  committed to an electoral officer; Arnsdorf was satisfied with
  the small income of 600 florins and the rest of the revenues
  were applied to pious uses. After the battle of Mühlberg,
  in A.D. 1547, Arnsdorf was expelled and Pflugk restored. On
  his death in 1564, the chapter, though then Lutheran, did not
  restore Arnsdorf, but gave over the administration to a Saxon
  prince. The elector’s violent procedure in this case caused
  great offence to the Albertine court. Duke Henry had died in
  A.D. 1541, and was succeeded by his son Maurice. The elector
  and the young duke quarrelled over a question of jurisdiction,
  and it was only with great difficulty that Luther and the
  landgrave managed to effect a peaceful solution of the dispute.
  But the mutual estrangement and rivalry between the courts soon
  afterwards broke out in a violent form.

  § 135.6. =The Reformation in Brunswick and the Palatinate,
  A.D. 1542-1546.=--Duke Henry of Brunswick accused the city
  of Goslar of the destruction of two monasteries, and in spite
  of all the concessions to Protestants the court pronounced
  the ban against the city, and empowered Henry to carry it
  out. The elector and the landgrave, acting for the Schmalcald
  League in defence of the city, entered Henry’s territory in
  A.D. 1542 and conquered it. The gospel was now preached, and an
  evangelical constitution was given to Brunswick by Bugenhagen.
  This completed the conquest of North Germany for the gospel.--In
  South Germany Regensburg received the Reformation in A.D. 1542;
  but Bavaria, owing to Ferdinand’s influence, gave no place to
  the heretics. In the Upper Palatinate evangelical preachers
  had for a long time been tolerated. The young prince of
  the Neuburg Palatinate in A.D. 1543 called Osiander from
  Nuremburg [Nuremberg], and joined the Schmalcald League.
  The Elector-palatine Louis died in A.D. 1543. His brother
  Frederick II., who succeeded him was not unfavourable to the
  Reformation, and formally introduced it into his dominions in
  A.D. 1546. Even in Austria evangelical views made such advance
  that Ferdinand neither could nor would attempt those violent
  measures that he had previously tried.

  § 135.7. =The Reformation in the Electorate of Cologne,
  A.D. 1542-1544.=--Hermann von Weid (§ 133, 5), Archbishop and
  Elector of Cologne, now far advanced in life, by the study of
  Luther’s Bible had convinced himself of the scripturalness of
  the Augsburg Confession. He resolved to reform his province
  in accordance with God’s word. At the Bonn Assembly of March,
  A.D. 1542, he made known his plan, and found himself supported
  by his nobles. He invited Bucer to inaugurate the work, and
  he was soon joined by Melanchthon. In July, A.D. 1543, the
  elector laid before the nobles his Reformation scheme, and
  they unanimously accepted it. The cathedral chapter and the
  university opposed it in the interests of the papacy; also
  the Cologne council from fear of losing their authority.
  Nevertheless the movement advanced, and it was hoped that the
  opposition would gradually be overcome. Cologne was to remain
  after as before an ecclesiastical principality, but with an
  evangelical constitution. The Bishop of Münster prepared to
  follow the example, and had the work in Cologne been lasting,
  certainly many others would have pursued the same course.

  § 135.8. =The Emperor’s Difficulties, A.D. 1543, 1544.=--Soliman
  in A.D. 1541 had overrun Hungary, converted the principal
  church into a mosque, and set a pasha over the whole land,
  which now became a Turkish province. Aid against the Turks
  was voted at a diet at Spires in the beginning of A.D. 1542,
  and the Protestants were left unmolested for five years after
  the conclusion of the war. The campaign against the Turks led
  by Joachim II. was unsuccessful. Meanwhile new troubles arose
  with France, and Soliman prepared for a second campaign.
  The emperor now summoned a diet to meet at Nuremberg, Jan.,
  A.D. 1543. Ferdinand was willing to grant to the Protestants
  the Regensburg Declaration, but William of Bavaria would rather
  see the whole world perish or the crescent ruling over all
  Germany. In summer of A.D. 1543 the emperor was beset with
  dangers from every side; France attacked the Netherlands,
  Soliman conquered Grau, the Danes closed the Sound against
  the subjects of the emperor, a Turco-French fleet held sway
  in the Mediterranean and had already taken Nizza, and the
  Protestants were assuming a threatening attitude. Christian III.
  of Denmark and Gustavus Vasa of Sweden asked to be received
  into the Schmalcald League. The Duke of Cleves, too, broke
  his truce. This roused the emperor most of all. He rushed down
  upon Cleves and Gelderland, and conquered them, and restored
  Catholicism. The emperor’s circumstances now improved: Cleves
  was quieted; Denmark and England came to terms with him. But
  his most dangerous enemies, Soliman and Francis I., were still
  in arms. He could not yet dispense with the powerful support
  of the Protestants.

  § 135.9. =Diet at Spires, A.D. 1544.=--In order to get
  help against the Turks and French, at the Diet of Spires,
  in Feb., A.D. 1544, the emperor relieved the Protestants of
  all disabilities, promised a genuine, free Christian council
  to settle matters in dispute, and, in case this should not
  succeed, in next autumn a national assembly to determine
  matters definitely without pope or council. The emperor promised
  to propose a scheme of Reformation, and invited the other nobles
  to bring forward schemes. After such concessions the Protestants
  went in heartily with the emperor’s political projects. He
  wished first of all help against the French. In the same year
  the emperor led against France an army composed mostly of
  Protestants, and in Sept., A.D. 1544, obliged the king to
  conclude the Peace of Crespy. The Turks had next to be dealt
  with, and the Protestants were eager to show their devotion
  to the emperor. In prospect of the national assembly the
  Elector of Saxony set his theologians to the composition of
  a plan of Reformation. This document, known as the “Wittenberg
  Reformation,” allows to the prelates their spiritual and civil
  functions, their revenues, goods, and jurisdiction, the right
  of ordination, visitation, and discipline, on condition that
  these be exercised in an evangelical spirit.

  § 135.10. =Differences between the Emperor and the Protestant
  Nobles, A.D. 1545, 1546.=--The pope by calling a council to
  meet at Trent sowed seeds of discord between the emperor and
  the Protestants. The emperor’s proposals of reform were so
  far short of the demands of the Protestants that they were
  unanimously rejected. The Reformation movement in Cologne had
  seriously imperilled the imperial government of the Netherlands.
  An attempt of Henry to reconquer Brunswick was frustrated by the
  combined action of the Landgrave of Hesse and the Duke of Saxony.
  Frederick II., elector-palatine, began to reform his provinces
  and to seek admission to the Schmalcald League. Four of the
  six electors had gone over, and the fifth, Sebastian, who after
  Albert’s death in A.D. 1545 had been, by Hessian and Palatine
  influence, made Elector of Mainz, had just resolved to follow
  their example. All these things had greatly irritated the
  emperor. He concluded a truce with the Turks in Oct., A.D. 1545,
  and arranged with the pope, who pledged his whole possessions
  and crown, for the campaign against the heretics. On 13th Dec.,
  A.D. 1545, the pope opened the =Council of Trent=, and made
  it no secret that it was intended for the destruction of the
  Protestants. The emperor attempted to get the Protestants to
  take part. In Jan., A.D. 1546, a conference was held in which
  Cochlæus (§ 129, 1) and others met with Bucer, Brenz, and Major;
  but it was soon dissolved, owing to initial differences. The
  horrible fratricide committed at Neuburg upon a Spaniard, Juan
  Diaz, showed the Protestants how good Catholics thought heretics
  must be dealt with. The murderer was seized, but by order of the
  pope to the Bishop of Trent set again at liberty. He remained
  unpunished, but hanged himself at Trent A.D. 1551.

  § 135.11. =Luther’s Death, A.D. 1546.=--Luther died at Eisleben
  in his 63rd year on 18th Feb., 1546. During his last years he
  was harassed with heavy trials. The political turn that affairs
  had taken was wholly distasteful to him, but he was powerless to
  prevent it. In Wittenberg itself much was done not in accordance
  with his will. Wearied with his daily toils, suffering severe
  pain and consequent bodily weakness, he often longed to die
  in peace. In the beginning of A.D. 1546 the Counts of Mansfeld
  called him to Eisleben in order to compose differences between
  them by his impartial judgment. In order to perform this
  business he spent the three last weeks of his life in his
  birthplace, and, with scarcely any previous illness, on the
  night of the 18th Feb., he peacefully fell asleep in Jesus.
  His body was taken to Wittenberg and there buried in the
  castle church.


        § 136. THE SCHMALCALD WAR, THE INTERIM, AND THE COUNCIL,
                            A.D. 1546-1551.

  All attempts at agreement in matters of religion were at an end.
The pope, however, had at last convened a council in a German city.
The emperor hoped to conciliate the Protestants by bringing about
a reformation after a fashion, removing many hierarchical abuses,
conceding the marriage of the clergy, the cup to the laity, and even
perhaps accepting the doctrine of justification. But he soon came to
a rupture with the Protestants, and war broke out before the Schmalcald
Leaguers were prepared for it. Their power, however, was far superior
to that of the emperor; but through needless scruples, delays, and
indecision they let slip the opportunity of certain victory. The power
of the league was utterly destroyed, and the emperor’s power reached
the summit of its strength. All Southern Germany was forced to submit
to the hated interim, and in North Germany only the outlawed Magdeburg
ventured to maintain, in spite of the emperor, a pure Protestant
profession.

  § 136.1. =Preparations for the Schmalcald War, A.D. 1546.=--In
  consequence of variances among the members of the league the
  emperor conceived a plan of securing allies from among the
  Protestants themselves by a judicious distribution of favours.
  The Margrave Hans of Cüstrin and Duke Eric of Brunswick, the
  one cousin, the other son-in-law, of the exiled and imprisoned
  Duke of Wolfenbüttel, were ready to take part in war against the
  robbers of their friend’s dominions. Much more eager, however,
  was the emperor to win over the young Duke Maurice of Saxony. He
  tempted him with the promise of the electorate and the greater
  part of the elector’s territory, and was successful. The emperor
  could not indeed formally release any of them from submission
  to the council, but he promised in any case to reserve for
  their countries the doctrine of justification, the cup in lay
  communion, and the marriage of priests. Now when he was sure
  of Maurice the emperor proceeded openly with his preparations,
  and made no secret of his intention to punish those princes who
  had despised his imperial authority and taken to themselves the
  possessions of others. The Schmalcald Leaguers could no longer
  deceive themselves, and so they began their preparations.
  With such an open breach the Diet of Regensburg ended in June,
  A.D. 1546.

  § 136.2. =The Campaign on the Danube, A.D. 1546.=--Schärtlin,
  at the head of a powerful army, could have attacked the emperor
  or taken the Tyrol; but the council of war, listening to William
  of Bavaria, who professed neutrality, and hoping to win over
  Ferdinand, foolishly ordered delay. Thus the emperor gained
  time to collect an army. On 20th June, A.D. 1546, he issued
  from Regensburg a ban against the Landgrave Philip and the
  Elector John Frederick as oath-breaking vassals. These princes
  at the head of their forces had joined Schärtlin at Donauwörth
  [Donauwört]. Papal despatches fell into their hands, in which
  the pope proclaimed a crusade for the rooting out of heretics,
  promising indulgence to all who would aid in the work. Fatal
  indecision still prevailed in the council of war, and winter
  came on without a battle being fought. The news that Maurice
  had taken possession of the elector’s domains led the landgrave
  and the ex-elector to return home, and Schärtlin, for want of
  money and ammunition, was unable to face a winter campaign in
  Franconia. Thus the whole country lay open to the emperor. One
  city after another accepted terms more or less severe. In the
  beginning of A.D. 1547 he was master of all Southern Germany.
  Now at last he put an end to the Cologne movement (§ 135, 7).
  The pope had issued the ban against the archbishop in A.D. 1546,
  and now the emperor had the former coadjutor proclaimed
  archbishop and elector, in spite of the opposition of the
  nobles. Hermann was willing to secure the religious peace of
  his dominions by resignation, but this was refused, and being
  too weak to offer resistance, he resigned unconditionally. Thus
  the Rhine provinces were irretrievably lost to Protestantism.

  § 136.3. =The Campaign on the Elbe, A.D. 1547.=--After rapidly
  reconquering his own territories, the Elector John Frederick
  hastened with a considerable army to meet his enemy. At Mühlberg
  he suddenly came upon the emperor’s forces. There scarcely was
  a battle. His comparatively small armament melted away before
  the superior numbers of the imperial host, and the elector was
  taken prisoner on 24th April, A.D. 1547. He had already been
  sentenced to death as a rebel and heretic. It was deemed more
  prudent to require of him only the surrender of his fortresses.
  The pious prince willingly resigned all temporal dignities, but
  in matters of religion he was inflexible. He was sentenced to
  life-long imprisonment and his possessions were mostly given
  to Maurice. The Landgrave Philip, for want of money, ammunition,
  and troops, had been prevented from doing anything. The news
  of John Frederick’s misfortunes brought him almost to despair.
  Too powerless to offer opposition, he surrendered at discretion
  to the emperor. He was to prostrate himself before the emperor,
  surrender all his fortresses, neither now nor in future suffer
  enemies of the emperor in his lands, and for all his life to
  renounce all leagues, to liberate Henry of Brunswick and restore
  him to his dominions. The ceremony of prostration was performed
  at Halle on 19th July. The two electors with the landgrave
  then went by invitation to a supper with the Duke of Alba.
  After supper the duke declared the landgrave his prisoner.
  The elector’s remonstrances then with Alba and next day with
  the imperial councillors were all in vain. The emperor was
  equally deaf to all representations.

  § 136.4. =The Council of Trent, A.D. 1545-1547.=--The Council
  of Trent opened in Dec., A.D. 1545 (§ 149, 2). At the outset,
  contrary to the emperor’s wishes, the pope laid down conditions
  that excluded Protestants from taking part in it. Scripture and
  tradition were first discussed. The O.T. Apocrypha (§§ 59, 1;
  161, 8) had equal authority assigned it with the other books
  of the O. and N.T., and the Vulgate was declared to be the
  only authentic text for theological discussions and sermons.
  Tradition was placed on equal terms alongside of Scripture,
  but its contents were carefully defined. Original sin was
  extinguished by baptism, and after baptism there is only
  actual transgression. The scholastic doctrine of justification
  was sanctioned anew, but accommodated as far as possible to
  Scripture phraseology; justification is the inward actual change
  of a sinner into a righteous man, not merely the forgiveness
  of sins, but pre-eminently the sanctification and renewal of
  the inner man. It is effected, not so much by the imputation
  of Christ’s merits, as by the infusion of habitual righteousness,
  which enables men to win salvation by works. It is not forensic,
  but a physical act of God, is wrought not once for all, and not
  by faith alone, but gradually by the free co-operation of the
  man. The emperor, who saw in these decisions the overthrow of
  his attempts at conciliation, was highly displeased, and wished
  at least to postpone their promulgation. The pope obeyed for
  a time; but when the emperor threatened to interfere in the
  proceedings of the council, he had the decrees published, Jan.,
  A.D. 1547, and some weeks after, on the plea of a dangerous
  plague having broken out, removed the council to Bologna, where
  for the time proceedings were suspended.

  § 136.5. =The Augsburg Interim, A.D. 1548.=--At a diet
  at Augsburg in Sept., A.D. 1547, the Protestants declared
  themselves willing to submit to a council meeting again at
  Trent, and beginning afresh; but as the pope refused this,
  the emperor was obliged to plan an interim, which should form
  a standard for all parties till a settlement at a proper council
  should be reached. It granted the cup to the laity and marriage
  of priests, but held by the Tridentine doctrine of justification.
  It represented the pope as simply the highest bishop, in whom
  the unity of the church is visibly set forth. The right of
  interpreting Scripture was given exclusively to the church.
  The sacraments were enumerated as seven, and the doctrine
  of transubstantiation emphatically maintained. The duty of
  fasting, and seeking the intercession of the mother of God
  and the saints, observing all Catholic ceremonies of worship,
  processions, festivals, etc., was strictly insisted upon. The
  emperor was satisfied, and so too some of the Protestant princes.
  Maurice, however, felt that his people would not agree to its
  adoption. He gave at last a half assent, which the emperor
  accepted as approval. The emperor took no notice of those who
  opposed it, the presence of his Spaniards in their dominions
  would prevent all trouble. The emperor was not strong enough
  to force the Catholic nobles to accept his interim, and so its
  observance was to be binding only on the Protestants. Landgrave
  Philip, whose power was for ever broken, gave in, but nothing
  in the world would induce the noble John Frederick to submit.
  The pope too refused persistently to recognise the interim, and
  only in Aug., A.D. 1549, did he allow the bishops to agree to
  the concessions made by it to the Protestants.

  § 136.6. =The Execution of the Interim= had on all sides to
  be compulsorily enforced. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm were one
  after another coerced into adopting it. Constance resisted,
  was put under the ban, and lost all privileges, till at last
  instead of the interim the papacy found entrance, and evangelical
  Protestantism got its death-blow. The other cities submitted to
  the inevitable. All preachers refusing the interim were exiled
  and persecuted. Over 400 true servants of the word wandered with
  wives and children through South Germany homeless and without
  bread. Frecht of Ulm was taken in chains to the emperor’s camp.
  Brenz, one of the most determined opponents of the interim,
  during his wanderings often by a miracle escaped capture. Much
  more lasting was the opposition in North Germany. In Magdeburg,
  still lying under the imperial ban, the fugitive opponents of
  the interim gathered from all sides, and there alone was the
  press still free in its utterances against the interim. A
  flood of controversial tracts, satires, and caricatures were
  sent out over all Germany. In Hesse and Brandenburg the princes
  were unable to enforce the obnoxious measures; still less could
  Maurice do so in the electorate.

  § 136.7. =The Leipzig or Little Interim, A.D. 1549.=--Maurice
  in his difficulties sent for Melanchthon. Since the death
  of Luther and the overthrow of John Frederick of Saxony,
  Melanchthon’s tendency to yield largely for peace’ sake had
  lost its wholesome checks. In writing to the minister Carlowitz,
  the bitterest foe of Luther and the elector, he even went so far
  as to complain of Luther’s combativeness. The result of various
  negotiations was the drawing up of a document at the assembly in
  Leipzig, 22nd December, A.D. 1548, by the Wittenberg theologians
  in accordance with the views of Melanchthon. This modified
  interim became the standard for religious practice in Saxony,
  and a directory of worship in harmony with it was drawn up
  by the theologians, and published in July, A.D. 1549. Calvin
  and Brenz wrote letters that cut Melanchthon to the heart.
  The measure was everywhere viewed by zealous Lutherans with
  indignation, and the Interim of Leipzig was even more hateful
  to the people than that of Augsburg. Imprisonment and exile
  were vigorously carried out by means of it, yet the revolution
  and ferment continued to increase.--The Leipzig Interim treated
  Romish customs and ceremonies almost as things indifferent,
  passed over many less essential doctrinal differences, and
  gave to fundamental differences such a setting as might
  be applied equally to the pure evangelical doctrine as to
  that of the Augsburg Interim. The evangelical doctrine of
  justification was essentially there, but it was not decidedly
  and unambiguously expressed; and still less were Romish errors
  sharply and unmistakably repudiated. Good works were said to
  be necessary, but not in the sense that one could win salvation
  by means of them. Whether good works in excess of the law’s
  demands could be performed was not explicitly determined. On
  church and hierarchy, the positions of the Augsburg Interim
  were simply restated. To the pope as the highest bishop, as well
  as to the other bishops, who performed their duties according
  to God’s will for edification and not destruction, all churchmen
  were to yield obedience. The seven sacraments were acknowledged,
  though in another than the Romish sense. In the mass the Latin
  language was again introduced. Images of saints were allowed,
  but not for worship; so too the festivals of Mary and of _Corpus
  Christi_, but without processions, etc.

  § 136.8. =The Council again at Trent, A.D. 1551.=--In September,
  A.D. 1549, Paul III. dissolved the council at Bologna, where it
  had done nothing. His successor, =Julius III.=, A.D. 1550-1555,
  the nominee of the imperial party, acceded to the emperor’s
  wishes to have the council again held at Trent. The Protestant
  nobles declared their willingness to recognise it, but demanded
  the cancelling of the earlier proceedings, a seat and vote for
  their representatives. This the emperor was prepared to grant,
  but the pope and prelates would not agree. The council began
  its proceedings on 1st May, A.D. 1551, with the doctrine of
  the Lord’s Supper. Meanwhile the Protestants prepared a new
  confession, which might form the basis of their discussions
  in the council. Melanchthon, who was beginning to take courage
  again, sketched the _Confessio Saxonica_, or, as it has been
  rightly named, the _Repetitio Confessionis Augustanæ_, in which
  no trace of the indecision and ambiguity of the Leipzig Interim
  is to be found. The pure doctrine is set forth firmly, with even
  a polemical tone, though in a moderate and conciliatory manner.
  Brenz, who had been in hiding up to this time, by order of Duke
  Christopher of Württemberg, sketched for a like purpose the
  “Württemberg Confession.” In November, A.D. 1551, the first
  Protestants, lay delegates from Württemberg and Strassburg,
  appeared in Trent. They were followed in January by Saxon
  statesmen. On 24th January, A.D. 1552, these laid their
  credentials before the council, but, notwithstanding all
  the effort of the imperial commissioners, they could not gain
  admission. In March the Württemberg and Strassburg theologians
  arrived, with Brenz at their head, and Melanchthon, with two
  Leipzig preachers, was on the way, when suddenly Maurice put
  an end to all their well concerted plans.


       § 137A. MAURICE AND THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG A.D. 1550-1555.

  In the beginning of A.D. 1550 the affairs of the Reformation were
in a worse condition than ever before. In the fetters of the interim,
it was like a felon on whom the death sentence was about to be passed.
Then just at the right time appeared the Elector Maurice as the man
who could break the fetters and lead on again to power and honour.
His betrayal of the cause had brought Protestantism to the verge of
destruction; his betrayal of the emperor proved its salvation. The
Compact of Passau guaranteed to Protestants full religious liberty
and equal rights with Catholics until a new council should meet. The
Religious Peace of Augsburg removed even this limitation, and brought
to a conclusion the history of the German Reformation.

  § 137.1. =The State of Matters in A.D. 1550.=--It was a doleful
  time for Germany. The emperor at the height of his power was
  laying his plans for securing the succession in the imperial
  dignity to his son Philip of Spain. In a bold, autocratic
  spirit he trampled on all the rights of the imperial nobles,
  and contrary to treaty he retained the presence of Spanish
  troops in the empire, which daily committed deeds of atrocious
  violence. The deliverance of the landgrave was stubbornly
  refused, though all the conditions thereof were long ago
  fulfilled. Protestant Germany groaned under the yoke of the
  interim; the council would only confirm this, if not rather
  enforce something even worse. Only one bulwark of evangelical
  liberty stood in the emperor’s way, the brave, outlawed
  Magdeburg. But how could it continue to hold out? Down to
  autumn, A.D. 1552, all attempts to storm the city had failed.
  Then Maurice undertook, by the order of the emperor and at the
  cost of the empire, to execute the ban.

  § 137.2. =The Elector Maurice, A.D. 1551.--Maurice had lost the
  hearts of his own people, and was regarded with detestation by
  the Protestants of Germany, and notwithstanding imperial favour
  his position was by no means secure. Yet he was too much of the
  German and Protestant prince to view with favour the emperor’s
  proceedings, while he felt indignant at the illegal detention
  of his father-in-law. In these circumstances he resolved to
  betray the emperor, as before he had betrayed to him the cause
  of Protestantism. A master in dissimulation, he continued the
  siege of Magdeburg with all diligence, but at the same time
  joined a secret league with the Margrave Hans of Cüstrin and
  Albert of Franconian Brandenburg, as also with the sons of the
  landgrave, for the restoration of evangelical and civil liberty,
  and entered into negotiations with Henry II. of France, who
  undertook to aid him with money. Magdeburg at last capitulated,
  and Maurice entered on 4th November, A.D. 1551. Arrears of
  pay formed an excuse for not disbanding the imperial troops,
  and, strengthened by the Magdeburg garrison and the auxiliary
  troops of his allies, he threw off the mask, and issued public
  proclamations in which he brought bitter charges against the
  emperor, and declared that he could no longer lie under the
  feet of priests and Spaniards. The emperor in vain appealed for
  help to the Catholic princes. He found himself without troops
  or money at Innsbrück, which could not stand a siege, and every
  road to his hereditary territories seemed closed, for where
  the leagued German princes were not the Ottomans on sea and
  the French on land were ready to oppose him. Maurice was already
  on the way to Innsbrück “to seek out the fox in his hole.” But
  his troops’ demands for pay detained him, and the emperor gained
  time. On a cold, wet night he fled, though not yet recovered
  from fever, over the mountains covered with snow, and found
  refuge in Villach. Three days after Maurice entered Innsbrück;
  the council had already dissolved.

  § 137.3. =The Compact of Passau, A.D. 1552.=--Before the
  flight of the emperor from Innsbrück, Maurice had an interview
  with Ferdinand at Linz, where, besides the liberation of the
  landgrave, he demanded a German national assembly for religious
  union, and till it met unconditional toleration. The emperor,
  notwithstanding all his embarrassments, would not listen to the
  proposal. Negotiations were reopened at Passau, and Maurice’s
  proposals were in the main accepted. Ferdinand consented, but
  the emperor would not. Ferdinand himself travelled to Villach
  and employed all his eloquence, but unconditional toleration
  the emperor would not grant. His stubbornness conquered; the
  majority gave in, and accepted a compact which gave to the
  Protestants a full amnesty, general peace, and equal rights,
  till the meeting of a national or œcumenical council, to be
  arranged for at the next diet. Meanwhile the emperor had made
  great preparations. Frankfort was his main stronghold, and
  against it Maurice now advanced, and began the siege. Matters
  were not promising, when the Passau delegate appeared in his
  camp with the draft of the terms of peace. Had he refused his
  signature, the ban would have been pronounced against him,
  and his cousin would have been restored to the electorate.
  He therefore subscribed the document. With difficulty Ferdinand
  secured the subscription of the emperor, who believed himself
  to be sufficiently strong to carry on the battle. The two
  imprisoned princes were now at last liberated, and the preachers
  exiled by the interim were allowed to return. John Frederick
  died in A.D. 1554, and the Landgrave Philip in A.D. 1567.

  § 137.4. =Death of Maurice, A.D. 1553.=--The Margrave Albert
  of Brandenburg had been Maurice’s comrade in the Schmalcald
  war, and with him also he turned against the emperor. But after
  the ratification of the Passau Compact, to which he was not a
  party, Albert continued the war against the prelates and their
  principalities. He now fell out with Maurice, and was taken into
  his service by the emperor, who not only granted him an amnesty
  for all his acts of spoliation and breaches of the truce, but
  promised to enforce recognition of him from all the bishops.
  Albert therefore helped the emperor against the French, and
  then carried his conquests into Germany. Soon an open rupture
  occurred between him and Maurice. In the battle of Sievershausen
  Maurice gained a brilliant victory, but received a mortal wound,
  of which he died in two days. Albert fled to France. The rude
  soldier was broken down by misfortune, the religious convictions
  of his youth awakened, and the composition of a beautiful and
  well-known German hymn marks the turning point in his life.
  He died in A.D. 1557.--The year 1554 was wholly occupied with
  internal troubles. A desire for a lasting peace prevailed, and
  the calamities of both parties brought Protestants and Catholics
  nearer to one another. Even Henry of Brunswick was willing to
  tolerate Protestantism in his dominions.

  § 137.5. =The Religious Peace of Augsburg, A.D. 1555.=--When
  the diet met at Augsburg in February, A.D. 1555, the emperor’s
  power was gone. To save his pride and conscience he renounced
  all share in its proceedings in favour of his brother.
  The Protestant members stood well together in claiming
  unconditional religious freedom, and Ferdinand inclined
  to their side. Meanwhile Pope Julius died, and the cardinals
  Morone and Truchsess hasted from the diet to Rome to take part
  in the papal election. The Catholic opposition was thus weakened
  in the diet. The Protestants insisted that the peace should
  apply to all who might in future join this confession. This
  demand gave occasion to strong contests. At last the simple
  formula was agreed upon, that no one should be interfered with
  on account of the Augsburg Confession. But a more vehement
  dispute arose as to what should happen if prelates or spiritual
  princes should join the Protestant party. This was a vital
  question for Catholicism, and acceptance of the Protestant
  view would be its deathblow. It was therefore proposed that
  every prelate who went over would lose, not only his spiritual
  rank, but also his civil dominion. But the opposition would
  not give in. Both parties appealed to Ferdinand, and he
  delayed giving a decision. Advice was also asked about the
  peace proclamation. The Protestants claimed that the judges
  of the imperial court should be sworn to observe the Religious
  Peace, and should be chosen in equal numbers from both religious
  parties. On 30th Aug. Ferdinand stated his resolution. As
  was expected, he went with the Catholics in regard to prelates
  becoming Protestants, but, contrary to all expectations, he
  also refused lasting unconditional peace. On this last point,
  however, he declared himself on 6th Sept. willing to yield
  if the Protestants would concede the point about the prelates.
  They sought to sell their concession as dearly as possible
  by securing to evangelical subjects of Catholic princes the
  right to the free exercise of their religion. But the Catholic
  prelates, on the ground of the territorial system (§ 126, 6)
  advocated by the Protestants themselves, would not give in.
  It was finally agreed that every noble in matters of religion
  had territorial authority, but that subjects of another faith,
  in case of the free exercise of their religion being refused,
  should have guaranteed unrestricted liberty to withdraw without
  loss of honour, property, or freedom. On 25th Sept., A.D. 1555,
  the decrees of the diet were promulgated. The Reformed were
  not included in the Religious Peace; this was first done in
  the Peace of Westphalia (§ 153, 2).


               § 137B. GERMANY AFTER THE RELIGIOUS PEACE.

  The political importance of the Protestant princes was about equal
to that of the Catholics; the Electors of Cologne, Mainz, and Treves
were not more powerful than those of Saxony, the Palatinate, and
Brandenburg; and the great array of Protestant cities, with almost
all the minor princes, were not behind the combined forces of Austria
and Bavaria. The maintenance of the peace was assigned to a legally
constituted corporation of Catholic and Protestant nobles, which held
power down to A.D. 1806. The hope of reaching a mutual understanding
on matters of religion was by no means abandoned, but the continuance
of the peace was to be in no way dependent upon its realization. A new
attempt to effect a union, which like all previous efforts ended in
failure, was soon made in the Worms Consultation. Equally unsuccessful
was a union project of the emperor Ferdinand I. Protestantism could get
no more out of the Catholic princes. A second attempt to protestantize
the Cologne electorate broke down as the first had done (§ 136, 2).

  § 137.6. =The Worms Consultation, A.D. 1557.=--Another effort
  was made after the failure of the council in the interests of
  union. Catholic and Protestant delegates under the presidency
  of Pflugk met at Worms in A.D. 1557. At a preliminary meeting
  the princes of Hesse, Württemburg [Württemberg], and the
  Palatinate adopted the Augsburg Confession as bond of union
  and standard for negotiations. The Saxon delegates insisted
  upon a distinct repudiation of the interim and the insertion
  of other details, which gave the Catholics an excuse for putting
  an end to the negotiations. They had previously expressly
  refused to acknowledge Scripture as the unconditional and
  sole judge of controversies, as that was itself a matter in
  dispute (§ 136, 4).

  § 137.7. =Second Attempt at Reformation in the Electorate of
  Cologne, A.D. 1582.=--The Archbishop and Elector of Cologne,
  Gebhard Truchsess of Waldburg went over in A.D. 1582 to the
  Protestant Church, married the Countess Agnes of Mansfeld,
  proclaimed religious freedom, and sought to convert his
  ecclesiastical principality into a temporal dominion. His
  plan was acceptable to nobles and people, but the clergy of
  his diocese opposed it with all their might. The pope thundered
  the ban against him, and Emperor Rudolph II. deposed him. The
  Protestant princes at last deserted him, and the newly elected
  archbishop, Duke Ernest of Bavaria, overpowered him by an armed
  force. The issue of Gebhard’s attempt struck terror into other
  prelates who had been contemplating similar moves.

  § 137.8. =The German Emperor.=--=Ferdinand I.=, A.D. 1556-1564,
  conciliatory toward Protestantism, thoroughly dissatisfied
  with the Tridentine Council, once and again made attempts to
  secure a union, which all ended in failure. =Maximilian II.=,
  A.D. 1564-1576, imbued by his tutor, Wolfgang Severus, with an
  evangelical spirit, which was deepened under the influence of
  his physician Crato von Crafftheim (§ 141, 10), gave perfect
  liberty to the Protestants in his dominions, admitted them
  to many of the higher and lower offices of state, kept down
  the Jesuits, and was prevented from himself formally going
  over to Protestantism only by his political relations with
  Spain and the Catholic princes of the empire. These relations,
  however, led to the adoption of half measures, out of which
  afterwards sprang the Thirty Years’ War. His son =Rudolph II.=,
  A.D. 1576-1612, educated by Jesuits at the Spanish court, gave
  again to that order unlimited scope, injured the Protestants on
  every side, and was only prevented by indecision and cowardice
  from attempting the complete suppression of Protestantism.


           § 138. THE REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND.[369]

  In French Switzerland the Reformation appeared somewhat later,
but in essentially the same form as in German Switzerland. Its special
character was given it by Farel and Viret, the predecessors of Calvin.
The powerful genius of Calvin secured for his views victory over
Zwinglianism in Switzerland, and won the ascendency for them in the
other Reformed Churches.

  § 138.1. =Calvin’s Predecessors, A.D. 1526-1535.=--=William
  Farel=, the pupil and friend of the liberal exegete Faber
  Stapulensis (§ 120, 8), was born in A.D. 1489 at Gap in
  Dauphiné. When in A.D. 1521 the Sorbonne condemned Luther’s
  doctrines and writings, he was obliged, as a suspected adherent
  of Luther, to quit Paris. He retired to Meaux, where he was
  well received by Bishop Briçonnet, but so boldly preached
  the reformed doctrines, that even the bishop, on renewed
  complaints being made, neither could nor would protect him.
  He then withdrew to Basel (§ 130, 3). His first permanent
  residence was at Neuchatel, where in November, A.D. 1530,
  the Reformation was introduced by his influence. He left
  Neuchatel in A.D. 1532 in order to work in Geneva. But the
  civil authorities there could not protect him against the
  bishop and clergy. He was obliged to leave the city, but
  Saunier, Fromant, and Olivetan (§ 143, 5) continued the work
  in his spirit. A revolution took place; the bishop thundered
  his ban against the refractory council, and the senate replied
  by declaring his office forfeited. Farel now returned to Geneva,
  A.D. 1535, and there accompanied him =Peter Viret=, afterwards
  the reformer of Lausanne. Viret was born at Orbe in A.D. 1511,
  and had attached himself to the Protestant cause during his
  studies in Paris. He therefore had also been obliged to quit
  the capital. He retired to his native town, and sought there
  diligently to spread the knowledge of the gospel. The arrival
  of these two enthusiastic reformers in Geneva led to a life
  and death struggle, from which the evangelicals went forth
  triumphant. As the result of a public disputation in August,
  A.D. 1535, the magistracy declared in their favour, and
  Farel gave the movement a doctrinal basis by the issuing
  of a confession. In the following year Calvin was passing
  through Geneva. Farel adjured him in God’s name to remain
  there. Farel indeed needed a fellow labourer of such genius
  and power, for he had a hard battle to fight.

  § 138.2. =Calvin before his Genevan Ministry.=--=John Calvin=,
  son of diocesan procurator Gerhard Cauvin, was born on 10th July,
  A.D. 1509, at Noyou in Picardy. Intended for the church, he was,
  from his twelfth year, in possession of a benefice. Meeting with
  his relation Olivetan, he had his first doubts of the truth of
  the Catholic system awakened. With his father’s consent he now
  turned to the study of law, which he eagerly prosecuted for
  four years at Orleans and Bourges. At Bourges, Melchior Wolmar,
  a German professor of Greek, exercised so powerful an influence
  over him, especially through the study of the Scriptures, that
  he decided, after the death of his father, to devote himself
  exclusively to theology. With this intention he went to Paris
  in A.D. 1532, and there enthusiastically adopted the principles
  of the Reformation. The newly appointed rector of the university,
  Nic. Cop, had to deliver an address on the Feast of All Saints.
  Calvin prepared it for him, and expressed therein such liberal
  and evangelical views, as had never before been uttered in that
  place. Cop read it boldly, and escaped the outburst of wrath
  only by a timely flight. Calvin, too, found it prudent to quit
  Paris. The bloody persecution of the Protestants by Francis I.
  led him at last to leave France altogether. So he went, in
  A.D. 1535, to Basel, where he became acquainted with Capito
  and Grynæus. In the following year he issued the first sketch
  of the _Institutio Religionis Christianæ_. It was made as
  a defence of the Protestants of France, persecuted by Francis
  on the pretext that they held Anabaptist and revolutionary
  views. He therefore dedicated the book to the king, with a
  noble and firm address. He soon left Basel, and went to the
  court of the evangelical-minded Duchess Renata of Ferrara
  (§ 139, 22), in order to secure her good offices for his fellow
  countrymen suffering for their faith. He won the full confidence
  of the duchess, but after some weeks was banished the country
  by her husband. On his journey back to Basel, Farel and Viret
  detained him in Geneva in A.D. 1536, and declared that he was
  called to be a preacher and teacher of theology. On 1st October,
  A.D. 1536, the three reformers, at a public disputation in
  Lausanne, defended the principles of the Reformation. Viret
  remained in Lausanne, and perfected the work of Reformation
  there. As a confession of faith, a catechism, not in dialogue
  form, was composed by Calvin as a popular summary of his
  _Institutio_ in the French language, and was sworn to, in
  A.D. 1536, by all the citizens of Geneva. The _Catechismus
  Genevensis_, highly prized in all the Reformed churches, was
  a later redaction, which appeared first in French in A.D. 1542,
  and then in Latin, in A.D. 1545.[370]

  § 138.3. =Calvin’s First Ministry in Geneva, A.D. 1536-1538.=--In
  Geneva, as in other places, there sprang up alongside of the
  Reformation, and soon in deadly opposition to it, an antinomian
  libertine sect, which strove for freedom from all restraint
  and order (§ 146, 4). In the struggle against this dangerous
  development, which found special favour among the aristocratic
  youth of Geneva, Calvin put forth all the power of his logical
  mind and unbending will, and sought to break its force by
  the exercise of an excessively strict church discipline. He
  created a spiritual consistory which arrogated to itself the
  exclusive right of church discipline and excommunication, and
  wished to lay upon the magistrates the duty of inflicting civil
  punishments on all persons condemned by it. But not only did
  the libertine sections offer the most strenuous opposition,
  but also the magistrates regarded with jealousy and suspicion
  the erection of such a tribunal. Magistrates and libertines
  therefore combined to overthrow the consistory. A welcome
  pretext was found in a synod at Lausanne in A.D. 1538, which
  condemned the abolition of all festivals but the Sundays,
  the removal of baptismal fonts from the churches, and the
  introduction of leavened bread at the Lord’s Supper by the
  Genevan church as uncalled for innovations. The magistrates
  now demanded the withdrawal of these, and banished the preachers
  who would not obey. Farel went to Neuchatel, where he remained
  till his death in A.D. 1565; Calvin went to Strassburg, where
  Bucer, Capito, and Hedio gave him the office of a professor
  and preacher. During his three years’ residence there Calvin,
  as a Strassburg delegate, was frequently brought into close
  relationship with the German reformers, especially with
  Melanchthon (§§ 134, 135). But he ever remained closely
  associated with Geneva, and when Cardinal Sadolet (§ 139, 12)
  issued from Lyons in A.D. 1539 an appeal to the Genevese to
  return to the bosom of the Romish church, Calvin thundered
  against him an annihilating reply. His Genevan friends, too,
  spared no pains to win for him the favour of the council and
  the citizens. They succeeded all the more easily because since
  the overthrow of the theocratic consistory the libertine party
  had run into all manner of riotous excesses. By a decree of
  council of 20th Oct., A.D. 1540, Calvin was most honourably
  recalled. After long consideration he accepted the call in
  Sept., A.D. 1541, and now, with redoubled energy, set himself
  to carry out most strictly the work that had been interrupted.

  § 138.4. =Calvin’s Second Ministry in Geneva,
  A.D. 1541-1564.=--Calvin set up again, after his return, the
  consistory, consisting of six ministers and twelve lay elders,
  and by it ruled with almost absolute power. It was a thoroughly
  organized inquisition tribunal, which regulated in all details
  the moral, religious, domestic, and social life of the citizens,
  called them to account on every suspicion of a fault, had the
  incorrigible banished by the civil authorities, and the more
  dangerous of them put to death. The Ciceronian Bible translator,
  Sebastian Castellio, appointed rector of the Genevan school by
  Calvin, got out of sympathy with the rigorous moral strictures
  and compulsory prescriptions of matters of faith under the
  Calvinistic rule, and charged the clergy with intolerance and
  pride. He also contested the doctrine of the descent into hell,
  and described the Canticles as a love poem. He was deposed,
  and in order to escape further penalties he fled to Basel in
  A.D. 1544. A libertine called Gruet was executed in A.D. 1547,
  because he had circulated an abusive tract against the clergy,
  and blasphemous references were found in his papers; _e.g._
  that Christianity is only a fable, that Christ was a deceiver
  and His mother a prostitute, that all ends with death, that
  neither heaven nor hell exists, etc. The physician, Jerome
  Bolsec, previously a Carmelite monk in Paris, was imprisoned
  in A.D. 1551, and then banished, because of his opposition
  to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He afterwards returned
  to the Romish church, and revenged himself by a biography
  of Calvin full of spiteful calumnies. On the execution of
  Servetus in A.D. 1533, see § 148, 2. Between the years 1542
  and 1546 there were in Geneva, with a population of only
  20,000, no less than fifty-seven death sentences carried out
  with Calvin’s approval, and seventy-six sentences of banishment.
  The magistrates faithfully supported him in all his measures.
  But under the inquisitorial reign of terror of his consistory,
  the libertine party gained strength for a vehement struggle,
  and among the magistrates, from about A.D. 1546, there arose
  a powerful opposition, and fanatical mobs repeatedly threatened
  to throw him into the Rhone. This struggle lasted for nine
  years. But Calvin abated not a single iota from the strictness
  of his earlier demands, and so great was the fear of his
  powerful personality that neither the rage of riotous mobs
  nor the hostility of the magistracy could secure his banishment.
  In A.D. 1555 his party again won the ascendency in the elections,
  mainly by the aid of crowds of refugees from France, England,
  and Scotland, who had obtained residence and thus the rights of
  citizens in Geneva. From this time till his death on 27th March,
  A.D. 1564, his influence was supreme. The impress of his strong
  mind was more and more distinctly stamped upon every institution
  of the commonwealth, the demands of his rigorous discipline were
  willingly and heartily adopted as the moral code, and secured
  for Geneva that pre-eminence which for two centuries it retained
  among all the Reformed churches as an honourable, pious, and
  strictly moral city. In spite of a weak body and frequent
  attacks of sickness Calvin, during the twenty-three years of
  his two residences in Geneva, performed an amazing amount of
  work. He had married in A.D. 1540, at Strassburg, Idaletta de
  Bures, the widow of an Anabaptist converted by him. His wife
  died in A.D. 1549. He preached almost daily, attended all
  the sittings of the consistory and the preachers’ association,
  inspired all their deliberations and resolutions, delivered
  lectures in the academy founded by his orders in A.D. 1559,
  composed numerous doctrinal, controversial, and apologetical
  works, conducted an extensive correspondence, etc.

  § 138.5. =Calvin’s Writings.=--The most important of the
  writings of Calvin is his already mentioned _Institutio
  Religionis Christianæ_, of which the best and most complete
  edition appeared in A.D. 1559, a companion volume to
  Melanchthon’s _Loci_, but much more thorough and complete
  as a formal and scientific treatise. In this work Calvin
  elaborates his profound doctrinal system with great speculative
  power and bold, relentless logic, combined with the peculiar
  grace of a clear and charming style. Next in order of importance
  came his commentaries on almost all the books of Scripture.
  Here also he shows himself everywhere possessed of brilliant
  acuteness, religious geniality, profound Christian sympathy,
  and remarkable exegetical talent, but also a stickler for
  small points or seriously fettered by dogmatic prejudices.
  His exegetical productions want the warmth and childlike
  identification of the commentator with his text, which in
  so high a degree distinguishes Luther, while in form they are
  incomparably superior for conciseness and scientific precision.
  In the pulpit Calvin was the same strict and consistent logician
  as in his systematic and polemical works. Of Luther’s popular
  eloquence he had not the slightest trace.[371]

  § 138.6. =Calvin’s Doctrine.=--Calvin set Zwingli far below
  Luther, and had no hesitation in characterizing the Zwinglian
  doctrine of the sacraments as profane. With Luther, who highly
  respected him, he never came into close personal contact, but
  his intercourse with Melanchthon had a powerful influence upon
  the latter. But decidedly as he approached Luther’s doctrine,
  he was in principle rather on the same platform with Zwingli.
  His view of the Protestant principles is essentially Zwinglian.
  Just as decidedly as Zwingli had he broken with ecclesiastical
  tradition. In the doctrine of the person of Christ he inclined
  to Nestorianism, and could not therefore reach the same
  believing fulness as Luther in his doctrine of the Lord’s
  Supper. He taught, as Berengar before had done, that the
  believer by means of faith partakes in the sacrament only
  spiritually, but yet really, of the body and blood of the
  Lord, through a power issuing from the glorified body of Christ,
  whereas the unbeliever receives only bread and wine. In his
  doctrine of justification he formally agrees with Luther, but
  introduced a very marked difference by his strict, almost Old
  Testament, legalism. His predestination doctrine goes beyond
  even that of Augustine in its rigid consistency and unbending
  severity.[372]

  § 138.7. =The Victory of Calvinism over Zwinglianism.=--By
  his extensive correspondence and numerous writings Calvin’s
  influence extended far beyond the limits of Switzerland. Geneva
  became the place of refuge for all who were exiled on account
  of their faith, and the university founded there by Calvin
  furnished almost all Reformed churches with teachers, who
  were moulded after a strict Calvinistic pattern. Bern, not
  uninfluenced by political jealousies, showed most reluctance
  in adopting the Calvinistic doctrine. Zürich was more compliant.
  After Zwingli’s death, =Henry Bullinger= stood at the head
  of the Zürich clergy. With him Calvin entered into doctrinal
  negotiations, and succeeded in at last bringing him over to
  his views of the Lord’s Supper. In the _Consensus Tigurinus_
  of A.D. 1549, drawn up by Calvin, a union was brought about on
  a Calvinistic basis; but Bern, where the Zwinglians contending
  with the Lutheranised friends of Calvin had the majority,
  refused subscription. The _Consensus pastorum Genevensium_,
  of A.D. 1554, called forth by the conflict with Bolsec,
  in which the predestination doctrine of Calvin had similar
  prominence, not only Bern, but also Zürich refused to accept.
  Yet these two confessions gradually rose in repute throughout
  German Switzerland. Even Bullinger’s personal objection
  to the predestination doctrine was more and more overcome
  from A.D. 1556 by the influence of his colleague Peter
  Martyr (§ 139, 24), though he never accepted the Calvinistic
  system in all its severity and harshness. When even the
  Elector-palatine Frederick III. (§ 144, 1) wished to lay
  a justificatory confession before the Diet of Augsburg in
  A.D. 1566, which threatened to exclude him from the peace
  on account of his going over to the Reformed church, Bullinger,
  who was entrusted with its composition, sent him, as an appendix
  to the testament he had composed, a confession, which came
  to be known as the _Confessio Helvetica posterior_ (§ 133, 8).
  This confession, not only obtained recognition in all the Swiss
  cantons, with the exception of Basel, which likewise after
  eighty years adopted it, but also gained great consideration
  in the Reformed churches of other lands. Its doctrine of
  the sacraments is Calvinistic, with not unimportant leanings
  toward the Zwinglian theory. Its doctrine of predestination
  is Calvinism, very considerably modified.

  § 138.8. =Calvin’s Successor in Geneva.=--=Theodore Beza= was
  from A.D. 1559 Calvin’s most zealous fellow labourer, and after
  his death succeeded him in his offices. He soon came to be
  regarded at home and abroad with something of the same reverence
  which his great master had won. He died in A.D. 1605. Born in
  A.D. 1519 of an old noble family at Vezelay in Burgundy, he
  was sent for his education in his ninth year to the humanist
  Melchior Wolmar of Orleans, and accompanied his teacher when
  he accepted a call to the Academy of Bourges, until in A.D. 1534
  Wolmar was obliged to return to his Swabian home to escape
  persecution as a friend and promoter of the Reformation. Beza
  now applied himself to the study of law at the University of
  Orleans, and obtained the rank of a licentiate in A.D. 1539.
  He then spent several years in Paris as a man of the world,
  where he gained the reputation of a poet and wit, and wasted
  a considerable patrimony in a loose and reckless life. A secret
  marriage with a young woman of the city in humble circumstances,
  in A.D. 1544, put an end to his extravagances, and a serious
  illness gave a religious direction to his moral change. He had
  made the acquaintance of Calvin at Bourges, and in A.D. 1543 he
  went to Geneva, was publicly married, and in the following year
  received, on Viret’s recommendation, the professorship of Greek
  at Lausanne. Thoroughly in sympathy with all Calvin’s views,
  he supported his doctrine of predestination against the attacks
  of Bolsec, justified the execution of Servetus in his tract _De
  hæreticis a civili magistratu puniendis_, zealously befriended
  the persecuted Waldensians, along with Farel made court to the
  German Protestant princes in order to secure their intercession
  for the French Huguenots, and negotiated with the South German
  theologians for a union in regard to the doctrine of the
  supper. In A.D. 1558 Calvin called him to Geneva as a preacher
  and professor of theology in the academy erected there. In
  A.D. 1559 he vindicated Calvin’s doctrine of the supper against
  Westphal’s attacks (§ 141, 10) in pretty moderate language; but
  in A.D. 1560 he thundered forth two violent polemical dialogues
  against Hesshus (§ 144, 1). The next two years he spent in
  France (§ 139, 14) as theological defender and advocate of
  the Huguenots. After Calvin’s death the whole burden of the
  government of the Genevan church fell upon his shoulders, and
  for forty years the Reformed churches of all lands looked with
  confidence to him as their well-tried patriarch. Next to the
  church of Geneva, that of his native land lay nearest to his
  heart. Repeatedly we find him called to France to direct the
  meetings of synod. But scarcely less lively was the interest
  which he took in the controversies of the German Reformed
  with their Lutheran opponents. At the Religious Conference of
  Mömpelgard, which the Lutheran Count Frederick of Württemberg
  called in A.D. 1586, to make terms if possible whereby the
  Calvinistic refugees might have the communion together with
  their Lutheran brethren, Beza himself in person took the field
  in defence of the palladium of Calvinistic orthodoxy against
  Andreä, whose theory of ubiquity (§ 141, 9, 10) he had already
  contested in his writings. Very near the close of his life the
  Catholic Church, through its experienced converter of heretics,
  Francis de Sales (§ 156, 1), made a vain attempt to win him back
  to the Church in which alone is salvation. To a foolish report
  that this effort had been successful Beza himself answered in
  a satirical poem full of all his youthful fire.[373]


                 § 139. THE REFORMATION IN OTHER LANDS.

  The need of reform was so great and widespread, that the movement
begun in Germany and Switzerland soon spread to every country in
Europe. The Catholic Church opposed the Reformation everywhere with
fire and sword, and succeeded in some countries in utterly suppressing
it; while in others it was restricted within the limits of a merely
tolerated sect. The German Lutheran Confession found acceptance
generally among the Scandinavians of the north of Europe, the Swiss
Reformed among the Romanic races of the south and west; while in the
east, among the Slavs and Magyars, both confessions were received.
Calvin’s powerful personal influence had done much to drive the
Lutheran Confession out of those Romance countries where it had
before obtained a footing. The presence of many refugees from the
various western lands for a time in Switzerland, as well as the
natural intercourse between it and such countries as Italy and France,
contributed to the same result. But deeper grounds than these are
required to account for this fact. On the one hand, the Romance people
are inclined to extremes, and they found more thorough satisfaction
in the radical reformation of Geneva than in the more moderate
reformation of Wittenberg; and, on the other hand, they have a love
for democratic and republican forms of government which the former,
but not the latter, gratified.--Outside of the limits of the German
empire the Lutheran Reformation first took root, from A.D. 1525,
in Prussia, the seat of the Teutonic Knights (§ 127, 3); then in the
Scandinavian countries. In Sweden it gained ascendency in A.D. 1527,
and in Denmark and Norway in A.D. 1537. Also in the Baltic Provinces
the Reformation had found entrance in A.D. 1520; by A.D. 1539 it had
overcome all opposition in Livonia and Esthonia, but in Courland it
took other ten years before it was thoroughly organized. The Reformed
church got almost exclusive possession of England in A.D. 1562,
of Scotland in A.D. 1560, and of the Netherlands in A.D. 1579. The
Reformed Confession obtained mere toleration in France in A.D. 1598;
the Reformed alongside of the Lutheran gained a footing in Poland
in A.D. 1573, in Bohemia and Moravia in A.D. 1609, in Hungary in
A.D. 1606, and in Transylvania in A.D. 1557. Only in Spain and Italy
did the Catholic Church succeed in utterly crushing the Reformation.
Some attempts to interest the Greek church in the Lutheran Confession
were unsuccessful, but the remnants of the Waldensians were completely
won over to the Reformed Confession.

  § 139.1. =Sweden.=--For fifty years Sweden had been free from
  the Danish yoke which had been imposed upon it by the Calmar
  union of A.D. 1397. The higher clergy, who possessed two-thirds
  of the land, had continuously conspired in favour of Denmark.
  The Archbishop of Upsala, Gustavus Trolle, fell out with the
  chancellor, Sten Sture, and was deposed. Pope Leo X. pronounced
  the ban and interdict against Sweden. Christian II. of Denmark
  conquered the country in A.D. 1520, and in the frightful
  massacre of Stockholm during the coronation festivities, in
  spite of his sworn assurances, 600 of the noblest in the land,
  marked out by the archbishop as enemies of Denmark, were slain.
  But scarcely had Christian reached home when =Gustavus Vasa=
  landed from Lübeck, whither he had fled, drove out the Danes,
  and was elected king, A.D. 1523. In his exile he had become
  favourably inclined to the Reformation, and now he joined the
  Protestants to have their help against the opposing clergy.
  =Olaf Peterson=, who had studied from A.D. 1516 in Wittenberg,
  soon after his return home, in A.D. 1519, began as deacon
  in Strengnæs, along with =Lawrence Anderson=, afterwards
  administrator of the diocese of Strengnæs, to spread the
  reformed doctrines. Subsequently they were joined by Olaf’s
  younger brother, =Laurence Peterson=. During the king’s absence
  in A.D. 1524, two Anabaptists visited Stockholm, and even the
  calm-minded Olaf was for a time carried away by them. The king
  quickly suppressed the disturbances, and entered heartily upon
  the work of reformation. Anderson, appointed chancellor by Vasa,
  in A.D. 1526 translated the N.T., and Olaf with the help of
  his learned brother undertook the O.T. The people, however,
  still clung to the old faith, till at the Diet of =Westnæs=,
  in A.D. 1527, the king set before them the alternative of
  accepting his resignation or the Reformation. The people’s love
  for their king overcame all clerical opposition. Church property
  was used to supply revenues to kings and nobles, and to provide
  salaries for pastors who should preach the gospel in its purity.
  The Reformation was peacefully introduced into all parts of
  the land, and the diets at Örebro, in A.D. 1529, 1537, and
  at Westnæs, in A.D. 1544, carried out the work to completion.
  The new organization adopted the episcopal constitution, and
  also in worship, by connivance of the people, many Catholic
  ceremonies were allowed to remain. Most of the bishops accepted
  the inevitable. The Archbishop Magnus of Upsala, papal legate,
  went to Poland, and Bishop Brask of Linköping fled with all the
  treasures of his church to Danzig. Laurence Peterson was made
  in A.D. 1531 first evangelical Archbishop of Upsala, and married
  a relative of the royal house. But his brother Olaf fell into
  disfavour on account of his protest against the king’s real or
  supposed acts of rapacity. He and Anderson, because they had
  failed to report a conspiracy which came to their knowledge in
  the confessional, were condemned to death, but were pardoned
  by the king. Gustavus died in A.D. 1560. Under his son Eric
  a Catholic reaction set in, and his brother John III., in
  A.D. 1578, made secret confession of Catholicism to the Jesuit
  Possevin, urged thereto by his Catholic queen and the prospect
  of the Polish throne. John’s son Sigismund, also king of
  Poland, openly joined the Romish Church. But his uncle Charles
  of Sodermanland, a zealous Protestant, as governor after John’s
  death, called together the nobles at Upsala in A.D. 1593, when
  the Latin mass-book introduced by John was forbidden, and the
  acknowledgment of the Augsburg Confession was renewed. But as
  Sigismund continued to favour Catholicism, the peers of the
  realm declared, in A.D. 1604, that he had forfeited the throne,
  which his uncle now ascended as Charles IX.--The Reformation
  had been already carried from Sweden into =Finland=.[374]

  § 139.2. =Denmark and Norway.=--=Christian II.=, nephew of the
  Elector of Saxony and brother-in-law of the Emperor Charles V.,
  although he had associated himself with the Romish hierarchy in
  Sweden for the overthrow of the national party, had in Denmark
  taken the side of the Reformation against the clergy, who were
  there supreme. In A.D. 1521 he succeeded in getting Carlstadt
  to come to his assistance, but he was soon forced to quit the
  country. In A.D. 1523 the clergy and nobles formally renounced
  their allegiance, and gave the crown to his uncle =Frederick I.=,
  Duke of Schleswig and Holstein. Christian fled to Saxony,
  was there completely won over to the Reformation by Luther,
  converted also his wife, the emperor’s sister, and had the
  first Danish N.T., by Hans Michelson, printed at Leipzig and
  circulated in Denmark. To secure the emperor’s aid, however,
  he abjured the evangelical faith at Augsburg in A.D. 1530.
  In the following year he conquered Norway, and bound himself
  on his coronation to maintain the Catholic religion. But in
  A.D. 1532 he was obliged to surrender to Frederick, and spent
  the remaining twenty-seven years of his life in prison, where
  he repented his apostasy, and had the opportunity of instructing
  himself by the study of the Danish Bible.--Frederick I. had
  been previously favourable to the Reformation, yet his hands
  were bound by the express terms of his election. His son
  Christian III. unreservedly introduced the Reformation into
  his duchies. In this he was encouraged by his father. In
  A.D. 1526 he openly professed the evangelical faith, and
  invited the Danish reformer =Hans Tausen=, a disciple of
  Luther, who had preached the gospel amid much persecution
  since A.D. 1524, to settle as preacher in Copenhagen. At a
  diet at Odensee [Odense] in A.D. 1527 he restricted episcopal
  jurisdiction, proclaimed universal religious toleration, gave
  priests liberty to marry and to leave their cloisters, and thus
  laid the foundations of the Reformation. Tausen in A.D. 1530
  submitted to the nobles his own confession, _Confessio Hafinca_,
  and the Reformation rapidly advanced. Frederick died in A.D. 1533.
  The bishops now rose in a body, and insisted that the estates
  should refuse to acknowledge his son =Christian III.= But when
  the burgomaster of Lübeck, taking advantage of the anarchy,
  plotted to subject Denmark to the proud commercial city, and
  in A.D. 1534 actually laid siege to Copenhagen, the Jutland
  nobles hastened to swear fealty to Christian. He drove out the
  Lübeckers, and by A.D. 1536 had possession of the whole land.
  He resolved now to put an end for ever to the machinations of
  the clergy. In August, A.D. 1536, he had all bishops imprisoned
  in one day, and at a diet at Copenhagen had them formally
  deposed. Their property fell into the royal exchequer, all
  monasteries were secularized, some presented to the nobles,
  some converted into hospitals and schools. In order to complete
  the organization of the church Bugenhagen was called in in
  A.D. 1537. He crowned the king and queen, sketched a directory
  of worship, which was adopted at the =Diet of Odensee [Odense]=
  in A.D. 1539, and returned to Wittenberg in A.D. 1542. In place
  of bishops Lutheran superintendents were appointed, to whom
  subsequently the title of bishop was given, and the Augsburg
  Confession accepted as the standard. The Reformation was
  contemporaneously introduced into =Norway=, which acknowledged
  the king in A.D. 1536. The Archbishop of Drontheim, Olaf
  Engelbrechtzen, fled with the church treasures to the Netherlands.
  =Iceland= stood out longer, but yielded in A.D. 1551, when the
  power of the rebel bishops was broken.[375]

  § 139.3. =Courland, Livonia, and Esthonia.=--Livonia had
  seceded from the dominion of the Teutonic knights in A.D. 1521,
  and under the grand-master Walter of Plattenburg assumed the
  position of an independent principality. In that same year a
  Lutheran archdeacon, =Andr. Knöpken=, expelled from Pomerania,
  came to Riga, and preached the gospel with moderation. Soon
  after Tegetmaier came from Rostock, and so vigorously denounced
  image worship that excited mobs entered the churches and tore
  down the images; yet he was protected by the council and the
  grand-master. The third reformer =Briesmann= was the immediate
  scholar of Luther. The able town clerk of Riga, Lohmüller,
  heartily wrought with them, and the Reformation spread through
  city and country. At Wolmar and Dorpat, in A.D. 1524, the work
  was carried on by Melchior Hoffmann, whose Lutheranism was
  seriously tinged with Anabaptist extravagances (§ 147, 1).
  The diocese of Oesel adopted the reformed doctrines, and at
  the same time a Lutheran church was formed in Reval. After
  strong opposition had been offered, at last, in A.D. 1538,
  Riga accepted the evangelical confession, joined the Schmalcald
  League, and in a short time all Livonia and Esthonia accepted
  the Augsburg Confession. Political troubles, occasioned
  mainly by Russia, obliged the last grand-master, =Kettler=,
  in A.D. 1561 to surrender Livonia to Sigismund Augustus of
  Poland, but with the formal assurance that the rights of the
  evangelicals should be preserved. He himself retained Courland
  as an hereditary duchy under the suzerainty of Poland, and
  gave himself unweariedly to the evangelical organization of
  his country, powerfully assisted by Bülau, first superintendent
  of Courland.--The Lutheran church of Livonia had in consequence
  to pass through severe trials. Under Polish protection a Jesuit
  college was established in Riga in A.D. 1584. Two city churches
  had to be given over to the Catholics, and Possevin conducted
  an active Catholic propaganda, which was ended only when Livonia,
  in A.D. 1629, as also Esthonia somewhat earlier, came under the
  rule of Sweden. In consequence of the Norse war both countries
  were incorporated into the Russian empire, and by the Peace
  of Nystadt, of A.D. 1721, its Lutheran church retained all its
  privileges, on condition that it did not interfere in any way
  with the Greek Orthodox Church in the province. In A.D. 1795
  Courland also came under Russian sway, and all these are now
  known as the Baltic Provinces.

  § 139.4. =England.=[376]--=Henry VIII.=, A.D. 1509-1547, after
  the literary feud with Luther (§ 125, 3), sought to justify his
  title, “Defender of the Faith,” by the use of sword and gibbet.
  Luther’s writings were eagerly read in England, where in many
  circles Wiclif’s movements were regarded with favour, and two
  noble Englishmen, John Fryth and William Tyndal, gave to their
  native land a translation of the N.T. in A.D. 1526. Fryth was
  rewarded with the stake in A.D. 1533, and Tyndal was beheaded
  in the Netherlands in A.D. 1535.[377] But meanwhile the king
  quarrelled with the pope. On assuming the government he had
  married Catharine of Arragon, daughter of Ferdinand the Catholic
  and Isabella, six years older than himself, the widow of his
  brother Arthur, who had died in his 16th year, for which he
  got a papal dispensation on the ground that the former marriage
  had not been consummated. His adulterous love for Anne Boleyn,
  the fair maid of honour to his queen, and Cranmer’s biblical
  opinion (Lev. xviii. 16; xx. 21) convinced him in A.D. 1527
  of the sinfulness of his uncanonical marriage. Clement VII.,
  at first not indisposed to grant his request for a divorce,
  refused after he had been reconciled to the emperor, Catharine’s
  nephew (§ 132, 2). Thoroughly roused, the king now threw off
  the authority of the pope. Convocation was forced to recognise
  him in A.D. 1531 as head of the English Church, and in 1532
  Parliament forbade the paying of annats to the pope. In
  the same year Henry married Anne, and had a formal divorce
  from Catharine granted by a spiritual court. Parliament in
  A.D. 1534 formally abolished papal jurisdiction in the land,
  and transferred all ecclesiastical rights and revenues to the
  king. The venerable Bishop Fisher of Rochester and the resolute
  chancellor, Sir Thomas More (§ 120, 7), in A.D. 1535 paid the
  price of their opposition on the scaffold. Now came the long
  threatened ban. Under pretext of a highly necessary reform no
  less than 376 monasteries were closed during the years 1536-1538,
  their occupiers, monks and nuns, expelled, and their rich
  property confiscated.[378] Nevertheless in doctrine the king
  wished to remain a good Catholic, and for this end passed in
  the Parliament of A.D. 1539 the law of the Six Articles, which
  made any contradiction of the doctrines of transubstantiation,
  the withholding of the cup, celibacy of the clergy, the mass,
  and auricular confession, a capital offence. Persecution raged
  equally against Lutherans and Papists, sometimes more against
  the one, sometimes more against the other, according as he
  was moved by his own caprice, or the influence of his wives
  and favourites of the day. On the one side, at the head of
  the Papists, stood Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and Bonner,
  Bishop of London; and on the other, Thomas Cranmer, whom the
  king had raised in A.D. 1533 to the see of Canterbury, in order
  to carry out his reforms in the ecclesiastical constitution.
  But Cranmer, who as the king’s agent in the divorce negotiations
  had often treated with foreign Protestant theologians, and at
  Nuremberg had secretly married Osiander’s niece, was in heart
  a zealous adherent of the Swiss Reformation, and furthered as
  far as he could with safety its introduction into England. Among
  other things, he secured the introduction in A.D. 1539, into
  all the churches of England, of an English translation of the
  Bible, revised by himself. He was supported in his efforts by
  the king’s second wife, Anne Boleyn; but she, having fallen
  under suspicion of unfaithfulness, was executed in A.D. 1536.
  The third wife, Jane Seymour, died in A.D. 1537 on the death
  of a son. The fourth, Anne of Cleves, was after six months, in
  A.D. 1540, cast aside, and the promoter of the marriage, the
  chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, was brought to the scaffold. The
  king now in the same year married Catharine Howard, with whom
  the Catholic party got to the helm again, and had the Act of
  the Six Articles rigorously enforced. But she, too, in A.D. 1543,
  was charged with repeated adulteries, and fell, together with
  her friends and those reputed as guilty with her, under the
  executioner’s axe. The sixth wife, Catharine Parr, who again
  favoured the Protestants, escaped a like fate by the death of
  the tyrant.[379]

  § 139.5. =Edward VI.=, A.D. 1547-1553, son of Henry VIII. and
  Jane Seymour, succeeded his father in his tenth year. At the
  head of the regency stood his mother’s brother, the Duke of
  Somerset. =Cranmer= had now a free hand. Private masses and
  image worship were forbidden, the supper was administered in
  both kinds, marriage of priests was made legitimate, and a
  general church visitation appointed for the introduction of
  the Reformation. Gardiner and Bonner, who opposed these changes,
  were sent to the Tower. Somerset corresponded with Calvin, and
  invited at Cranmer’s request distinguished foreign theologians
  to help in the visitation of the churches. Martin Bucer and Paul
  Fagius from Strassburg came to Cambridge, and Peter Martyr to
  Oxford.[380] Bernardino Ochino was preacher to a congregation
  of Italian refugees in London. A commission under Cranmer’s
  presidency drew up for reading in the churches a collection
  of _Homilies_, for the instruction of the young a _Catechism_,
  and for the service a liturgy mediate between the Catholic
  and Protestant form, the so-called _Book of Common Prayer_
  of A.D. 1549; but from the second edition of which were left
  out chrism and exorcism, auricular confession, anointing the
  sick, and prayer for the dead. Then followed, in A.D. 1553,
  a confession of faith, consisting of forty-two articles,
  drawn up by Cranmer and Bishop Ridley of Rochester, which
  was distinctly of the reformed type, and set forward the
  ecclesiastical supremacy of the king as an article of faith.
  The young king, who supported the Reformation with all his heart,
  died in A.D. 1553, after nominating as his successor Jane Grey,
  the grand-daughter of a sister of his father. Not she, however,
  but a fanatical Catholic, =Mary=, A.D. 1553-1558, daughter of
  Henry VIII. and Catharine of Spain, actually ascended the throne.
  The compliant Parliament now abrogated all the ecclesiastical
  laws of Edward VI., which it had itself sanctioned, reverted
  to Henry’s law of the Six Articles, and entrusted Gardiner
  as chancellor with its execution. The Protestant leaders
  were thrown into the Tower, the bones of Bucer and Fagius
  were publicly burnt, married priests with wives and children
  were driven in thousands from the land. In the following
  year, A.D. 1554, Cardinal Reginald Pole, who had fled during
  Henry’s reign, returned as papal legate, absolved the repentant
  Parliament, and received all England back again into the fold
  of the Romish church.[381] The noble and innocent Lady Jane
  Grey, only in her sixteenth year, though she had voluntarily
  and cheerfully resigned the crown, was put to death with her
  husband and father. In the course of the next year, A.D. 1555,
  Bishops Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar, and Hooper with noble constancy
  endured death at the stake.[382] In prison, Cranmer had renounced
  his evangelical faith, but abundantly atoned for this weakness
  by the heroic firmness with which he retracted his retractation,
  and held the hand which had subscribed it in the flames, that
  it might be first consumed. He suffered in A.D. 1556.--The
  queen had married in A.D. 1554 Philip II. of Spain, eleven
  years her junior, and when in A.D. 1555 he returned to Spain,
  she fell into deep melancholy, and under its pressure her
  hatred of Protestantism was shown in the most bloody and
  cruel deeds. A heretic tribunal, after the fashion of the
  Spanish Inquisition, was created, which under the presidency
  of the “Bloody Bonner,” consigned to the flames crowds of
  confessors of the gospel, clergymen and laymen, men and women,
  old and young. After the persecution had raged for five years,
  “Bloody Mary” died of heart-break and dropsy.[383]

  § 139.6. =Elizabeth=, A.D. 1558-1603, the daughter of Anne
  Boleyn, though previously branded by the Parliament as a bastard,
  now ascended the throne unopposed as the last living member
  of the family of Henry VIII. Educated under the supervision
  of Cranmer in the Protestant faith of her mother, she had been
  obliged during the reign of her sister outwardly to conform
  to the Romish church. She proceeded with great prudence and
  moderation; but when Paul IV. pronounced her illegitimate, and
  the Scottish princess Mary Stuart, grand-daughter of Henry’s
  sister, assumed the title of queen of England, Elizabeth more
  heartily espoused the cause of Protestantism. In A.D. 1559 the
  Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity, which reasserted the
  royal supremacy over the national church, prescribed a revision
  of the _Book of Common Prayer_, which set aside the prayer
  for deliverance from the “detestable enormities” of the papacy,
  etc., and practically reproduced the earlier, less perfect
  of the Prayer Books of Edward VI., while every perversion to
  papacy was threatened with confiscation of goods, imprisonment,
  banishment, and in cases of repetition with death, as an
  act of treason. At the head of the clergy was Matthew Parker,
  consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by some bishops exiled
  under Mary. He had formerly been chaplain to Anne Boleyn.
  Under his direction Cranmer’s forty-two articles were reduced
  to thirty-nine, giving a type of doctrine midway between
  Lutheranism and Calvinism; these were confirmed by convocation
  in A.D. 1562, and were adopted as a fundamental statute
  of England by Act of Parliament in A.D. 1571. This brings
  to a close the first stage in the history of the English
  Reformation,--the setting up by law of the Anglican State
  Church with episcopal constitution, with apostolical succession,
  under royal supremacy, as the Established Church.[384] (For the
  Puritan opposition to it see § 143, 3.) The somewhat indulgent
  manner in which the Act of Uniformity was at first enforced
  against the Catholics encouraged them more and more in attempts
  to secure a restoration. Even in A.D. 1568 William Allen founded
  at Douay a seminary to train Catholic Englishmen for a mission
  at home, and Gregory XIII. some years later, for a similar
  purpose, founded in Rome the “English College.” His predecessor,
  Pius V., had in A.D. 1570 deposed and issued the ban against
  the queen, and threatened all with the greater excommunication
  who should yield her obedience. Parliament now punished every
  withdrawal from the State church as high treason. Day and night
  houses were searched, and suspected persons inquisitorially
  examined by torture, and if found guilty they were not
  infrequently put to death as traitors.[385]--Continuation,
  §§ 153, 6; 154, 3.

  § 139.7. =Ireland.=--Hadrian IV., himself an Englishman
  (§ 96, 14), on the plea that the donation of Constantine
  (§ 87, 4) embraced also the “islands,” gave over Ireland
  to King Henry II. as a papal fief in A.D. 1154. Yet the king
  only managed to conquer the eastern border, the _Pale_, during
  the years 1171-1175. Henry VIII. introduced the Reformation
  into this province in A.D. 1535, by the help of his Archbishop
  of Dublin, George Brown. The ecclesiastical supremacy of the
  Crown was proclaimed, monasteries closed and their property
  impropriated, partly divided among Irish and English peers.
  But in matters of faith there was little change. More opposition
  was shown to the sweeping reformation of faith and worship
  of Edward VI. The bishops, Brown included, resisted, and
  the inferior clergy, who now were required to read the
  Book of Common Prayer in a language to most of them strange,
  diligently fostered the popular attachment to the old faith.
  The ascension of Queen Mary therefore was welcomed in Ireland,
  while Elizabeth’s attempt to reintroduce the Reformation met
  with opposition. Repeated outbreaks, in which also the people
  of the western districts took part, ended in A.D. 1601 in
  the complete subjugation of the whole island. By wholesale
  confiscation of estates the entire nobility was impoverished
  and the church property was made over to the Anglican clergy;
  but the masses of the Irish people continued Catholic, and
  willingly supported their priests out of their own scanty
  resources.[386]--Continuation, § 153, 6.

  § 139.8. =Scotland.=--Patrick Hamilton, who had studied
  in Wittenberg and Marburg, first preached the gospel in
  Scotland, and died at the stake in his twenty-fourth year
  in A.D. 1528.[387] Amid the political confusions of the regency
  during the minority of James V., A.D. 1513-1542, a sister’s son
  of Henry VIII. of England, the Reformation obtained firm root
  among the nobles, who hated the clergy, and among the oppressed
  people, notwithstanding that the bishops, with David Beaton,
  Archbishop of St. Andrew’s at their head, sought to crush it
  by the most violent persecution. When Henry VIII. called on his
  nephew to assist him in his Reformation work, James refused, and
  yielding to Beaton’s advice formed an alliance with France and
  married Mary of Guise. This occasioned a war in A.D. 1540, the
  disastrous issue of which led to the king’s death of a broken
  heart. According to the king’s will Beaton was to undertake the
  regency, for Mary Stuart was only seven days old. But the nobles
  transferred it to the Protestant Earl of Arran, who imprisoned
  Beaton and had the royal child affianced to Henry’s son Edward.
  Beaton escaped, by connivance of the queen-mother got possession
  of the child, and compelled the weak regent, in A.D. 1543, to
  abjure the English alliance. The persecution of the Protestants
  by fire and sword now began afresh. After many others had fallen
  victims to his persecuting rage, Beaton had a famous Protestant
  preacher, George Wishart, burnt before his eyes; but was soon
  after, in A.D. 1546, surprised in his castle and slain. When
  in A.D. 1548 Somerset, the English regent after Henry’s death,
  sought to renew negotiations about the marriage of Mary, now
  five years old, with Edward VI., her mother had her taken
  for safety to France, where she was educated in a convent and
  affianced to the dauphin, afterwards Francis II. By hypocritical
  acts she contrived to have the regency transferred in A.D. 1554
  from Arran to herself. For two years the Reformation progressed
  without much opposition. In December, A.D. 1557, its most
  devoted promoters made a “covenant,” pledging themselves
  in life and death to advance the word of God and uproot the
  idolatry of the Romish church. The queen-regent, however, after
  the marriage of her daughter with the dauphin in A.D. 1558,
  felt herself strong enough to defy the Protestant nobles. The
  old strict laws against heretics were renewed, and a tribunal
  established for the punishment of apostatizing priests. The last
  victim of the persecution was Walter Mill, a priest eighty-two
  years old, who died at the stake at Perth (?) in A.D. 1559.[388]
  The country now rose in open revolt. The regent was thus
  obliged to make proclamation of universal religious toleration.
  But instead of keeping her promise to have all French troops
  withdrawn, their number was actually increased after Francis II.
  ascended the French throne. Elizabeth, too, was indignant at
  the assumption by the French king and queen of the English
  royal title, so that she aided the insurgents with an army
  and a fleet. During the victorious progress of the English
  the regent died, in A.D. 1560. The French were obliged to
  withdraw, and the victory of the Scotch Protestants was
  decisive.

  § 139.9. There was one man, whose unbending opposition to the
  constitution, worship, doctrine, and discipline of the Church
  of Rome, manifested with a rigid determination that has scarcely
  ever been equalled, left its indelible impress upon the Scottish
  Reformation. =John Knox=, born in A.D. 1505, was by the study
  of Augustine and the Bible led to adopt evangelical views, which
  in A.D. 1542 he preached in the south of Scotland. Persecuted
  in consequence by Archbishop Beaton, he joined the conspirators
  after that prelate’s assassination, in A.D. 1546, was taken
  prisoner, and in A.D. 1547 served as slave in the French galleys.
  The ill treatment he thus endured developed his naturally
  strong and resolute character and that fearlessness which
  so characterized all his subsequent life. By English mediation
  he was set free in A.D. 1549, and became in A.D. 1551 chaplain
  to Edward VI., but took offence at the popish leaven allowed
  to remain in the English Reformation, and consequently declined
  an offered bishopric. When the Catholic Mary ascended the throne
  in A.D. 1553, he fled to Geneva, where he enjoyed the closest
  intimacy with Calvin, whose doctrine of predestination, rigid
  presbyterianism, and rigorous discipline he thoroughly approved.
  After presiding for some time over a congregation of English
  refugees at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, he returned in A.D. 1555
  to Scotland, but in the following year accepted a call to
  the church of English refugees at Geneva that had meanwhile
  been formed. The Scottish bishops, who had not ventured to
  touch him while present, condemned him to death after his
  departure, and burned him in effigy. But Knox kept up a lively
  correspondence with his native land by letters, proclamations,
  and controversial tracts, and with the help of several
  friends translated the Scriptures into English. In A.D. 1558
  he published with the title, “The First Blast of the Trumpet
  against the Monstrous Regiment of Women,” the most violent
  of all his controversial works, directed mainly against the
  English Queen Mary, who was now dead. It roused against him
  the unconquerable dislike of her successor, and increased
  the hatred of the other two Maries against him to the utmost
  pitch. Yet he accepted the call of the Protestant lords, and
  returned next year to Scotland, and was the heart and soul
  of the revolution that soon thereafter broke out. Images and
  mass-books were burnt, altars in churches broken in pieces,
  and 150 monasteries were destroyed; for said Knox, “If the
  nests be pulled down, the crows will not come back.” After
  the death of the regent in A.D. 1560, the Parliament proclaimed
  the abolition of the papacy, ratified the strictly Calvinistic
  _Confessio Scotica_, and forbade celebrating the mass on
  pain of death. Then in December, the first _General Assembly_
  prescribed, in the “First Book of Discipline,” a strictly
  presbyterial constitution under Christ as only head, with
  a rigidly puritan order of worship (§ 163, 3).

  § 139.10. In Aug., A.D. 1561, Queen =Mary Stuart=, highly
  cultured and high-spirited, returned from France to Scotland,
  a young widow in her 19th year. Brought up in a French convent
  in fanatical attachment to the Romish Church, and at the French
  court, with absolutist ideas as well as easy-going morals, the
  severe Calvinism and moral strictness of Scottish Puritanism
  were to her as distasteful as its assertion of political
  independence. At the instigation of her half-brother James
  Stuart, whom she raised to the earldom of Moray, and who was
  head of the ministry as one of the leaders of the reformed
  party, she promised on her arrival not to interfere with the
  ecclesiastical arrangements of the country, but refused to
  give royal sanction to the proceedings of A.D. 1560, held
  Catholic service in her court chapel, and on all hands favoured
  the Romanists. By her marriage, in A.D. 1565, with the young
  Catholic Lord Darnley, grandson by a second marriage of her
  grandmother Margaret of England, who now assumed the title of
  king, Moray was driven from his position, and the restoration
  of Catholicism was vigorously and openly prosecuted by
  negotiations with Spain, France, and the pope. The director
  of all those intrigues was the Italian musician David Rizzio,
  who came to the country as papal agent, and had become Mary’s
  favourite and private secretary. The rudeness and profligacy
  of the young king had soon estranged from him the heart of the
  queen. He therefore took part in a conspiracy of the Protestant
  lords, promising to go over to their faith. Their first victim
  was the hated Rizzio. He was fallen upon and slain on 9th March,
  A.D. 1566, while he sat beside the queen, already far advanced
  in pregnancy. Darnley soon repented his deed, was reconciled to
  the queen, fled with her to the Castle of Dunbar, and an army
  gathered by the Protestant Earl of Bothwell soon suppressed
  the rising. The rebels and assassins were at Mary’s entreaty
  almost all pardoned. Darnley, now living in mortal enmity with
  the heads of the Protestant nobility, and again on bad terms
  with the queen, fell sick in Dec., A.D. 1566, at Glasgow. On
  his sick-bed a reconciliation with his wife was effected, and
  apparently in order that she might the better nurse him, he was
  brought to a villa near Edinburgh. But on the night of 9th Feb.,
  A.D. 1567, while Mary was present at the marriage of a servant,
  the house with its inhabitants was blown up by an explosion
  of gunpowder. Public opinion charged Bothwell and the queen
  with contriving the horrible crime. Bothwell was tried, but
  acquitted by the lords. Suspicion increased when soon after
  Bothwell carried off the queen to his castle, and married her
  on 15th May. In the civil war that now broke out Mary was taken
  prisoner, and on 24th July obliged to abdicate in favour of her
  one-year old son James VI., for whom Mary undertook the regency.
  Bothwell fled to Denmark, where he died in misery and want;
  but Mary was allowed to escape from prison by the young George
  Douglas. He also raised on her behalf a small army, which,
  however, in May, A.D. 1568, was completely destroyed by Moray
  at the village of Langside. The unhappy queen could now only
  seek protection with her deadly enemy Elizabeth of England,
  who, after twenty years’ imprisonment, sent her to the scaffold
  in A.D. 1587, on the plea that she was guilty of murdering her
  own husband and of high treason in plotting the death of the
  English queen.--Mary’s guilt would be conclusively established,
  if a correspondence with Bothwell, said to have been found in
  her desk, should be accepted as genuine. But all her apologists,
  with apparently strong conviction, have sought to prove that
  these letters are fabrications of her enemies. The thorough
  investigation given to original documents, however, by Bresslau
  [Breslau], has resulted in recognising only the second of these
  as a forgery, and so proving, not indeed Mary’s complicity in
  the murder of her husband, but her adulterous love for Bothwell,
  and showing too that her apparent reconciliation with Darnley
  on his sick-bed was only hypocritical.[389]

  § 139.11. The young queen had at first sought to win by her
  fair speeches the bold and influential reformer =John Knox=,
  who was then preacher in Edinburgh. But his heart was cased
  in sevenfold armour against all her flatteries, as afterwards
  against her threats; even her tears found him as stern and
  cold as her wrath. When he called an assembly of nobles to put
  a stop to the Catholic worship introduced by her at court, he
  was charged with high treason, but acquitted by the lords. The
  marriage with Darnley and all that followed from this unhappy
  union only increased his boldness. He publicly preached without
  reserve against the papacy and the light carriage of the
  queen, on the outbreak of the civil war urged her deposition,
  and demanded her execution for adultery and the murder of her
  husband. The assassination of Regent Moray in A.D. 1570 threw
  the country into further confusion, which was only overcome
  by his third successor, Morton. The fugitive Knox now returned
  to Edinburgh, and soon after died, on 24th Nov., A.D. 1572.
  Of his extant writings the most important is his “History
  of the Reformation,” reaching down to A.D. 1567. Morton’s
  vigorous government completely destroyed Mary’s party, but
  also restricted the pretensions of Presbyterianism. After
  his overthrow in A.D. 1578, =James VI.=, now in his 12th year,
  himself undertook the government at the head of a council
  of state. His weakness of character showed itself in his
  vacillating between an alliance with Catholic Spain and one
  with Protestant England, as well as between secret favouring
  of Catholicism and open endeavouring to supersede puritan
  Presbyterianism by Anglican-Protestant episcopacy. In A.D. 1584
  the parliament, enlarged by the introduction of the lower
  orders of the nobility, so defined the royal supremacy as to
  deprive the Presbyterian church of several of her rights and
  privileges. But in A.D. 1592 the king was obliged absolutely
  to restore these. After Elizabeth’s death in A.D. 1603, as the
  great-grandson of Henry VII., he united the kingdoms of England
  and Scotland under the title of James I.[390]--Continuation,
  § 153, 6.

  § 139.12. =The Netherlands.=--By the marriage of Mary of
  Burgundy, the heiress of Charles the Bald, with Maximilian I.,
  in A.D. 1478, the Netherlands passed over to the house of
  Hapsburg, and after Maximilian’s death, in A.D. 1519, went
  to his grandson Charles V. Even in the previous period the
  ground was broken in these regions for the introduction of
  the Reformation of the 16th century by means of the Brothers
  of the Common Life (§ 112, 9) and the Dutch precursors of
  the Reformation (§ 119, 10), working as they did among an
  intrepid and liberty loving people. The writings of Luther
  were introduced at a very early date into Holland, and the
  first martyrs from the Lutheran Confession (§ 128, 1) were
  led to the stake at Antwerp, in A.D. 1523. The alliance
  with France and Switzerland, however, was the occasion of
  subsequently securing the triumph of the Reformed Confession
  (see § 160, 1). But fanatical Anabaptists soon followed in the
  wake of the reform movement, and sent forth their emissaries
  into Germany and Switzerland. As the emperor had here an
  authority as absolute as his heart could desire, he proceeded
  to execute unrelentingly the edict of Worms, and multitudes of
  witnesses for the gospel as well as fanatical sectaries were put
  to death by the sword and at the stake. Still more dreadful was
  the havoc committed by the Inquisition after Charles’ abdication,
  in A.D. 1555, under his son and successor =Philip II.= of Spain,
  which had for its aim the overthrow alike of ecclesiastical and
  political liberty. In order the more successfully to withstand
  the Reformation, the four original bishoprics were increased by
  the addition of fourteen new bishoprics, and three were raised
  into archbishoprics, Utrecht, Mechlin, and Cambray. But even
  these measures failed in securing the end desired, because the
  Dutch, even those who hitherto had remained faithful to the
  Romish Church, saw in them simply an instrument for advancing
  Spanish despotism.--In A.D. 1523 Luther’s translation of the N.T.
  had already been rendered into Dutch and printed at Amsterdam.
  In A.D. 1545 Jacob van Liesfield translated the whole Bible, and
  was for this sent to the scaffold in A.D. 1545. A Calvinistic
  symbol was set forth in A.D. 1562 in the Belgic Confession. The
  league formed by the nobles, in A.D. 1566, to offer resistance
  to the tyranny of the Spaniards, to which their oppressors gave
  the contemptuous designation of the Beggars--a name which they
  themselves adopted as a title of honour--increased in strength
  and importance from day to day, and the people, thirsting for
  revenge, tore down churches, images, and altars. The prudent
  regent, however, =Margaret of Parma=, Philip’s half-sister,
  would have been more successful in preventing an outburst of
  rebellion by her conciliatory manœuvres, had her brother given
  her greater freedom of action. Instead of doing so he sent
  to her aid, in A.D. 1587, the terrible =Duke of Alva=, with
  a standing army of 10,000 Spaniards. The “Bloody Council”
  instituted by him for stamping out the revolt now began its
  horrible proceedings, sending thousands upon thousands to
  the rack and the scaffold. The regent, protesting against
  such acts, demanded her recall, and Alva was put in her place.
  The bloody tribunal moved now from city to city; all the
  leading throughfares were covered with victims hanging from
  gibbets, and when Alva at last, in A.D. 1573, was at his own
  request recalled, he could boast of having carried out in six
  years 18,600 executions. Meanwhile the great =Prince of Orange,
  William the Silent=, formerly royal governor of the Dutch
  Provinces, but since A.D. 1568 a fugitive under the ban, had
  now openly signified his adhesion to Protestantism, and in 1572
  placed himself at the head of the revolt. After gaining several
  victories by land and by sea, he succeeded, in the so called
  _Pacification of Ghent_, of A.D. 1576, in uniting almost all
  the provinces, Protestant and Catholic, under a resolution to
  exercise toleration to one another and show resistance to the
  common foe. The new governor, Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma,
  managed indeed to detach the southern Catholic provinces from
  the league, but all the more closely did the seven northern
  provinces bind themselves together in the Union of Utrecht of
  A.D. 1579, promising to fight to the end for their religious
  and political liberty. William’s truest friend, counsellor,
  and director of his political actions, since the formation
  of the league of A.D. 1566, was =Philip van Marnix=, Count
  of St. Aldegonde. He had drawn up the articles of the league,
  and was equally celebrated as a statesman and soldier, and as
  theologian, satirist, orator, and poet. He was pre-eminently
  an ardent patriot, and an enthusiastic adherent of Calvin’s
  Reformation. He had been himself a pupil of the great Genevan.
  Besides a spirited material version of the Psalter, his chief
  satirico-theological work was “The Beehive of the Holy Roman
  Church,” written in the Flemish dialect.--After William’s
  assassination by the hand of a Catholic, in A.D. 1584, he
  was succeeded by his son =Maurice=, who after long years of
  bloody conflict succeeded, in A.D. 1609, in completely freeing
  his country from the Spanish yoke.[391]

  § 139.13. =France.=--The Reformation in France had its beginning
  from Wittenberg, but subsequently the Genevan reformers obtained
  a dominating influence. Even in A.D. 1521, the Sorbonne issued
  a _Determinatio super doctr. Luth._, pronouncing Luther’s
  teaching and writings heretical, which Melanchthon in the
  same year answered with unusual vigour in his _Apologia adv.
  furiosum Parisiensium theologastrorum decretum_. Everything
  depended upon the attitude which the young king =Francis I.=,
  A.D. 1515-1547, might assume in reference to the various
  religious parties. His love of humanist studies, now flourishing
  in France, whose zealous promoter and protector he was against
  the attacks of the scholastic Sorbonne (§ 120, 8), as well as
  the traditional policy of his family in ecclesiastical matters
  since the time of St. Louis (§ 96, 21), seemed to favour the
  hope that he would not prove altogether hostile to the ideas
  of the Reformation. But even as early as A.D. 1516 he had,
  in his concordat with the pope (§ 110, 14), surrendered the
  acquisitions of the Basel Council by the revocation of the
  Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., and in this way, by the
  right given him to nominate all the bishops and abbots, he
  obtained a power over all the clergy of his realm which was
  too much in accordance with his dynastic ideas to allow of
  his sacrificing it in favour of the Lutheran autonomy in the
  management of the church, let alone the yet more radical demands
  of the Calvinistic constitution. Even in his antagonism to the
  emperor (§§ 126, 5, 6; 133, 7), which led him to befriend in
  a very decided manner the German Protestants, his interests
  crossed one another, inasmuch as he required to retain the
  goodwill of the pope. Suppression of Protestantism in his own
  land and the fostering of it in Germany were thus the aims of
  his crooked policy. He did indeed for a time entertain the idea
  of introducing a moderate Reformation into France after the
  Erasmian model, in order to secure closer attachment to and
  union with German Protestantism. He entered into negotiations
  with Philip the Magnanimous, and had Melanchthon invited in
  A.D. 1535 to attend a conference on these matters in France.
  Melanchthon was not indisposed to go, but was interdicted
  by his prince the elector, who feared lest he might make
  too great concessions. And just about this time fanatically
  violent pamphlets and placards were published, which were even
  thrown into the royal apartments, and thus the anger of the king
  was roused to the utmost pitch. The persecutions, which, from
  A.D. 1524, had already brought many isolated witnesses to the
  scaffold and the stake, now assumed a systematic and general
  character. In A.D. 1535, an Inquisition tribunal was set up,
  with members nominated by the pope, and as supplementary thereto
  there was instituted in the Parliament of Paris the so-called
  _chambre ardente_: the former drew up the process against
  the heretics, the latter pronounced and executed the sentence.
  Thousands of heroic confessors died under torture, on the
  gallows, by sword, or by fire. Under =Henry II.=, A.D. 1547-1559,
  who continued his father’s crooked policy, the _chambre ardente_
  became more and more active, and the cruelty of the persecution
  increased. Among the sworn foes of the Reformation, Diana
  of Poitiers, an old love of his father’s, had for a time the
  greatest influence over the king. He raised her to the rank
  of duchess. With diabolic satisfaction she gloated upon the
  spectacle of _autos-de-fé_ carried out at her request, and
  enriched herself with the confiscated goods of the victims.
  Side by side with her, inspired by a like hate of Protestantism,
  stood the great marshal and all-powerful minister of state,
  the Constable Montmorency. These two were further backed up
  by all the influence of the powerful ducal family of the Guises,
  a branch of a Lorraine house naturalized in France, consisting
  of six brothers, at their head the two eldest, the Cardinal
  Charles of Lorraine, Archbishop of Rheims, who died in A.D. 1574,
  and Francis, the conqueror of Calais. The least influential in
  the league at that time was the queen, Catharine de Medici.

  § 139.14. In spite of all persecutions, the Reformed church
  made rapid progress, especially in the southern districts. Its
  adherents came to be known by the name of =Huguenots=, meaning
  originally Leaguers, Covenanters, on account of their connection
  with Geneva. A popular etymology of the word derives it from the
  nightly assemblies in a locality haunted by the spirit of King
  Hugo. Calvin and Beza, as sons of France, assisted the young
  church with counsel and help. But even within the bounds of
  the kingdom it had very important political supporters. Certain
  members of the house of Bourbon, a powerful branch of the royal
  family, Anton, who married the brilliant heiress of Navarre,
  Jeanne d’Albret, and his brother Louis de Condé, had attached
  themselves to the Protestant cause. Also other distinguished
  personages, _e.g._ the noble Admiral Gaspard de Coligny,
  a nephew of Montmorency, and several prominent members of
  Parliament, were enthusiastically devoted to Protestantism,
  and, withdrawing from the frivolous and licentious court,
  gave to the profession of the reformed faith a wide reputation
  for strict morality and deep piety. The first general synod of
  the reformed church was held in Paris from 25th to 28th May,
  A.D. 1559. It adopted a Calvinistic symbol, the _Confessio
  Gallicana_, and, as a directory for the constitution and
  discipline of the church, forty articles, also inspired by
  the spirit of Calvin.--Henry II. was followed in succession
  by his three sons, Francis, Charles, and Henry, all of whom
  died without issue. Under =Francis II.=, A.D. 1559, 1560,
  who ascended the throne in his sixteenth year, the two Guises,
  the uncles of his queen Mary Stuart, held unlimited sway and
  gave abundance of work to the _chambre ardente_. A conspiracy
  directed against them in A.D. 1560 led to the execution of
  1,200 persons implicated in it. Even the two Bourbons were
  cast into prison, and the younger condemned to death. The king’s
  early death, however, prevented the execution of the sentence.
  The queen-mother, Catharine de Medici, now succeeded in breaking
  off the yoke of the Guises and securing to herself the regency
  during the minority of her son =Charles IX.=, A.D. 1560-1574.
  But the attempts of the Guises to undermine her authority
  obliged her to seek supporters meanwhile among the Protestants.
  Coligny was able in A.D. 1560 to demand religious toleration
  of the imperial Parliament, and succeeded at last so far that
  in A.D. 1561 an edict was issued abolishing capital punishment
  for heresy. In order to bring about wherever that was possible
  an understanding between the two great religious parties, a
  five weeks’ religious conference was held in September of that
  same year in the Abbey of Poissy, near Paris, to which on the
  evangelical side Beza from Geneva and Peter Martyr from Zürich,
  besides many other theologians, were invited. On the Catholic
  side, the Cardinal of Lorraine represented the doctrine of
  his church, and subsequently also the general of the Jesuits,
  Lainez. The proceedings, in which Beza’s learning, eloquence,
  and praiseworthy courtesy toward his opponents had great weight,
  were concentrated on the doctrines of the Church and the Lord’s
  Supper, but yielded no result. In order that they might be able
  to inflame the Lutherans and the Reformed against one another,
  the Catholics endeavoured to bring forward supporters of the
  Augsburg Confession into the discussions on those points. Five
  German theologians were actually brought forward, among them
  Jac. Andreä of Württemberg, but too late to take part in the
  conference. On 17th January, A.D. 1562, the regent issued an
  edict, by which the Protestants were allowed to hold religious
  services outside of the towns, and also to have meetings of
  synod under the supervision of royal commissioners.

  § 139.15. The rage of the Guises and their fanatical party
  at this edict knew no bounds. Francis of Guise swore to cut
  it up with his sword, and on 1st March, A.D. 1562, at Passy
  in Champagne, he fell upon the Huguenots assembled there for
  worship in a barn, and slew them almost to a man. At Cahors,
  a Huguenot place of worship was surrounded by a Catholic mob
  and set on fire. None of those gathered together there survived,
  for those who escaped the flames were waylaid and murdered. At
  Toulouse, the oppressed Protestants, with wives and children,
  to the number of 4,000, had betaken themselves to the capitol.
  They were promised a free outlet, and were then slaughtered,
  because no one, it was said, should keep his word with a heretic
  (§ 200, 3). Louis Condé summoned his fellow Protestants to take
  up arms in their own defence against such atrocities, entrenched
  himself in Orleans, and obtained, by the help of the Landgrave
  Philip of Hesse, German auxiliaries. The Guises, on the other
  hand, won over to their side the king and his mother. And now
  the strict legitimist Coligny placed himself at the head of
  the Huguenot movement. The battle of Dreux in Dec., A.D. 1562,
  resulted unfavourably to the Protestants, but during the siege
  of Orleans Francis of Guise was assassinated by a Huguenot
  nobleman. The regent now, in the peace edict of Amboise,
  of 19th Nov., A.D. 1563, allowed to the Protestants liberty
  of worship except in certain districts and cities, of which
  Paris was one. After securing emancipation from the yoke of the
  Guises, however, she soon began openly to show her old hatred
  of the Protestants. She joined in a league with Spain for the
  extirpating of heresy, restricted in A.D. 1564 by the Edict of
  Roussillon her previous concessions, and laid incessant plots in
  order to effect the capture or murder of the two great leaders
  of the Huguenot party. The threatening incursions of the Duke
  of Alva upon the neighbouring provinces of the Netherlands, in
  A.D. 1567, occasioned the outbreak of the second religious war.
  The projected removal of the court to Monceaux fell through
  indeed, in consequence of the hasty flight of the king to Paris,
  but the overthrow of the royal army in the battle of St. Denys,
  in Nov., A.D. 1567, in which Montmorency fell, as well as the
  reinforcement of the Huguenot army by an auxiliary corps under
  the leadership of John Casimir, the prince of the Palatinate,
  led Catharine to conclude the Peace of Longjumeau, of March,
  A.D. 1568, which guaranteed anew all previous concessions.
  But when the persecution of the Huguenots was continued in
  numberless executions, before the year was out they had again,
  for the third time, to have recourse to arms. England supported
  them with money and ammunition, and Protestant Germany gave
  them 11,000 auxiliaries; while Spain helped their opponents.
  Louis Condé fell by the hand of an assassin in A.D. 1569, but
  the Huguenots had so evidently the best of it, that the king
  and his mother found themselves obliged to grant them complete
  liberty of conscience and of worship in the peace treaty of
  St. Germain-en-Laye, on 8th of Aug., A.D. 1570, excepting in
  Paris and in the immediate surroundings of the palace. As a
  guarantee for the treaty, four strongholds in southern France
  were surrendered to them. It was further stipulated, in order
  to confirm for ever the good undertaking, that Henry of Navarre,
  son of Jeanne d’Albret, should marry Margaret, the sister of
  Charles IX.

  § 139.16. At the marriage, consummated on 18th of August,
  A.D. 1572, subsequently known as the =Bloody Marriage=, the
  chiefs of the Huguenot party were gathered together at Paris.
  Jeanne d’Albret had died at the court, probably by poison, on
  9th June, and Coligny had been fatally wounded by a shot on
  22nd August. On the night of St. Bartholomew, between the 23rd
  and 24th August, the castle bell tolled. This was the concerted
  signal for the destruction of all the Huguenots present in Paris.
  For four days the carnage was unweariedly carried on by the
  city militia appointed for the purpose, the royal Swiss guards,
  and crowds of fanatical artisans. Coligny fell praying amid the
  blows of his murderers. No Huguenot was spared, neither children,
  nor women, nor the aged. Their princely chiefs, Henry of Navarre
  and Henry Condé, the son of Louis, were offered the choice
  between death and taking part in the celebration of mass. They
  decided for the latter. Meanwhile messengers had hasted into the
  provinces with the death-warrants, and there the slaughter began
  afresh. The whole number of victims is variously estimated at
  from 10,000 to 100,000; in Paris alone there fell from 1,000
  to 10,000.--The death decree was not indeed so much the result
  of long planned and regularly conceived conspiracy, as a sudden
  resolve suggested by political circumstances. The queen-mother
  was at variance with her son with respect to his anti-Spanish
  policy, which had always inclined him favourably to Coligny;
  and so, in concert with her favourite son, Henry of Anjou, she
  succeeded in dealing a deadly stroke at the great admiral by the
  hand of an assassin. The king swore to take fearful vengeance on
  the unknown perpetrators of this crime. Catharine now made every
  effort to avert the threatened blow. She managed to convince the
  king, by means of her fellow conspirators, that the Huguenots
  regarded him as an accomplice in the perpetrating of the outrage,
  and that so his life was in danger because of them. He now swore
  by God’s death that not merely the chiefs, to whom Catharine
  and her auxiliaries had directed special attention, but all the
  Huguenots in France, should die, in order that not one should
  remain to bring this charge against him. On the other hand,
  it is all but certain that the thought of such a diabolical
  deed had previously suggested itself, if indeed expression
  had not been explicitly given to it. To the Spanish and Romish
  courts, the French government represented the deed as an _acte
  prémédité_, to the German court as an _acte non prémédité_. But
  even before this a letter from Rome to the Emperor Maximilian II.
  (§ 137, 8) had contained the following: “_At that hour_
  (referring to the marriage festivities) _when all the birds
  are in the cage, they can seize upon them altogether, and can
  have any one that they desire_.” He was profoundly excited about
  the villany of the transaction, while Philip II. of Spain on
  hearing of it is said to have laughed for the first time in his
  life. Pope Gregory XIII. indeed feared the worst consequences,
  but soon changed his mind, and had Rome illuminated, all the
  bells rung, the cannons fired, a _Te Deum_ performed, processions
  made, and a medal struck, with the inscription, _Ugonottorum
  strages_. He instructed the French ambassador to inform his king
  that this performance was a hundred times more grateful to him
  than fifty victories over the Turks.[392]

  § 139.17. The dreadful deed, however, completely failed in
  accomplishing the end in view. Even after 100,000 had been
  slaughtered there still remained more than ten times that
  number of Huguenots, who, in possession of their strongholds,
  occupied positions of great strategical importance. After
  a brief breathing time of peace, therefore, they were able,
  on five occasions, in A.D. 1573, 1576, 1577, 1580, to renew
  the religious civil war, when once and again the truce had
  been broken by the Catholics. Charles IX. was succeeded by
  Catharine’s favourite son, =Henry III.=, A.D. 1574-1589, who,
  joining the most shameless immorality to the narrowest bigotry
  and asceticism (§ 149, 17), was no way behind his brother in
  dissoluteness, and was still more conspicuous for dastardliness
  and cowardice. Henry Condé had, just immediately after Charles’s
  death, abjured again the Catholic confession, and put himself at
  the head of the Huguenot revolt. Henry of Navarre rejoined his
  old friends two years later, after having in the meantime vied
  with his brother-in-law and his incestuous wife in frivolity
  and immorality. He was able to take part successfully in the
  fifth religious war, in which the Huguenots, supported once
  more by the German auxiliaries under the Count-palatine John
  Casimir, secured such advantages, that the court, in the Treaty
  of Beaulieu, of A.D. 1576, were obliged to grant them complete
  religious freedom and a larger number of strongholds. But now
  Henry of Guise, in concert with his brothers Louis, cardinal and
  Archbishop of Rheims, and Charles, Duke of Mayenne, formed the
  Holy League, which he compelled the king to join, and renewed
  the war with increased vigour. In the eighth war since A.D. 1584,
  which on the part of the Guises was really as much directed
  against the king’s Huguenot policy as against the Huguenots
  themselves, Henry was obliged, by the Treaty of Nemours, of
  A.D. 1585, to declare that the Protestants were deprived of
  all rights and privileges. In the battle of Coutras, however,
  in A.D. 1587, Henry of Navarre annihilated the opposing forces.
  But as he failed to follow up the advantages then secured, the
  Guises again recruited their strength to such a degree that they
  were able openly to work for the dethronement of the king. Henry
  could save himself only by the murder of both the elder Guises
  at the Diet of Blois. There was now no alternative left him
  but to cast himself into the arms of the Huguenots, and on this
  account, at the siege of the capital, he was murdered by the
  Dominican Clement. Henry of Navarre, as the only legitimate heir,
  now ascended the throne as =Henry IV.=, A.D. 1589-1610. After a
  hard struggle, lasting for four years, in which he was supported
  by England and Germany, while his opponents, headed by the Duke
  of Mayenne, were aided with money and men by Spain, Savoy, and
  the pope, he at last decided, in A.D. 1593, to pass over to
  Catholicism, because, as he said, “Paris is well worth a mass.”
  He secured, however, for his former co-religionists, by the
  =Edict of Nantes=, of 13th April, A.D. 1598, complete liberty
  of holding religious services in all the cities where previously
  there had been reformed congregations, as well as thorough
  equality with the Catholics in all civil rights and privileges,
  especially in regard to eligibility for all civil and military
  offices. The fortresses and strongholds hitherto held by them
  were to be left with them for eight years, and in the Parliament
  a special “Chamber of the Edict” was instituted, with eight
  Catholic and eight Protestant members. But, on the other hand,
  they continued to be under the Catholic marriage laws, were
  obliged to cease from work on the Catholic festivals, and to
  pay tithes to the Catholic clergy. After a stubborn resistance
  on the part of the Parliament of Paris, the university, and
  the Sorbonne, as well as on that of the bishops, the king, in
  February, A.D. 1599, secured the incorporation of the edict
  among the laws of France. On 14th May, A.D. 1610, he was struck
  down by the dagger of the Feuillant Ravaillac, a fanatical
  Jesuit. Notwithstanding his many moral shortcomings, France
  has rightly celebrated him as one of the greatest and best
  of her kings. With wisdom, prudence, and humanity he wrought
  unweariedly for the advancement of a commonwealth that had
  been reduced to the lowest depths. He protected the Protestants
  in the enjoyment of privileges guaranteed to them, and though
  he did indeed put upon his old Huguenot friends some gentle
  pressure to get them to follow his example, he yet honoured
  those who steadfastly refused. His minister Sully, although
  it is supposed that he had felt obliged to advise the king
  to go over to Catholicism, stood himself unhesitatingly true
  to his profession of the Huguenot faith, while he retained
  the king’s confidence, and proved his most faithful adviser
  and administrator during all the negotiations of peace and war.
  Philip du Plessis Mornay, on the other hand, distinguished even
  more as a statesman, diplomatist, and field marshal than as
  a theologian and author,[393] but above all as a Christian and
  a man in the noblest sense of the word, who, in the belief that
  evangelical truth would, even in the Catholic church, assert
  its conquering power, had agreed with the Catholic League to
  instruct the king in the Catholic faith, and had thus made
  the act of apostasy appear to him less offensive. But just
  because the mere presence of a friend of high moral character
  and true religious principles acted as too sharp a sting to
  the king’s conscience, he had to submit to be relegated to an
  honorary post as governor of Saumur, where he became founder
  of the famous academy which Louis XIV. suppressed in A.D. 1685.
  Theodore Agrippa d’Aubigné, too, distinguished as a brave
  warrior in the army of the Huguenots, as well as a historian,
  poet, and satirist, stood high in favour with the king, though
  Henry, often roused by his unbending pride, repeatedly expelled
  him from the court. After Henry’s death D’Aubigné returned to
  Geneva, where he died in A.D. 1630.[394]

  § 139.18. =Poland.=--The Reformation had been introduced
  into Poland first of all by the exiled Bohemian Brethren,
  and Luther’s writings soon after their appearance were eagerly
  read in that region. =Sigismund I.=, A.D. 1506-1548, opposed it
  with all his might. It met with most success in Prussian Poland.
  Dantzig, in A.D. 1525, drove out the Catholic council. Sigismund
  went down there himself, had several citizens executed, and
  restored the old mode of worship in A.D. 1526. But scarcely had
  he left the town when it again went back to the profession of
  the Lutheran faith. Elbing and Thorn followed its example. In
  Poland proper also the new doctrines made way. In spite of all
  prohibitions many young Poles flocked to Wittenberg, and brought
  away from it to their native country a glowing enthusiasm for
  Luther and his teaching. The Swiss Confession had already found
  entrance there, and the persecutions which Ferdinand of Austria
  carried on after the Schmalcald war in Bohemia and Moravia
  led great numbers of Bohemian Brethren to cross over into the
  Polish territories. =Sigismund Augustus=, A.D. 1548-1572, was
  personally favourable to the Reformation. He studied Calvin’s
  “Institutes,” received letters from him and from Melanchthon,
  and, in accordance with the decisions of a national assembly
  at Petrican in A.D. 1555 demanded of the pope a national council,
  as well as permission for the marriage of priests, the communion
  in both kinds, the celebration of mass in the vernacular, and
  abolition of annats. The pope naturally refused to yield, but
  in A.D. 1556 sent into the country a legate of a despotic and
  violent temper, called Aloysius Lippomanus, who was replaced
  in A.D. 1563 by the bland and eloquent Commendone. Both were
  powerfully supported in their struggle against heresy by the
  fanatically Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Bishop of
  Ermeland. The Protestant nobility then recalled, in A.D. 1556,
  their celebrated countryman =John à Lasco=, who twenty years
  before had, on account of his evangelical faith, resigned his
  office as provost of Gnesen and left his fatherland. He had
  meanwhile taken part in the Reformation of East Friesland, and
  had acted for several years as preacher at Emden. After that,
  he had gone, at the call of Cranmer, in A.D. 1550, to England;
  upon the death of Edward VI., along with a part of his London
  flock of foreign exiles, had sought refuge in Denmark, which,
  however, was refused on account of his attachment to Zwingli’s
  doctrine; and at last settled down at Frankfort-on-the-Maine as
  pastor to a congregation of French, English, and Dutch exiles.
  After his return home he endeavoured to bring about a union of
  the Lutherans and Reformed, in concert with several friends made
  a translation of the Bible, and died in A.D. 1560. At a =general
  synod at Sendomir=, in A.D. 1570, a union was at last effected
  between the three dissentient parties, by which the Lutheran
  doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was acknowledged, yet in so
  indefinite a form that Calvin’s view might also be entertained.
  The Lutheran opposition at the synod had been suppressed by
  urgent entreaty, but afterwards broke out again in a still more
  violent form. At the Synod of Thorn, in A.D. 1595, the Lutheran
  pastor Paul Gericke was the leader of it; but one of the nobles
  present held a dagger to his heart, and the synod suspended him
  from his office as a disturber of the peace. Sigismund Augustus
  had meanwhile died, in A.D. 1572. During the interregnum that
  followed, the Protestant nobles formed a confederation, which
  before the election of a new king succeeded in obtaining
  a comprehensive religious peace, the =Pax dissidentium of
  A.D. 1573=, by means of which Catholics and Protestants were
  for all time to live together in peace and enjoy equal civil
  rights. The newly elected king, =Henry of Anjou=, sought to
  avoid binding himself by oath to the observance of this peace,
  but the imperial marshal addressed him in firm and decided
  language, _Si non jurabis, non regnabis_. In the following
  year, however, the new king left Poland in order to mount the
  French throne as Henry III. =Stephen Bathori=, A.D. 1576-1586,
  swore without hesitation to observe the peace, and kept
  his oath. Under his successor, Sigismund III., a Swedish
  prince, A.D. 1587-1632, the Protestants had to complain of
  the infringement of many of their rights, which from this time
  down to the overthrow of the Polish kingdom, in A.D. 1772, they
  never again enjoyed.[395]--Continuation, § 164, 4.

  § 139.19. =Bohemia and Moravia.=--The numerous Bohemian and
  Moravian Brethren (§ 119, 8), at whose head was the elder Luke
  of Prague, greeted the appearance of Luther with the most hopeful
  joy. By messages and writings, however, which in A.D. 1522-1524
  were interchanged between them, some important diversities of
  view were discovered. Luke disliked Luther’s realistic theory
  of the Lord’s Supper, continued to hold by the seven sacraments,
  rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and took
  special offence at Luther’s view of Christian freedom, which
  seemed to him to want the necessary rigour of the apostolic
  discipline of the life and to under-estimate the importance
  and worth of celibacy and virginity. Luther, on the other hand,
  charged them with a want of grasp of the doctrine and a Novatian
  over-estimation of mere outward exercises and discipline. And so
  these negotiations ended in mutual recrimination, and only after
  Luke’s death, in A.D. 1528, and the glorious Diet of Augsburg,
  in A.D. 1530, were they reopened. The Lutheranizing tendency,
  for which especially the two elders John Roh and John Augusta
  laboured, now gained the upper hand for two decades. In
  A.D. 1532 the Brethren presented to the Margrave George of
  Brandenburg an apology of the doctrine and customs, which was
  printed at Wittenberg, and had a preface by Luther, in which he
  expressed himself in very favourable terms about the doctrine
  of the “Picards,” and only objected to their spiritualizing
  tendency, of which their doctrine of the supper and of baptism
  was not altogether free, inasmuch as they, while practising
  infant baptism, required that each one should on reaching
  maturity take the vows upon himself and have baptism repeated.
  Still more favourably did he speak of their confession presented
  in A.D. 1535 to King Ferdinand, in which they had left out
  the rebaptizing, substituting for it the solemn imposition of
  hands as confirmation. When the Brethren at Luther’s request
  had modified the two articles at which he took offence,
  their unsatisfactory theory of justification, and that of
  the wholesomeness, though not necessity, of clerical celibacy,
  he declared himself thoroughly satisfied, and at their last
  personal conference, in A.D. 1542, he stretched his hand
  over the table to Augusta and his companions as the pledge
  of indissoluble brotherly fellowship, although not agreed in
  regard to various matters of constitution and discipline. The
  refusal of the Brethren to fight against their German fellow
  Protestants in the Schmalcald war led to their king Ferdinand
  upon its close issuing some penal statutes against them. Driven
  away into exile in A.D. 1548, many of them went to Poland, the
  larger number to Prussia, from whence they returned to their
  native land in A.D. 1574. Meantime matters had there in many
  respects taken an altogether new turn. In the later years of his
  reign Ferdinand had become more favourable to the evangelical
  movement in his hereditary dominions, and Maximilian II.,
  A.D. 1564-1576, gave it an absolutely free course (§ 137, 8).
  Thus the Brethren could not only go on from day to day
  increasing in numbers and in influence, but alongside of them
  there grew up a genuine Lutheran community and an independent
  Calvinist body. The Crypto-calvinism which was also at the
  same time gaining the victory in Saxony (§ 141, 10) cast its
  shadow upon the Lutheranizing movement among the Brethren. And
  this movement told all the more against the Lutheran party there
  from the circumstance that at an earlier period there had been
  powerful influences at work, inspired by a national Bohemian
  spirit, to resist German interference in matters of religion.
  Since the death of the elder Luke the national party had
  succeeded more and more in working back to the genuine Bohemian
  constitution, discipline, and confession of their fathers. At
  the head of this movement stood John Blahoslaw, from A.D. 1553
  deacon of Jungbunzlau, after Luke of Prague and before
  Amos Comenius (§ 167, 2) the most important champion of the
  Bohemian-Moravian Confession. To him chiefly are the Brethren
  indebted for the high development of literary and scientific
  activity which they manifested during the second half of
  the century, and his numerous writings, but pre-eminently
  his translation of the N.T., proved almost as influential and
  epoch-making for the Bohemian language as Luther’s translation
  of the Bible did for the written language of Germany. Himself
  one of the ablest among the very numerous writers of spiritual
  songs in Bohemian, he was the restorer of the simple and
  majestic Bohemian chorales. As he had himself, in A.D. 1568,
  translated the N.T. from the original Greek text, he also
  undertook, with the help of several younger men of noble
  gifts, a similar translation of the O.T. and a commentary on
  the whole Bible. But he died in A.D. 1571, in his forty-eighth
  year, before the issue of his great work, upon the inception
  of which he had expended so much thought and care. This great
  undertaking was completed and published in six volumes between
  A.D. 1579-1593. The strong spiritual affinity between the
  society of the Brethren and the Calvinistic church, especially
  in its doctrine of the supper and in its zeal for rigid church
  discipline, was meanwhile again brought into prominence, and
  had led to a more and more decided loosening of attachment
  to the Lutheran church, and, in spite of the antagonism of
  its episcopalianism to the Calvinistic presbyterianism, to the
  formation of closer ties with Calvinism. But now, on the other
  hand, the common danger that threatened them from Rudolph II.,
  who had been king of Bohemia from A.D. 1575, at the instigation
  of Jesuits through the Spanish court, led all non-Catholics,
  of whatever special confession, to draw as closely together as
  possible. Thus a league came to be formed in the same year in
  which the Brethren were far outnumbered by Lutherans, Reformed,
  and Calixtines (§ 119, 7), by means of which, in the _Confessio
  Bohemica_ of A.D. 1575, a common symbol was drawn up, and all
  the four parties were placed under the management of a common
  consistory. But when, after Maximilian’s death, Rudolph II.
  proceeded more and more rigorously in his efforts to completely
  suppress all heresy, the Bohemians rose with one heart, and
  at last, in A.D. 1609, extorted from him the rescript which
  gave them absolute religious liberty according to the Bohemian
  Confession, a common consistory of their own, and an academy
  at Prague. Bohemia was now an almost completely evangelical
  country, and scarcely a tenth part of its inhabitants
  professed attachment to the Catholic faith.[396]--Continuation,
  §§ 153, 2; 167, 2.

  § 139.20. =Hungary and Transylvania.=--From A.D. 1524, Martin
  Cyriaci, a student of Wittenberg, wrought in =Hungary= for
  the spread of the true doctrine. King Louis II. threatened its
  adherents with all possible penalties. But in A.D. 1526 he fell
  in battle against the Turks at Mohacz. The election of a new
  king resulted in two claimants taking possession of the field;
  Ferdinand of Austria secured a footing in the western, and
  the Woiwode John Zapolya in the eastern provinces. Both sought
  to suppress the Reformation, in order to win over the clergy
  to support them. But it nevertheless gained the ascendency,
  favoured by the political confusions of the time. =Matthias
  Devay=, a scholar of Luther, and for a time a resident in
  his house, from A.D. 1521 preached the gospel at Ofen, having
  been called thither by several of the leading inhabitants on
  Melanchthon’s recommendation, and in A.D. 1533 had a Hungarian
  translation of the Pauline epistles printed at Cracow. In
  A.D. 1541 Erdösy issued the complete New Testament, which was
  also the first book printed in Hungary. At a synod at Erdöd, in
  A.D. 1545, twenty-nine ministers drew up a confession of faith
  in twelve articles, in agreement with the Augsburg Confession.
  But also the Swiss doctrine had now found entrance, and won
  more and more adherents from day to day. These adopted at a
  council at Czengar, in A.D. 1557, a Calvinistic confession,
  with decided repudiation of the Zwinglian as well as the
  Lutheran theory of the Lord’s Supper, describing the latter
  as an _insania sarcophagica_. The government of Maximilian II.
  did not interfere with the progress of the Reformation; but when
  Rudolph II. attempted to interfere with violent measures, the
  Protestants rose in revolt under Stephen Bocskai, and compelled
  the king to grant them complete religious liberty by the Vienna
  Peace of A.D. 1606. Among the native Hungarians the Reformed
  confession prevailed, but the German residents remained true
  to Lutheranism. (Continuation § 153, 3.)--As early as A.D. 1521
  merchants had brought into =Transylvania= from Hermanstadt
  copies of Luther’s writings. King Louis II. of Hungary, however,
  carried his persecution of the evangelicals even into this
  territory, which was continued after his death by Zapolya.
  In A.D. 1529, however, Hermanstadt ventured to expel all
  adherents of the Romish church from within its walls. In
  Cronstadt, the work of the Reformation was carried on from
  A.D. 1533 by =Jac. Honter=, who had studied at Basel. Since
  Zapolya through an agreement with Ferdinand, in A.D. 1538,
  was assured of possession for his lifetime of Transylvania,
  he acted more mildly toward the Protestants. After his death
  the monk Martinuzzi, as Bishop of Grosswardein, assumed the helm
  of affairs for Zapolya’s son during his minority, oppressing the
  Protestants with bloody persecutions, while Isabella, Zapolya’s
  widow, was favourable to them. Martinuzzi therefore handed over
  the country to Ferdinand, but was assassinated in A.D. 1551.
  After some years Isabella returned with her son, and a =national
  assembly at Clausenburg=, in A.D. 1557, gave an organization
  to the country as an independent principality, and proclaimed
  universal religious liberty. The Saxon population continued
  attached to the Lutheran confession, and the Czecks and Magyars
  preferred to adopt the Reformed.[397]

  § 139.21. =Spain.=--The connection brought about between Spain
  and Germany through the election of =Charles V.= as emperor led
  to the very early introduction into the Peninsula of Luther’s
  doctrine and writings. Indeed many of the theologians and
  statesmen who went in Charles’ train into Germany returned
  with evangelical convictions in their hearts, as, _e.g._, the
  Benedictine Alphonso de Virves, the fiery Ponce de la Fuente,
  both court chaplains of the emperor, and his private secretary
  Alphonso Valdez. A layman, Roderigo de Valer, by earnest study
  of the Bible attained unto a knowledge of the gospel, and became
  the instrument of leading many others into the way of salvation.
  The Inquisition confiscated his goods and condemned him to
  wear the _san benito_ (§ 117, 2). Juan Gil, a friend of Valer,
  Bishop of Tortosa, founded a society for the study of the
  Bible. The Inquisition deposed him, and only Charles’ favour
  protected him from the stake; but subsequently his bones were
  dug up and burnt. Many other prelates also, such as Carranza
  of Toledo, Guerrero of Granada, Guesta of Leon, Carrubias of
  Ciudad Roderigo, Agostino of Lerida, Ayala of Segovia, etc.,
  admitted the necessity for a thoroughgoing revision of doctrine,
  without detaching themselves from the pope and the Romish church;
  and in this direction they laboured with zeal and success amid
  the threatenings of the Inquisition. The first Protestant martyr
  in Spain was Francisco san Romano, a merchant who had become
  acquainted with Luther’s doctrine at Antwerp. He was led to the
  stake at Valladolid, in A.D. 1544. Francis Enzina, in A.D. 1543,
  translated the New Testament. He was cast into prison, and the
  book prohibited. A complete Spanish Bible was printed by Cassiod.
  de Reyna at Basel, in A.D. 1569. In Seville and Valladolid first
  of all, and at a later period also in many other Spanish cities,
  evangelical congregations held secret services. Even so soon as
  about A.D. 1550, the Reformation movement threatened to become
  so general and widespread, that a Spanish historian of that age,
  Ilesca, in his history of the popes, expresses the conviction
  that all Spain would have become overrun with heresy if the
  Inquisition had delayed for three months longer to put an
  end to the pestilence. But it now applied that remedy in the
  largest and strongest doses possible. The measures of the
  Inquisition were specially prompt and vigorous during the
  reign of =Philip II.=, A.D. 1555-1598. Scarcely a year passed
  in which there were not at each of the twelve Inquisition courts
  one or more great _autos-de-fé_, in which crowds of heretics
  were burnt. And the remedy was effectual. After two decades
  the evangelical movement was stamped out. How determinedly the
  crusade was carried out is shown by the proceedings in the case
  of the Archbishop of Toledo, Barthol. Carranza. This prelate had
  published a “Commentary on the Catechism,” in which he expressed
  a wish to see “the ancient spirit of our forefathers and of
  the early church revived in its simplicity and purity.” The
  grand-inquisitor discerned therein Lutheran heresy, and though
  he bore one of the highest positions in the Spanish church,
  Carranza was kept close prisoner for eight years in the dungeons
  of the Inquisition, and after he had at last reached the pope
  with his appeal, he was kept for nine years in the castle of
  St. Angelo at Rome. There at last, upon his abjuring sixteen
  heretical propositions, especially about justification, saint
  and image worship, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment
  in the Dominican cloister at Orvieto, but died some weeks after,
  in A.D. 1576, in his seventy-third year. At the Quemadero,
  the scene of the _autos-de-fé_ of the Madrid Inquisition court,
  there were till quite recently discernible the traces of the
  human hecatombs that had there been offered up to the insatiable
  Moloch of religious fanaticism. The official newspaper of the
  capital of the 12th April, A.D. 1869, reports how on the removal
  of the soil for the purpose of lengthening a street, the grim
  geological archives of the burnings of the Inquisition were laid
  bare, while with horrifying minuteness it proceeds to describe
  the maximum reached, and the gradual diminution of these papal
  atrocities.[398]

  § 139.22. =Italy.=--The Reformation made progress in Italy
  in various directions. A large number of the humanists
  (§ 120, 1) had in a self-sufficient paganism lost all interest
  in Christianity, and were just as indifferent toward the
  Reformation as toward the old church; but another section were
  inclined to favour a reformation after the style of Erasmus.
  Both remained in outward connection with the old church. But
  besides these there were many learned men of a more decided
  tendency, some of them attempting reforms at their own hand,
  and so not infrequently rejecting fundamental doctrines of
  Christianity, such as the various Anti-trinitarians of that age
  (§ 148), some who attached themselves to the German, but more
  frequently to the Swiss reformers. Both brought the reforming
  ideas before the people by preaching and writing. Almost all the
  works of the German and Swiss reformers were immediately after
  their publication circulated in Italy in translations, and under
  the shield of anonymity scattered broadcast through the land,
  before the Inquisition laid hold upon them. Among the princely
  supporters of the Reformation movement, the most prominent was
  Renata of Este, Duchess of Ferrara, and sister-in-law of the
  French king Francis, distinguished as much for piety as for
  culture and learning. Her court was a place of refuge and a
  rallying point for French and Italian exiles. Calvin stayed
  some weeks with her in A.D. 1536, and confirmed her in her
  evangelical faith by personal conversation, and subsequently
  by epistolary correspondence. Her husband, Hercules of Ferrara,
  whom she married in A.D. 1534, at first let her do as she liked,
  but in A.D. 1536 expelled Calvin from his dominions, and had his
  wife confined, in A.D. 1554, as an obstinate Lutheran heretic,
  in the old castle of Este. Still she was allowed to return
  to her husband after she had brought herself to confess to a
  Romish priest. But when after his death, in A.D. 1560, Alphonso,
  her son, put before her the alternative of either recanting
  her faith or leaving the country, she returned to France, and
  there openly made profession of her faith and attached herself
  to the Huguenots. Francis of Guise was her son-in-law, and she
  was subjected on account of her Protestantism to the incessant
  persecutions of the Guises. She died in A.D. 1575.--We have
  seen already, in § 135, 3, that the idea had been mooted of
  a propaganda of Catholic Christians in Italy. With a strong
  and lively conviction of the importance of the doctrine of
  justification by faith they made it the central point of
  religious life and knowledge, and thus, without directly
  opposing it, they inspired new life into the Catholic church.
  The first germ of this movement appeared in the so-called
  _Oratory of Divine Love_, an association formed in the beginning
  of A.D. 1520 at Rome, after the apostolic model, for mutual
  religious edification, consisting of fifty or sixty young, eager
  men, mostly of the clerical order. One of the original founders
  was Jac. Sadolet, who in this spirit expounded the Epistle
  to the Romans. To it also belonged such men as the founder
  of the Theatine order (§ 149, 7), Cajetan of Thiene, and John
  Pet. Caraffa, Bishop of Chieta, and afterwards Pope Paul IV.,
  who sought the church’s salvation rather in the practice of
  a rigorous inquisitorial discipline. The sack of Rome (§ 132, 2)
  broke up this association in A.D. 1527, but spread its efforts
  over all Italy. The fugitive English cardinal, Reginald Pole,
  attached himself in Venice to the party of Sadolet. In Ferrara
  there was Italy’s most famous poetess, Vittoria Colonna; at
  Modena the Bishop Morone, who, although as papal legate in
  Germany, a zealous defender of the papal claims (§§ 135, 2;
  137, 5), yet in his own diocese even subsequently aided the
  evangelical tendencies of his companions with much ardour, and
  hence under Paul IV. was cast into the Inquisition, to come out
  only under Pius V., after undergoing a three years’ imprisonment.
  In Naples there was Juan Valdez, Alphonso’s brother, secretary
  of the Spanish viceroy of Naples, and author of the “One Hundred
  and Ten Divine Considerations,” as well as a book of Christian
  doctrine for the young in the Spanish language. In Siena there
  was Aonio Paleario, professor of classical literature, famous as
  poet and orator. In Rome there was the papal notary Carnesecchi,
  formerly the personal friend of Clement VII. In other places
  there were many more. The most conspicuous representative of
  the party was the Venetian Gasparo Contarini (§ 135, 3), who
  died in A.D. 1542.

  § 139.23. The tendency of the thought of these men is most
  clearly and fully set forth in the little work, “The Benefit
  of Christ’s Death.” At Venice, where it first appeared in
  A.D. 1542, within six years 60,000 copies of this tract were
  issued, and afterwards innumerable reprints and translations of
  it were circulated. Since Aonio Paleario had written, according
  to his own statement, a tract of a similar character, he came
  to be generally regarded as its author, until Ranke discovered
  a notice among the acts of the Inquisition, according to which
  the heretical jewel was to be assigned to a monk of San Severino
  in Naples, a disciple of Juan Valdez, and afterwards Benrath
  succeeded in proving his name to be Don Benedetto of Mantŏva.
  The conciliatory spirit of these friends of moderate reform
  gave grounds for large expectation, all the more that Paul III.
  seemed all through his life to favour the movement. He nominated
  Contarini, Sadolet, Pole, and Caraffa cardinals, instituted
  in A.D. 1536 a _congregatio præparatoria_, and made Contarini
  the representative of the curia at the religious Conference of
  Regensburg in A.D. 1541 (§ 135, 3), which sought to bring about
  the conciliation of the German Protestants. But just about this
  time, probably not without the co-operation of the Jesuit order
  founded in A.D. 1540, a split occurred which utterly blasted all
  these grand expectations. The zeal of Caraffa set himself at the
  head of the opposition, and Paul III., in accordance with his
  proposal in his bull _Licet ab initio_ of A.D. 1542, reorganized
  the defunct Roman Inquisition after the Spanish model as the
  central institution for the uprooting of the Protestant heresy.
  This “Holy Office” henceforth pursued its violent career under
  the pontificate of Caraffa himself, who mounted the papal
  throne in A.D. 1555 as Paul IV. Subsequently, too, under the
  obstinate, fanatical, and hence canonized monkish pope Pius V.,
  from A.D. 1566 every suspicion of Protestantism was rigorously
  and mercilessly punished with imprisonment, torture, the
  galleys, the scaffold, and the stake. So energetically was the
  persecution carried out against the adherents and the patrons
  of the Reformation, that by the end of the century no trace of
  its presence was any longer to be found within the bounds of
  Italy. One of the last victims of this persecution was Aonio
  Paleario. After he had been for three years in the prisons of
  the Inquisition, he was strangled and then burnt. A similar
  fate had previously befallen Carnesecchi. How thoroughgoing
  and successful the Holy Office was in the suppression of
  books suspected of a heretical taint appears from the war of
  extermination carried on against that _liber perniciosissimus_,
  “On the Benefit of Christ’s Death.” In spite of the hundred
  thousand copies of the book that had been in circulation, the
  Inquisition so carefully and consistently pursued its task
  of extirpation, that thirty years after its appearance it was
  no longer to be found in the original and after a hundred no
  translation even was supposed to exist. In Rome alone a pile
  of copies were burnt which reached to the height of a house. In
  A.D. 1853 a copy of the original was found in Cambridge, and was
  published in London, 1855, with an English translation made by
  the Duke of Devonshire in A.D. 1548.[399]

  § 139.24. Among the Italian reformers who shook themselves
  entirely free from the papacy, and only by flight into foreign
  lands escaped prison, torture, and the stake, the following are
  the most important.

    1. =Bernardino Ochino=, from A.D. 1538 general of the
       Capuchins, became by his glowing eloquence one of the
       most popular of Italian preachers. The study of the Bible
       had led him to accept the doctrine of justification when,
       in A.D. 1536, he was called to Naples as Lenten preacher.
       He was there brought into close contact with Juan Valdez,
       who confirmed him in his evangelical tendencies, and made
       him acquainted with the writings of the German reformers.
       In order to escape arrest and the Inquisition, he fled
       in A.D. 1542 to Geneva, and wrought successively at Basel,
       Augsburg, Strassburg, and London. After the death of
       Edward VI. he was obliged to make his escape from England,
       went as preacher to Zürich, adopted Socinian views,
       and even justified polygamy. He was consequently deposed
       from his office, fled to Poland, and died in Moravia in
       A.D. 1565.[400]

    2. =Peter Martyr Vermilius=, an Augustinian monk and popular
       preacher. The study of the writings of Erasmus, Zwingli,
       and Bucer led him to quit the Catholic church. He fled to
       Zürich, became professor in Strassburg, and on Cranmer’s
       invitation came to England, where he was made professor
       in Oxford. When Mary came to the throne, he returned to
       Strassburg, and died as professor at Zürich in A.D. 1562.

    3. =Peter Paul Vergerius= in A.D. 1530 accompanied Campegius
       to the Diet of Augsburg as papal legate (§ 132, 6); was
       sent again, in A.D. 1535, to Germany by Paul III., in
       order to get the German princes to agree to the holding
       of the council at Mantua (§ 134, 1), and on this point he
       conferred personally but unsuccessfully with Luther. On
       his return home, in A.D. 1536 the pope conferred upon him,
       in recognition of his faithful service, the bishopric of
       his native city, Capo d’Istria. In A.D. 1540 we find him
       again present during the religious conference at Worms
       (§ 135, 2), where his conciliatory efforts called down on
       him the displeasure of the pope and the suspicion of his
       enemies as a secret adherent of Luther. In order to clear
       himself of suspicion he studied Luther’s writings with the
       intention of controverting them, but had his heart opened
       to gospel truths, and was obliged to betake himself to
       flight. At Padua the dreadful end of the jurist Speira,
       who had abjured his evangelical convictions, and feeling
       that he had committed the unpardonable sin died amid the
       most fearful agonies of conscience, made an indelible
       impression upon him. He now, in A.D. 1548, formally joined
       the evangelical church, wrought for a long time in the
       country of the Grisons, not as a member of the Reformed but
       of the Lutheran church, and died as professor at Tübingen
       in A.D. 1565.

    4. The Piedmontese =Cœlius Secundus Curio= was the youngest
       of a family of twenty-three, and was early left an orphan.
       He studied at Turin, where an Augustinian monk, Jerome
       Niger, made him acquainted with the writings of Luther and
       others. Unweariedly devoted to spreading the gospel in the
       various cities of Italy, he was repeatedly subjected by
       the persecution of the Inquisition to severe imprisonment,
       but always managed to escape in almost a miraculous way.
       At last he found, in A.D. 1542, on the recommendation of
       the Duchess Renata, an asylum in Switzerland, first of all
       in Bern; then he taught in Lausanne for four years, and
       in Basel for twenty-two. He died at Basel in A.D. 1569.
       His latitudinarian theology gave no offence among the
       liberal-minded folk of Basel, but he was looked upon
       with much displeasure by the theologians of Geneva, whose
       prosecutions of heretics he had condemned; and even from
       Tübingen, Vergerius, who had been his intimate friend,
       brought the charge of Pelagianism against him.

    5. =Galeazzo Carraccioli=, Marquis of Vico, on his mother’s
       side a nephew of Paul IV., was led by intercourse with
       Juan Valdez and the preaching of Peter Martyr to abandon
       the gay, worldly life of the Neapolitan court for one of
       religious earnestness and devotion, and by means of a visit
       to Germany in company with the emperor he was confirmed in
       his evangelical convictions. In order to be able to live
       in the undisturbed profession of his faith, he fled, in
       A.D. 1551, to Geneva. Neither the tears nor the curses of
       his aged father, who had hurried after him to that place,
       nor the promise of indulgence from his papal uncle, nor
       the complaining, the tears, and despair of his tenderly
       loved wife and children, whom at great risk he had visited
       at Vico in A.D. 1558, were able to shake the steadfastness
       of his faith. But equally in vain were his incessant
       entreaties and tears to induce his wife and children to
       come and join him on some neutral territory, where he might
       be allowed to follow the evangelical and they the Catholic
       confession. On the ground of this obstinate and persistent
       refusal, the Genevan consistory, with Calvin at its head,
       at last granted him the divorce that he claimed, and in
       A.D. 1560 Carraccioli entered into a second marriage. Down
       to his death, in A.D. 1586, by his active and industrious
       life he afforded a pattern, and by his successful labours
       he proved a powerful support to the Italian congregation
       in Geneva, whose pastor, Balbani, raised to him a well
       deserved memorial in the history of his life, which he
       published in Geneva in A.D. 1587.

    6. To the sketch of these noble reformers we may now add the
       name of a woman who is well deserving of a place alongside
       of them for her singular classical culture, her rich poetic
       endowment, and her noble and beautiful life. Fulvia Olympia
       Morata, of Ferrara, in her sixteenth year began to deliver
       public lectures in her native city, where she enjoyed the
       friendship and favour of the Duchess Renata. She married
       a German physician, Andrew Grunthler, went with him to
       his home at Schweinfurt, and there attached herself to
       the Protestant church. When that city was plundered by
       the Margrave Albert in A.D. 1553 (§ 137, 4), they lost all
       their property. She died in A.D. 1555 at Heidelberg, where
       Grunthler had been appointed professor of medicine.[401]

  § 139.25. =The Protestantizing of the Waldensians=
  (§ 108, 10).--The news of the Reformation caused great
  excitement among the Waldensians. Even as early as A.D. 1520
  the Piedmontese _barba_, or minister, Martin of Lucerne,
  undertook a journey to Germany, and brought back with him
  several works of the reformers. In A.D. 1530 the French
  Waldensians sent two delegates, George Morel and Peter Masson,
  who conferred verbally and in writing with Œcolampadius at
  Basel, and with Bucer and Capito at Strassburg. The result
  was, that in A.D. 1532 a synod was held in the Piedmontese
  village of Chauvoran, in the valley of Angrogna, at which
  the two Genevan theologians Farel and Saunier were present. A
  number of narrow-minded prejudices that prevailed among the old
  Waldensians were now abandoned, such as the prohibition against
  taking oaths, the holding of magisterial offices, the taking of
  interest, etc.; and several Catholic notions to which they had
  formerly adhered, such as auricular confession, the reckoning
  of the sacraments as seven, the injunction of fasts, compulsory
  celibacy, the doctrine of merits, etc., were abandoned as
  unevangelical, while the Reformed doctrine of predestination
  was adopted. On this foundation the complete Protestantizing
  of the whole Waldensian community now made rapid progress, but
  called down upon them from every side bloody persecutions. In
  Provence and Dauphiné there were, in A.D. 1545, four thousand
  murdered, and twenty-two districts devastated with fire. Their
  remnants got mixed up with the French Reformed. When the
  Waldensian colonies in Calabria were told of the Protestantizing
  of their Piedmontese brethren, they sent, in A.D. 1559,
  a delegate to seek a pastor for them from Geneva. Ludovico
  Pascale, by birth a Piedmontese Catholic, who had studied
  theology at Geneva, was selected for this mission; but soon
  after his arrival he was thrown into prison at Naples, and
  from thence carried off to Rome, where in A.D. 1560 he went
  with all the martyr’s joy and faith to the stake erected for
  him by the Inquisition. In the trials of this man Rome for
  the first time came to understand the significance and the
  attitude of the Calabrian colonies, and now the grand-inquisitor,
  Alexandrini, with some Dominicans, was sent for their conversion
  or extermination. The flourishing churches were in A.D. 1561
  completely rooted out, amid scenes of almost incredible
  atrocity. The men who escaped the stake were made to toil
  in the Spanish galleys, while their wives and children were
  sold as slaves. In Piedmont, the duke, after vain military
  expeditions for their conversion, which the Waldensians, driven
  to arms had successfully withstood, was obliged to allow them,
  in the Peace of Cavour of A.D. 1561, a restricted measure of
  religious liberty. But when the violent attempts to secure
  conversions did not cease, they bound themselves together, in
  A.D. 1571, in the so-called “Union of the Valleys,” by which
  they undertook to defend one another in the exercise of their
  evangelical worship.--Continuation, § 153, 5.

  § 139.26. =Attempt at Protestantizing the Eastern Church.=--The
  opposition to the Roman papacy, which was common to them and the
  eastern church, led the Protestants of the West to long for and
  strive after a union with those who were thus far agreed with
  them. A young Cretan, =Jacob Basilicus=, whom Heraclides, prince
  of Samos and Paros, had adopted, on his travels through Germany,
  Denmark, and Sweden had come into friendly relations with
  Melanchthon and others of the reformed party, and attempted,
  after he entered upon the government of his two islands in
  A.D. 1561, to introduce a reformation of the local church
  according to evangelical principles. But he was murdered in
  A.D. 1563, and with him every trace of his movement passed
  away.--In A.D. 1559 a deacon from Constantinople, =Demetrius
  Mysos=, spent some months with Melanchthon at Wittenburg
  [Wittenberg], and took with him a Greek translation of the
  Augsburg Confession, of which, however, no result ever came.
  At a later period, in A.D. 1573, the Tübingen theologians,
  Andreä, Luc. Osiander, and others, reopened negotiations with
  the patriarch Jeremiah II. (§ 73, 4), through a Lutheran pastor,
  Stephen Gerbach, who went to Constantinople in the suite of
  a zealous Protestant nobleman, David of Ungnad, ambassador
  of Maximilian II. The Tübingen divines sent with him a Greek
  translation of the Augsburg Confession, composed by Mart.
  Crusius, with a request for his judgment upon it. The patriarch,
  in his reply in A.D. 1576, expressed himself candidly in regard
  to the errors of the book. The doctors of Tübingen wrote in
  vindication of their formula, and in a second answer, in
  A.D. 1579, the patriarch reiterated the objections stated in
  the first. After a third interchange of letters he declined all
  further discussion, and allowed a fourth epistle, in A.D. 1581,
  to remain unanswered.--Continuation, § 152, 2.




                  II. The Churches of the Reformation.


                § 140. THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF THE
                         LUTHERAN CHURCH.[402]

  In the Lutheran Church, that specifically German type of Christianity
which from the days of Charlemagne was ever panting after independent
expression reached its maturity and full development. The sacred
treasure of true catholicity, which the church of early times had
nurtured in the form of Greek-Roman culture, is taken over freed from
excrescences, and enriched by those acquisitions of the Middle Ages
that had stood the proof. Its vocation was to set forth the “happy
mean” between the antagonistic ecclesiastical movements and struggles
of the West, and to give its strength mainly to the development of
sound doctrine. And if it has not exerted an equal influence in all
departments, paying most attention to the worship and least to matters
of constitution, it cannot, on the other hand, be denied that even
in those directions an effort has been made to modify the violent
contradiction of extremes (§ 142, 1, 2).

  =The Mediate and Mediating Attitude of the Lutheran Church=
  shows itself in its fundamental conception of the essence of
  Christianity as the union of the Divine and human, of which the
  prototype is found in the Person of Christ, and illustrations of
  it in the Scriptures, the church, the sacraments, the Christian
  life, etc. In the varied ways in which this union is conceived
  of lies the deepest and most inward ground of the divergence
  that exists between the three western churches. The Catholic
  church wishes to _see_ the union of the Divine and human;
  the Lutheran, wishes to _believe_ it; the Reformed, wishes to
  _understand_ it. The tendency prevails in the Catholic church
  to confound these two, the Divine and the human, and that indeed
  in such a way that the human loses its human character, and its
  union with the Divine is regarded as constituting identity. The
  Reformed church, again, is prone to separate the two, to look
  upon the Divine by itself and the human by itself, and to regard
  the union as a placing of the one alongside of the other, as
  having not an objective but a merely subjective, not a real but
  a merely ideal, connection. But the Lutheran church, guarding
  itself against any confusion as well as any separation of the
  two elements, had sought to view the union as the most vital,
  rich, and inward communion, interpenetration, and reciprocity.
  In the view of the Catholic church the human and earthly, which
  is so often a very imperfect vehicle of the Divine, in which the
  Divine often attained to a very incomplete development, is to be
  regarded as in and by itself already the Divine. So is it in the
  idea of the church, and hence the doctrine of a merely external
  and visible church, which as such is only the channel of
  salvation. So is it in the historical development of the church,
  and hence the absolute authority of tradition and the reversal
  of the true relations between Scripture and tradition. So too
  is it with the doctrine of the sacraments, and hence the idea
  of an _opus operatum_ and of transubstantiation. So in regard
  to the priesthood, hence hierarchism; so in regard to the idea
  of sanctification, and hence semipelagianism and the doctrine
  of merits. Thoroughly antagonistic to all this was the view of
  the Reformed church. It was inclined rather to sever completely
  the Divine in Christianity from its earthly, visible vehicle,
  and to think of the operation of the Divine upon man as merely
  spiritual and communicated only through subjective faith.
  It renounced all tradition, and thereby broke off from all
  historical development, whether normal or abnormal. In its
  doctrine of Scripture, the literal significance of the word
  was often exalted above the spirit; in its doctrine of the
  church, the significance of the visible church over that of the
  invisible. In its doctrine of the Person of Christ, the human
  nature of the glorified Saviour was excluded from a personal
  full share in all the attributes of His divinity. In the
  doctrine of the sacraments, supernatural grace and the earthly
  elements were separated from one another; and in the doctrine
  of predestination the Divine foreknowledge of man’s volitions
  was isolated, etc. The Lutheran church, on the other hand, had
  at least made the effort to steer between those two extremes,
  and to bind into a living unity the truth that lies at the
  foundation of both. In the Scripture it wishes as little to
  see the spirit without the word, as the word without the spirit;
  in history it recognises the rule and operation of the Spirit
  of God within the human and ecclesiastical developments; and it
  rejects only the false tradition which has not had its growth
  organically from Holy Scripture, but rather contradicts it.
  In its doctrine of the church it holds with equal tenacity to
  the importance of the visible church and that of the invisible.
  In its doctrine of the Person of Christ it affirms the perfect
  humanity and the perfect divinity in the living union and richly
  communicating reciprocity of the two natures. In its doctrine
  of the sacraments it gives full weight as well to the objective
  Divine fact which heavenly grace presents in earthly elements
  as to the subjective condition of the man, to whom the sacrament
  will prove saving or condemning according as he is a believer
  or an unbeliever. And, finally, it expresses the belief that
  in the Divine decree the apparent contradiction between God’s
  foreknowledge and man’s self-determination is solved, while it
  regards predestination as conditioned by the foreknowledge of
  God; whereas Calvinism reverses that relation.


                 § 141. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE
                         LUTHERAN CHURCH.[403]

  Even during Luther’s lifetime, but much more after his death,
various doctrinal controversies broke out in the Lutheran church.
They arose for the most part upon the borderlands either of Calvinism
or of Catholicism, and were generally occasioned by offence taken at
the attitude of the more stiff and dogged of Luther’s adherents by
those of the Melanchthonian or Philippist school, who had irenical
and unionistic feelings in regard to both sides. The scene of these
conflicts was partly in the electorate of Albertine Saxony and in the
duchy of Ernestine Saxony. Wittenberg and Leipzig were the headquarters
of the Philippists, and Weimar and Jena of the strict Lutherans.
There was no lack on either side of rancour and bitterness. But if
the Gnesio-Lutherans went far beyond the Melanchthonians in stiffnecked
irreconcilableness, slanderous denunciation, and outrageous abuse, they
yet showed a most praiseworthy strength of conviction, steadfastness,
and martyrlike devotion; whereas their opponents not infrequently laid
themselves open to the charge, on the one hand, of a pusillanimous and
mischievous pliability, and, on the other hand, of using unworthy means
and covert, deceitful ways. Their controversies reached a conclusion
after various alternations of victory and defeat, with often very
tragic consequences to the worsted party, in the composition of a new
confessional document, the so called _Formula Concordiæ_.

  § 141.1. =The Antinomian Controversy=, A.D. 1537-1541,
  which turned upon the place and significance of the law under
  the Christian dispensation, lay outside the range of the
  Philippist wranglings. =John Agricola=, for a time pastor
  in his native town of Eisleben, and so often called Master
  Eisleben, in A.D. 1527 took offence at Melanchthon for having
  in his visitation articles (§ 127, 1) urged the pastors so
  earnestly to enjoin upon their people the observance of the
  law. He professed, indeed, for the time to be satisfied with
  Melanchthon’s answer, which had also the approval of Luther,
  but soon after he had, in A.D. 1536, become a colleague of both
  in Wittenberg, he renewed his opposition by publishing adverse
  theses. He did not contest the pedagogical and civil-political
  use of the law outside of the church, but starting from the
  principle that an enjoined morality could not help man, he
  maintained that the law has no more significance or authority
  for the Christian, and that the gospel, which by the power
  of Divine love works repentance, is alone to be preached.
  Melanchthon and Luther, on the contrary, held that anguish
  and sorrow for sin are the fruits of the law, while the saving
  resolution to reform is the effect of the gospel, and insisted
  upon a continued preaching of the law, because from the
  incompleteness of the believer’s sanctification in this world
  a daily renewing of repentance is necessary. After several years
  of oral and written discussion, Agricola took his departure from
  Wittenberg in A.D. 1540, charging Luther with having offered him
  a personal insult, and was made court preacher at Berlin, where,
  in A.D. 1541, having discovered his error, he repudiated it in
  a conciliatory exposition. The reputation in which he was held
  at the court of Brandenburg led to his being at a subsequent
  period made a _collaborateur_ in drawing up the hated Augsburg
  Interim (§ 136, 5). As his antinomianism every now and again
  cropped up afresh, the _Formula Concordiæ_ at last settled
  the controversy by the statement that we must ascribe to
  the law, not only a _usus politicus_ and _usus elenchticus_
  for terrorizing and arresting the sinner, but also a _usus
  didacticus_ for the sanctifying of the Christian life.

  § 141.2. =The Osiander Controversy, A.D. 1549-1556.=--Luther
  had, in opposition to the Romish doctrine of merits, defined
  justification as purely an act of God, whose fruit can be
  appropriated by man only by the exercise of faith. But he
  distinguished from justification as an act of God _for_ man,
  sanctification as the operation of God _in_ man. The former
  consists in this, that Christ once for all has offered Himself
  up on the cross for the sins of the whole world, and that
  now God ascribes the merit of the sacrificial death of Christ
  for every individual as though it had been his own, _i.e._
  juridically; the believer is thus declared, but not made
  righteous. The believer, on the ground of his having been
  declared righteous, is made righteous by means of a sanctifying
  process penetrating the whole earthly life and constantly
  advancing, but in this world never absolutely perfect, which
  is effected by the communication of the new life which Christ
  has created and brought to light. =Andrew Osiander= proposed
  a theory that diverged from this doctrine, and inclined
  toward that set forth in the Tridentine Council (§ 136, 4),
  but distinguished from the Romish view by decided attachment
  to the Protestant principle of justification by faith alone.
  He had been from A.D. 1522 pastor and reformer at Nuremberg,
  and had proclaimed his ideas without thereby giving offence.
  This first happened when, after his expulsion from Nuremberg
  on account of the interim, he had begun to announce his
  peculiar doctrine in the newly founded University of Königsberg,
  where he had been appointed professor by Duke Albert of
  Prussia in A.D. 1549 (§ 126, 4). Confounding sanctification
  with justification, he wished to define the latter, not
  as a declaring righteous but as a making righteous, not as
  a juridical but as a medicinal act, wrought by an infusion,
  _i.e._ a continuous influx of the righteousness of Christ.
  The sacrificial death of Christ is for him only the negative
  condition of justification, its positive condition rests upon
  the incarnation of Christ, the reproduction of which in the
  believer is justification, which is therefore to be referred not
  to the human but rather to the Divine nature in Christ. Along
  with this, he also held by the conviction that the incarnation
  of God in Christ would have taken place in order to complete
  the creation of the image of God in man even had the fall
  never happened. The main point of his opposition was grounded
  upon this: that he believed the juridical theory to have
  overlooked the religious subjective element, which, however, is
  still present in faith as the subjective condition of declaring
  righteous. The keen and bitter controversy over these questions
  spread from the university among the clergy, and thence to the
  citizens and families, and soon came to be carried on on both
  sides with great passionateness and heat. The favour publicly
  shown to Osiander by the duke, who set him as Bishop of Samland
  at the head of the Prussian clergy, increased the bitterness
  felt toward him by his opponents. Among these was Martin
  Chemnitz, a scholar of Melanchthon, and from A.D. 1548 rector
  of the High School at Königsberg. Also Professor Joachim Mörlin,
  a favourite pupil of Luther, Francis Staphylus, who afterwards
  went back to the Romish church (§ 137, 8), and Francis Stancarus
  of Mantua, a man who bears a very bad reputation for his
  fomenting of quarrels, were among Osiander’s most inveterate
  foes. Stancarus carried his opposition to Osiander so far
  as to maintain that Christ has become our righteousness only
  in respect of His human nature. The opinions received from
  abroad were for the inmost part against Osiander. John Brenz,
  of Württemburg [Württemberg], however, clined rather to favour
  Osiander’s view than that of his opponents, while Melanchthon,
  in giving utterance to the Wittenberg opinion, endeavoured by
  removing misunderstandings to reconcile the opposing parties,
  but on the main point decided against him. Even Osiander’s death
  in A.D. 1552 did not put an end to the controversy. At the head
  of his party now appeared the court preacher, John Funck, who,
  standing equally high in favour with the duke, filled all
  positions with his own followers. In his overweening conceit
  he mixed himself up in political affairs, and put himself in
  antagonism with the nobles and men of importance in the State.
  A commission of investigation on the Polish sovereignty at
  their instigation found him guilty of high treason, and had
  him beheaded in A.D. 1566. The other Osiandrianists were deposed
  and exiled. Mörlin, from A.D. 1533 general superintendent of
  Brunswick, was now honourably recalled as Bishop of Samland,
  reorganized the Prussian church, and in conjunction with
  Chemnitz, who had been from A.D. 1554 preacher in Brunswick,
  where he died in A.D. 1586 as general superintendent, composed
  for Prussia a new doctrinal standard in the _Corpus doctrinæ
  Pruthenicum_ of A.D. 1567.[404]

  § 141.3. Of much less importance was the =Æpinus Controversy=
  about Christ’s descent into hell, which John Æpinus, first
  Lutheran superintendent at Hamburg, in his exposition of the
  16th Psalm, in A.D. 1542, interpreted, after the manner of the
  Reformed theologians, of His state of humiliation, and as the
  completion of the passive obedience of Christ in the endurance
  of the pains of hell; whereas the usual Lutheran understanding
  of it was, that it referred to Christ’s triumphing over the
  powers of hell and death in His state of exaltation. An opinion
  sent from Wittenberg, in A.D. 1550, left the matter undetermined,
  and even the Formula of Concord was satisfied with teaching
  that Christ in His full personality descended into hell in
  order to deliver men from death and the power of the devil.--An
  equally peaceful settlement was brought about in the =Kargian
  Controversy=, A.D. 1563-1570, about the significance of the
  active obedience of Christ, which the pastor of Anspach, George
  Karg or Parsimonius, for a long time made a subject of dispute;
  but afterwards he retracted, being convinced of his error by the
  Wittenberg theologians.

  § 141.4. =The Philippists and their Opponents.=--Not long after
  the Augsburg Confession had been accepted as the common standard
  of the Lutheran church two parties arose, in which tendencies of
  a thoroughly diversant character were gradually developed. The
  real basis of this opposition lay in the diverse intellectual
  disposition and development of the two great leaders of the
  Reformation, which the scholars of both inherited in a very
  exaggerated form. Melanchthon’s disciples, the so-called
  Philippists, strove in accordance with their master’s example
  to make as much as possible of what they had in common, on the
  one hand, with the Reformed and, on the other hand, with the
  Catholics, and to maintain a conciliatory attitude that might
  aid toward effecting union. The personal friends, scholars,
  and adherents of Luther, on the contrary, for the most part
  more Lutheran than Luther himself, emulating the rugged decision
  of their great leader and carrying it out in a one-sided manner,
  were anxious rather to emphasise and widen as far as possible
  the gulf that lay between them and their opponents, Reformed
  and Catholics alike, and thus to make any reconciliation and
  union by way of compromise impossible. Luther attached himself
  to neither of these parties, but tried to restrain both from
  rushing to extremes, and to maintain as far as he could the
  peace between them.--The modification of strict Augustinianism
  which Melanchthon’s further study led him to adopt in the
  editions of his _Loci_ later than A.D. 1535 was denounced by
  the strict Lutherans as Catholicizing, but still more strongly
  did they object to the modification of the tenth article of the
  Augsburg Confession which he introduced into a new rendering
  of it, the so-called _Variata_, in A.D. 1540. In its original
  form it stood thus: _Docent, quod corpus et sanguis Domini
  vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in cœna Domini et
  improbant secus docentes_. For these words he now substituted
  the following: _Quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus
  et sanguis Christi vescentibus in cœna Domini_. This statement
  was indeed by no means Calvinistic, for instead of _vescentibus_
  the Calvinists would have said _credentibus_. Yet the arbitrary
  and in any case Calvinizing change amazed the strict Lutherans,
  and Luther himself bade its author remember that the book
  was not his but the church’s creed. After Luther’s death the
  Philippist party, in the Leipzig Interim of A.D. 1519, made
  several other very important concessions to the Catholics
  (§ 136, 7), and this led their opponents to denounce them as
  open traitors to their church. Magdeburg, which stubbornly
  refused to acknowledge the interim, became the city of refuge
  for all zealous Lutherans; while in opposition to the Philippist
  Wittenberg, the University of Jena, founded in A.D. 1548 by the
  sons of the ex-elector John Frederick according to his desire,
  became the stronghold of strict Lutheranism. The leaders on
  the Philippist side were Paul Eber, George Major, Justus Menius,
  John Pfeffinger, Caspar Cruciger, Victorin Strigel, etc. At
  the head of the strict Lutheran party stood Nicholas Amsdorf
  and Matthias Flacius. The former lived, after his expulsion
  from Naumburg (§ 135, 5), an “exul Christi,” along with the
  young dukes at Weimar. On account of his violent opposition to
  the interim, he was obliged, in A.D. 1548, to flee to Magdeburg,
  and after the surrender of the city he was placed by his ducal
  patrons in Eisenach, where he died in A.D. 1565. The latter,
  a native of Istria, and hence known as Illyricus, was appointed
  professor of the Hebrew language in Wittenberg in A.D. 1544,
  fled to Magdeburg in A.D. 1549, from whence he went to Weimar
  in A.D. 1556, and was called to Jena in A.D. 1557.

  § 141.5. =The Adiaphorist Controversy=, A.D. 1548-1555, as
  to the permissibility of Catholic forms in constitution and
  worship, was connected with the drawing up of the Leipzig
  Interim. That document described most of the Catholic forms
  of worship as _adiaphora_, or matters of indifference, which,
  in order to avoid more serious dangers, might be treated
  as allowable or unessential. The Lutherans, on the contrary,
  maintained that even a matter in itself unessential under
  circumstances like the present could not be treated as
  permissible. From Magdeburg there was poured out a flood
  of violent controversial and abusive literature against the
  Wittenberg renegades and the Saxon apostates. The altered
  position of the latter from A.D. 1551 hushed up in some measure
  the wrath of the zealots, and the religious Peace of Augsburg
  removed all occasion for the continuance of the strife.

  § 141.6. =The Majorist Controversy, A.D. 1551-1562.=--The
  strict Lutherans from the passing of the interim showed toward
  the Philippist party unqualified disfavour and regarded them
  with deep suspicion. When in A.D. 1551, George Major, at that
  time superintendent at Eisleben, in essential agreement with
  the interim, one of whose authors he was, and with Melanchthon’s
  later doctrinal views, maintained the position, that good
  works are necessary to salvation, and refused to retract
  the statement, though he somewhat modified his expressions
  by saying that it was not a _necessitas meriti_, but only
  a _necessitas conjunctionis s. consequentiæ_; and when also
  Justus Menius, the reformer of Thuringia, superintendent
  at Gotha, vindicated him in two tractates,--Amsdorf in the
  heat of the controversy set up in opposition the extreme
  and objectionable thesis, that good works are injurious to
  salvation, and even in A.D. 1559 justified it as “a truly
  Christian proposition preached by St. Paul and Luther.”
  Notwithstanding all the passionate bitterness that had mixed
  itself up with the discussion, the more sensible friends of
  Amsdorf, including even Flacius, saw that the ambiguity and
  indefiniteness of the expression was leading to error on both
  sides. They acknowledged, on the one hand, that only faith,
  not good works in themselves, is necessary to salvation, but
  that good works are the inevitable fruit and necessary evidence
  of true, saving faith; and, on the other hand, that not good
  works in themselves, but only trusting to them instead of
  the merits of Christ alone, can be regarded as injurious to
  salvation. Major for the sake of peace recalled his statement
  in A.D. 1562.

  § 141.7. =The Synergistic Controversy,
  A.D. 1555-1567.=--Luther in his controversy with Erasmus
  (§ 125, 3), as well as Melanchthon in the first edition of his
  _Loci_, in A.D. 1521, had unconditionally denied the capacity
  of human nature for independently laying hold upon salvation,
  and taught an absolute sovereignty of Divine grace in conversion.
  In his later edition of the _Loci_, from A.D. 1535, and in
  the Augsburg Confession of A.D. 1540, however, Melanchthon
  had admitted a certain co-operation or synergism of a remnant
  of freewill in conversion, and more exactly defined this in
  the edition of the _Loci_ of A.D. 1548 as the ability to lay
  hold by its own impulse of the offered salvation, _facultas se
  applicandi ad gratiam_; and though even in the Leipzig Interim
  of A.D. 1549 the Lutheran shibboleth _solê_ was constantly
  recurring, it was simply with the object of thoroughly excluding
  any claim of merit on man’s part in conversion. Luther with
  indulgent tolerance had borne with the change in Melanchthon’s
  convictions, and only objected to the incorporation of it
  in the creed of the church. But from the date of the interim
  the suspicion and opposition of the strict Lutherans increased
  from day to day, and burst forth in a violent controversy when
  John Pfeffinger, superintendent at Leipzig, also one of the
  authors of the detested interim, published, in A.D. 1555, his
  _Propositiones de libero arbitrio_, in defence of Melanchthon’s
  synergism. The leaders of the Gnesio-Lutherans, Arnsdorf in
  Eisenach, Flacius in Jena, and Musacus in Weimar, felt that
  they durst not remain silent, and so they maintained, as alone
  the genuine Lutheran doctrine, that the natural man cannot
  co-operate with the workings of Divine grace upon him, but
  can only oppose them. By order of the Duke John Frederick
  they prepared at Weimar, in A.D. 1559, as a new manifesto of
  the restored Lutheranism, a treatise containing a refutation
  of all the heresies that had hitherto cropped up within the
  Lutheran church. One of those invited to take part in the work,
  Victorin Strigel, professor at Jena, was made to suffer for
  the sympathy which he evinced for synergism by enduring close
  and severe imprisonment. The duke, however, soon again became
  more favourable to Strigel, who in A.D. 1560 vindicated himself
  at a public disputation in Weimar against Flacius, and was soon
  afterwards called to Leipzig. When in A.D. 1561 the duke set up
  a consistory in Weimar, and transferred to it the right hitherto
  exclusively exercised in Jena of ecclesiastical excommunication
  and the censorship of theological books, and the Flacian party
  opposed this “Cæsaro-papism” with unmeasured violence, all the
  adherents of the party were driven out of Jena and out of the
  whole territory, and their places filled with Melanchthonians.
  This victory of Philippism, however, was of but short duration.
  In order to regain the lost electoral rank, the duke allowed
  himself to be beguiled into taking part in the so-called
  Grumbach affair. He was cast into the imperial prison, and
  his brother John William, who now assumed the government,
  hastened, in A.D. 1567, to restore the overthrown theological
  party. Even in electoral Saxony interest in the Catholicizing
  synergism, at least, after Melanchthon’s death, in A.D. 1560,
  was gradually lost sight of in proportion as the controversy
  about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper gradually
  gained prominence.

  § 141.8. =The Flacian Controversy about Original Sin=,
  A.D. 1560-1575.--In the heat of the controversy with Strigel
  at the conference at Weimar, in A.D. 1560, Flacius had
  committed himself to the statement that original sin in man
  is not something accidental, but something substantial. His
  own friends now urged him to retract this proposition, which
  his opponents had branded as Manichæan. Its author had not
  indeed intended it in the bad sense which it might be supposed
  to bear. Flacius, however, was of a character too dogged and
  obstinate to agree to recall what he had uttered. Expelled
  with the rest of the Lutherans in A.D. 1562, and not recalled
  with them in A.D. 1567, he wandered without any fixed place of
  abode, driven away from almost every place that he entered, until
  shortly before his death he recalled his overhasty expression.
  He died in the hospital at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, in A.D. 1575.
  In him a powerful character and an amazing wealth of learning
  were utterly lost in consequence of unpropitious circumstances,
  which were partly his fault and partly his misfortune.

  § 141.9. =The Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.=--The
  union effected by the Wittenberg Concord of A.D. 1536 (§ 133, 8)
  with the South German cities, which originally favoured Zwinglian
  views, had been in many cases threatening to dissolve again,
  and the attacks of the men of Zürich obliged Luther in A.D. 1544
  to compose his last “Confession of the Holy Sacrament against
  the Fanatics.” The breach with the Zwinglians was now seen
  to be irreparable, but it appeared as if it were yet possible
  to come to an understanding with the more profound theory
  of the Lord’s Supper set forth by Calvin. To carry out this
  union was a thought very dear to the heart of Melanchthon. He
  had the conviction, not indeed that the Lutheran doctrine of
  the real presence of the body and blood in the bread and wine
  is erroneous, but rather that by the Calvinistic doctrine of
  a spiritual enjoyment of the body and blood of Christ in the
  supper by means of faith no essential element of religious truth
  was lost, and so he sought thereby to get over the difference
  in confession and doctrine. But with this explanation the
  strict Lutherans were by no means satisfied, and long continued
  and extremely passionate discussions were carried on in the
  various Lutheran countries, especially in Lower Saxony, in
  the Palatinate, and in the electorate. But the controversy
  was not restricted to the question of the supper; it rather
  went back upon a deeper foundation. Luther, carrying out the
  principles of the third and fourth œcumenical councils, had
  taught that the personal connection of the two natures in Christ
  implies a communication of the attributes of the one to the
  other, _communicatio idiomatum_, that therefore Christ, since
  He has by His ascension entered again upon the full exercise
  of His attributes, is, as God-Man, even in respect of His body,
  omnipresent, _ubiquitas corporis Christi_, and refused to allow
  himself to be perplexed by the incomprehensibility for the human
  understanding of an omnipresent body. It is here that we come
  upon the radical distinction between Luther’s view and that of
  Zwingli and Calvin, according to which the body of Christ cannot
  be at one and the same time in heaven at God’s right hand and
  on the earth in bread and wine. But Calvin, as well as Zwingli,
  from his very intellectual constitution, could only regard
  the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of the glorified body
  of Christ as an utter absurdity, and so, repudiating the
  _communicatio idiomatum_, he taught that the glorification
  of Christ’s body is restricted to its transfiguration, and
  that now in heaven, as before upon the earth, it can be present
  only in one place. A necessary consequence of this view was the
  rejection of His corporeal presence in the supper, and at the
  very most the admission of a communication in the sacrament to
  believers of a spiritual influence from the glorified body of
  Christ.--The ablest vindicator of the Lutheran doctrine of the
  supper in this aspect of its development was the Württemberg
  reformer John Brenz (§ 133, 3). In the _Syngramma Suevicum_
  of A.D. 1525 (§ 131, 1), he has taken his place most decidedly
  on the side of Luther, and this he had also done again,
  in A.D. 1529, at the Marburg Conference (§ 132, 4). Then
  in A.D. 1559, as provost in Stuttgart, in consequence of the
  doubtful attitude of a Swabian pastor on the question of the
  supper, he summoned a synod at Stuttgart, before which he laid
  a confession which expressed the doctrine of the supper and the
  ubiquity in strict accordance with Lutheran views. In defence
  of the idea of ubiquity he quoted Ephesians iv. 10, as affording
  sufficient Scripture support. The synod unanimously adopted
  it, and the duke gave approval to this _Confessio et doctr.
  theologor. et ministror. Verbi Dei in Ducatu Wirtb. de vera
  præsentia Corp. et sang, J. Chr. in Cœna Domini_, by ordering
  that all preachers should adopt it, and that it should
  have symbolic authority throughout the Württemberg church.
  Melanchthon, who had hitherto been on particularly intimate
  terms with Brenz, was very indignant at this “unseasonable”
  creed-making in “barbarous Latin.” Brenz, however, would not
  be deterred from giving more adequate expression and development
  to the objectionable dogma, and for this purpose published,
  in A.D. 1560, his book, _De personali unione duarum natur.
  in Christo_.

  § 141.10. =Cryptocalvinism in its First Stage,
  A.D. 1552-1574.=--The struggle of the Gnesio-Lutherans
  against Calvin’s doctrine of the supper, and the secret favour
  shown toward it by several Lutheran theologians, was begun in
  A.D. 1552 by Joachim Westphal, pastor in Hamburg. Calvin and
  Bullinger were not slow in giving him a sharp rejoinder. In
  a yet more violent form the dispute broke out in Bremen, where
  the cathedral preacher Hardenberg, and in Heidelberg, where the
  deacon Klebitz, entered the lists against the Lutheran dogma.
  In both cases the struggle ended in the defeat of Lutheranism
  (§ 144, 1, 2). In Wittenberg, too, the Philippists George Major,
  Paul Eber, Paul Crell, etc., supported by the very influential
  court physician of the electoral court of Saxony, Caspar Peucer,
  Melanchthon’s son-in-law, from A.D. 1559 successfully advanced
  the interests of Cryptocalvinism. Melanchthon himself, however,
  was not to live to see the troubles that arose over this,
  a truly gracious dispensation of Providence on behalf of a
  man already sorely borne down and trembling with hypochondriac
  fears, to have him thus delivered _a rabie theologicorum_.
  He died on 19th April, A.D. 1560. While the Elector Augustus,
  A.D. 1553-1586, intended that his Wittenberg should always be
  the main stronghold of strict Lutheranism, the Philippists were
  always coming forward with more and more boldness, and sought
  to prepare the way for themselves by getting all places filled
  with members of their party. They persuaded the elector to give
  a nominative authority throughout Saxony to a collection of
  Melanchthonian doctrinal and confessional documents compiled
  by them, _Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum s. Misnicum,_ 1560.
  The Wittenberg Catechism, _Catechesis, etc., ad usum scholar.
  puerilium_, 1571, set forth a doctrine of the sacraments
  and the person of Christ so manifestly Calvinistic, that
  even the elector was obliged to give way on account of the
  strong objections brought against it. The Philippists, however,
  succeeded in satisfying him by the _Consensus Dresdensis_,
  of 10th Oct., A.D. 1571, to this extent, that after the death
  of Duke John William, in the exercise of his authority as regent,
  he was induced to expel the Lutheran zealots Wigand and Hesshus
  from Jena, and in A.D. 1573 had more than a hundred clergymen
  of the duchy of Saxony deposed. In Breslau their interests were
  also zealously advanced by the influential imperial physician,
  John Krafft, to whom the Emperor Maximilian II. had granted
  a patent of nobility in A.D. 1568, with the new name of Crato
  von Crafftheim. Another Silesian physician, Joachim Curæus,
  also a scholar of Melanchthon, published in A.D. 1574, without
  any indication of author’s name, place of publication, or date
  of issue, his _Exegesis perspicua controversiæ de cœna_, which
  represented Melanchthon’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as the
  only tenable one, controverted that of the Lutherans as popish,
  eulogized that of the Reformed church as one most honouring to
  God, and urgently counselled union with the Calvinists. The warm
  recommendation of this treatise on the part of the Wittenberg
  Philippists, however, rather contributed to its failure. For
  now, at last, even the elector had become convinced of the
  danger that threatened Lutheranism through hints given him by
  the princes, and information obtained from intercepted letters.
  The Philippists were banished, their chiefs thrown into prison,
  Peucer being confined for twelve years, A.D. 1574-1586. A
  thanksgiving service in all the churches and memorial medal
  celebrated the rooting out in A.D. 1574 of Calvinism, and the
  final victory of restored Lutheranism.--In Denmark, Nicholas
  Hemming, pastor and professor at Copenhagen, distinguished
  alike by adequate scholarship and rich literary activity,
  and by mildness and temperateness of character, and hence
  designated the Preceptor of Denmark, was the recognised
  head of the Melanchthonian school. As a decided opponent
  of the doctrine of ubiquity, though otherwise on all points,
  and especially in his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, a
  good Lutheran, he fell under the suspicion of the German
  Gnesio-Lutherans as a Cryptocalvinist, and was accordingly
  opposed by them. In A.D. 1579, by order of the Elector Augustus,
  his brother-in-law, the King of Denmark removed him from his
  offices in Copenhagen, appointing him to a canonry in the
  cathedral at Roeskilde, where in A.D. 1600 he died.

  § 141.11. =The Frankfort Compact, A.D. 1558, and the Naumburg
  Assembly of Princes, A.D. 1561.=--After the disgraceful issue
  of the Worms Conference of A.D. 1557 (§ 137, 6), the Protestant
  princes, the electors Augustus of Saxony, Joachim of Brandenburg,
  and Ottheinrich of the Palatinate, with Philip of Hesse,
  Christopher of Württemberg, and the Count-palatine Wolfgang,
  who were gathered together about the Emperor Ferdinand,
  consulted as to the means which they should employ to insure
  and confirm the threatened unity of the evangelical church
  of Germany. The result of their deliberations was, that they
  agreed to sign a statement drawn up by Melanchthon and known
  by the name of the =Frankfort Compact=, in which they declared
  anew their unanimous attachment to the doctrine set forth in
  the _Augustana_, the _Variata_, and the _Saxonica_ (§ 136, 8),
  and in regard to controversial questions that had been discussed
  within the church expressed themselves in moderate terms as
  inclined to the views of Melanchthon. The Flacian party in
  Jena hastened to set forth their opposing sentiments in the
  manifesto of A.D. 1559, already referred to, in which the strict
  Gnesio-Lutheranism was laid down in the hardest and boldest
  manner possible.--The divisions that arose within the Lutheran
  church after Melanchthon’s death and the imminent reassembling
  of the Tridentine Council led the evangelical princes of Germany,
  who, with the exception of Philip of Hesse, all belonged to a
  new generation, once more to put forth every effort to restore
  unity by adoption of a common evangelical confession. At the
  =Assembly of Princes= appointed to meet for this purpose at
  =Naumburg= in A.D. 1561, most of them appeared personally.
  There was no thought of preparing a new confession, because
  it was feared that in those times of agitation it might be
  impossible to draw up such a document, or that, even if they
  succeeded in doing so, it might not close the breach, but
  rather widen it. Thus the only alternative remaining was
  to attempt the healing of the schism by reverting to the
  standpoint of the Augsburg Confession. But then the question
  arose whether the original form of statement of A.D. 1530,
  or its later elaboration of A.D. 1540, should be taken as the
  basis of union negotiations.--This at least was to be said in
  favour of the latter, that it had been unanimously adopted as
  the common confession of all the evangelicals of Germany at the
  peace Conference of Worms in A.D. 1540, where even Calvin had
  signed it, and at Regensburg in A.D. 1541 (§ 135, 2, 3); and
  now Philip of Hesse and Frederick III. of the Palatinate came
  forward decidedly in its favour. But all the more persistently
  did the Duke John Frederick of Saxony oppose it, and make every
  endeavour to get the rest of the princes to give their votes
  in favour of the Augsburg Confession of A.D. 1530. But the
  duke’s further wish to have added to it the Schmalcald Articles
  found very little favour. Finally a compromise was effected, in
  accordance with which, in a newly drawn up preface, the Apology
  of the _Augustana_, as well as the edition of A.D. 1540, was
  acknowledged, while the Schmalcald Articles, as well as the
  _Confessio Saxonica_ (§ 136, 8) and the Frankfort Compact, were
  passed over in silence. John Frederick now demanded the adoption
  of an express condemnation of the Calvinising Sacramentarians.
  This led to a hot discussion between him and his father-in-law,
  the elector-palatine. He took his departure on the following
  day without having received his dismissal, leaving behind him
  a sharply worded protest. Ulrich of Mecklenburg also refused
  to subscribe, but allowed himself at last to be persuaded into
  doing so. At the sixteenth session two papal legates personally
  delivered to the princes a brief inviting them to attend the
  council. This latter, however, was returned unopened when they
  discovered in the address the usual but artfully concealed
  formula “_dilecto filio_.” Also the demand of the imperial
  embassy accompanying the legates to take part in the council
  was determinedly rejected, because that would mean not revision
  but simply a continuation of the previous sessions of the
  council, at which the evangelical doctrine had already been
  definitely condemned.

  § 141.12. =The Formula of Concord, A.D. 1577.=--Already for
  a long time had the learned chancellor Jac. Andreä of Tübingen
  wrought unweariedly for the restoration of peace among the
  theologians of the Lutheran church. In order also to win over
  the general membership in favour of peace, he attempted in
  six popular discourses, delivered in A.D. 1573, to instruct
  them in reference to the points in dispute and proper means
  for overcoming these differences. He was so successful in his
  efforts, that he soon ventured to propose that these lectures
  should be made the basis of further negotiations. But when
  Martin Chemnitz, the most distinguished theologian of his
  age, pronounced them unsuitable for that purpose, Andreä
  wrought them up anew in accordance with Chemnitz’s critical
  suggestions into the so called “Swabian Concord.” But even
  in this form they did not satisfy the theologians of Lower
  Saxony. The Swabian theologians, however, in their criticisms
  and emendations, had answered various statements in it, and
  in A.D. 1576 they produced a new union scheme, drafted by
  Luc. Osiander, called the “_Maulbronn Formula_.” The Elector
  Augustus of Saxony then summoned a theological convention
  at Torgau, at which, besides Andreä and Chemnitz, there were
  also present Chytræus from Rostock, as well as Körner and
  Andr. Musculus from Frankfort-on-the-Oder. They wrought up
  the material thus accumulated before them into the “Book
  of Torgau,” of A.D. 1576. In regard to this book also the
  evangelical princes delivered numerous opinions, and now
  at last, in obedience to the order of the princes, Andreä,
  Chemnitz, Selnecker (§ 142, 4), Chytræus, Musculus, and Körner
  retired into the cloister of Berg at Magdeburg in order to make
  a final revision of all that was before them. Thus originated,
  in A.D. 1577, the Book of Berg or the =Formula of Concord=, in
  two different forms, first in the most compressed style possible
  in what is known as the _Epitome_, and then more completely
  in the document known as the _Solida declaratio_. This document
  dealt with all the controverted questions that had been agitated
  since A.D. 1530 in twelve articles. It set forth the doctrine
  of the Person of Christ, giving prominence to the theory of
  ubiquity, as the basis of the doctrine of the supper, leaving
  it, however, undetermined in accordance with the teaching of
  Brenz, whether the ubiquity is to be regarded as an absolute
  or as a relative one, if only it be maintained that Christ
  in respect of His human nature, therefore in respect of His
  body, is present “_ubicunque velit_,” more particularly in
  the holy supper. An opportunity was also found in treating
  of the synergistic questions to set forth the doctrine of
  predestination, although within the Lutheran church no real
  controversy on this subject had ever arisen. Luther, who at
  first (§ 125, 3) had himself given expression to a particularist
  doctrine of election, had gradually receded from that position.
  It was so too with Melanchthon, only with this important
  difference, that whereas Luther, afterwards as well as before,
  excluded every sort of co-operation of man in conversion,
  Melanchthon felt himself obliged to admit a certain degree
  of co-operation, which even the censure of Calvin himself could
  not lead him to repudiate. When now the Formula of Concord,
  rejecting synergism in the most decided manner, affirmed that
  since the fall there was in men not even a spark remaining,
  _ne scintillula quidem_, of spiritual power for the independent
  free appropriation of offered grace, it had gone over from the
  platform of Melanchthon to that which Calvin, following the
  course of hard, logical consistency, had been driven to adopt,
  in the assertion of a doctrine of absolute predestination. The
  formula was thus in the main in agreement with the speculation
  of Calvin. But it declined to accept the conclusions arrived
  at in Calvinism by declaring that while man indeed of himself
  wanted the power to lay hold upon Divine grace and co-operate
  with it in any way, he was yet able to withstand it and refuse
  to accept it. In this way it was able to hold by the express
  statements of Scripture which represent God as willing that
  all men should be saved, and salvation as an absolute work of
  grace, but condemnation as the consequence of man’s own guilt.
  It regards the salvation of men as the only object of Divine
  predestination, condemnation as merely an object of the Divine
  foreknowledge.--At a later period an attempt was made to set
  at rest the scruples that prevailed here and there by securing
  at Berg, in February, A.D. 1580, the adoption of an addition
  to it in the form of a _Præfatio_ drawn up by Andreä as a final
  determination of the controversy. The character of this new
  symbolical document, in accordance with its occasion and its
  aim, was not so much that of a popular exposition for the church,
  but rather that of a scientific theological treatise. For that
  period of excitement and controversy it is quite remarkable
  and worthy of high praise for its good sense, moderation, and
  circumspection, as well as for the accuracy and clearness with
  which it performed its task. The fact that nine thousand of the
  teachers of the church subscribed it affords sufficient proof
  of it having fulfilled the end contemplated. Denmark and Sweden,
  Holstein, Pomerania, Hesse, and Anhalt, besides eight cities,
  Magdeburg, Dantzig, Nuremberg, Strassburg, etc., refused to
  sign from various and often conflicting motives. In A.D. 1581
  Frederick II. of Denmark is said indeed to have thrown it
  into the fire. Yet in later years it was adopted in not a
  few of these regions, _e.g._ in Sweden, Holstein, Pommerania
  [Pomerania], etc. The Elector Augustus of Saxony, in the Book
  of Concord, brought out a collection of all general Lutheran
  confessional writings which, signed by fifty-one princes and
  thirty-five cities, was solemnly promulgated on the anniversary
  of the Augsburg Confession, 25th June, A.D. 1580. By this means
  the whole Lutheran church of Germany obtained a common _corpus
  doctrinæ_, and the numerous collections of confessional and
  doctrinal documents acknowledged by the church, which hitherto
  separate national churches had drawn up for this purpose,
  henceforth lost their authority.

  § 141.13. =Second Stage of Cryptocalvinism, A.D. 1586-1592.=--Yet
  once more the Calvinising endeavours of the Philippists were
  renewed in the electorate of Saxony under Augustus’ successor
  Christian I., who had obtained this position in A.D. 1586,
  through his relationship with the family of the count-palatine.
  His chancellor Nicholas Crell filled the offices of pastors
  and teachers with men of his own views, abolished exorcism at
  baptism, and had even begun the publication of a Bible with
  a Calvinising commentary when Christian died, in A.D. 1591.
  The Duke Frederick William of Altenburg, as regent during the
  minority, immediately re-introduced strict Lutheranism, and,
  preparatory to a church visitation, had a new anti-Calvinistic
  standard of doctrine compiled in the so called =Articles of
  Visitation= of A.D. 1592, which all civil and ecclesiastical
  officers in Saxony were required to accept. In short, clear,
  and well defined theses and antitheses the doctrinal differences
  on the supper, the Person of Christ, baptism, and election were
  there set forth. In reference to baptism, the anti-Calvinistic
  doctrine was promulgated, that regeneration takes place through
  baptism, and that therefore every baptized person is regenerate.
  The most important among the compilers of these Articles
  of Visitation was Ægidius Hunnius, shortly before called to
  Wittenberg, after having, from A.D. 1576 to 1592, as professor
  at Marburg, laboured with all his might in opposition to
  the Calvinising of Hesse. He had also, by his defence of the
  doctrine of ubiquity, in his “Confession of the Doctrine of
  the Person of Christ” in German, in A.D. 1577, and his Latin
  treatise, “_Libelli IV. de pers. Chr. ejusque ad dexteram
  sedentes divina majestate_,” in A.D. 1585, shown himself
  an energetic champion of strict Lutheranism. He died in
  A.D. 1603.--The unfortunate chancellor Crell, however, who
  had made himself hateful to the Lutherans as the promoter and
  chief instigator of all the Calvinising measures of the deceased
  elector, and yet more so by his energetic interference with
  the usurpations of the nobles, suffered an imprisonment of ten
  years in the fortress of Königstein, and was then, after a trial
  conducted in the most arbitrary manner, declared to be a traitor
  and an enemy of the public peace, and executed in A.D. 1601.

  § 141.14. =The Huber Controversy, A.D. 1588-1595.=--Samuel
  Huber, reformed pastor in the Canton Bern, became involved
  in a controversy with Wolfgang Musculus over the doctrine of
  election. Going even beyond the Lutheran doctrine, he affirmed
  that all men are predestinated to salvation, although through
  their own fault not all are saved. Banished from Bern in
  A.D. 1588, after a disputation with Beza, he entered the
  Lutheran church and became pastor at Württemberg. Here he
  charged the Professor Gerlach with Cryptocalvinism, because
  he taught that only believers are predestinated to salvation.
  The controversy was broken off by his call to Wittenberg.
  But even his Wittenberg colleagues, Polic. Leyser and Ægidius
  Hunnius, fell under the suspicion of Cryptocalvinism, and were
  accordingly opposed by him. When all disputation and conferences
  had failed to get him to abandon his doctrine, and parties
  began to be formed among the students, he was, in A.D. 1594,
  removed from Wittenberg. With increasing rancour he continued
  the controversy, and wandered about Germany for many years in
  order to secure a following for his theory, but without success.
  He died in A.D. 1624.

  § 141.15. =The Hofmann Controversy in Helmstadt,
  A.D. 1598.=--The great influence which the study of the
  Aristotelian philosophy in connection with that of humanism
  obtained in the Julius University founded at Helmstadt in
  A.D. 1576, seemed to its theological professor, Daniel Hofmann,
  to threaten injury to theological study, and to be prejudicial
  to pure Lutheran doctrine. He therefore attached himself to
  the Romists (§ 143, 6), and took advantage of the occasion
  of the conferring of doctor’s degrees to deliver a violent
  invective against the incursions of reason and philosophy into
  the region of religion and revelation. In consequence of this
  his philosophical colleagues complained of him to the senate as
  a reproacher of reason, and as one injurious to their faculty.
  That court obliged him to retract and apologise, and then
  deprived him of his office as professor of theology.


         § 142. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE, AND SCIENCE IN THE
                            LUTHERAN CHURCH.

  In reference also to the ecclesiastical constitution, by holding
firmly to the standpoint and to the working out of the system which it
had sketched out in its confession and doctrinal teaching, the Lutheran
church sought to mediate between extremes, although, amid the storms
from without and from within by which it was threatened, it was just
at this point that it was least successful. It reflected its character
more clearly and decidedly in its order of worship than in its
constitution.--The Reformation at last relaxed that hierarchical ban
which for centuries had put an absolute restraint upon congregational
singing, and had excluded the use of the vernacular in the services
of the church. Even within the limits of the Reformation era, the
German church song attained unto such a wonderful degree of excellence,
as affords the most convincing evidence of the fulness, power, and
spirituality, the genuine elevation and fresh enthusiasm, of the
spiritual life of that age. The sacred poetry of the church is the
confession of the Lutheran people, and has accomplished even more
than preaching for extending and deepening the Christian life of the
evangelical church. No sooner had a sacred song of this sort burst
forth from the poet’s heart, than it was everywhere taken up by the
Christian people of the land, and became familiar to every lip. It
found entrance into all houses and churches, was sung before the doors,
in the workshops, in the market-places, streets, and fields, and won
at a single blow whole cities to the evangelical faith.--The Christian
life of the people in the Lutheran church combined deep, penitential
earnestness and a joyfully confident consciousness of justification by
faith with the most nobly steadfast cheerfulness and heartiness natural
to the German citizen. Faithful attention to the spiritual interests
of their people, vigorous ethical preaching, and zealous efforts to
promote the instruction of the young on the part of their pastors,
created among them a healthy and hearty fear of God, without the
application of any very severe system of church discipline, a thorough
and genuine attachment to the church, strict morality in domestic
life, and loyal submission to civil authority.--Theological science
flourished especially at the universities of Wittenberg, Tübingen,
Strassburg, Marburg, and Jena.

  § 142.1. =The Ecclesiastical Constitution.=--As a mean between
  hierarchism and Cæsaro-papism, between the intrusion of the
  State into the province of the church, and the intrusion of
  the church into the province of the State, the ecclesiastical
  constitution of the Lutheran church was theoretically right
  in the main, though in practice and even in theory many defects
  might be pointed out. It presented at least a protest against
  all commingling or subordinating of one or the other in these
  two spheres. Owing to the urgent needs of the church, the
  princes and magistrates, in the character of emergency-bishops,
  undertook the supreme administration and management of
  ecclesiastical affairs, and transferred the exercise of these
  rights and duties to special boards called consistories, made
  up of lay and clerical members, which were to have jurisdiction
  over the clergy, the administration of discipline, and the
  arranging and enforcing of the marriage laws. What had been
  introduced simply as a necessity in the troubled condition of
  the church in those times came gradually to be claimed as a
  prescriptive right. According to the _Episcopal System_, the
  territorial lord as such claimed to rank and act as _summus
  episcopus_. After introducing some cautious modifications that
  were absolutely indispensable, the canon law actually left
  the foundation of jurisprudence untouched. The restoration of
  the biblical idea of a universal priesthood of all believers
  would not tolerate the retaining of the theory of an essential
  distinction between the clergy and the laity. The clergy were
  properly designated the servants, _ministri_, of the church,
  of the word, of the altar, and all restrictions that had been
  imposed upon the clergy, and distinguished them as an order,
  were removed. Hierarchical distinctions among the clergy
  were renounced, as opposed to the spirit of Christianity;
  but the advantage of a superordination and subordination
  in respect of merely human rights, in the institution of
  such offices as those of superintendents, provosts, etc.,
  was recognised.--Ecclesiastical property was in many cases
  diverted from the church and arbitrarily appropriated by the
  greed and rapacity of princes and nobles, but still in great
  part, especially in Germany, it continued in the possession
  of the church, except in so far as it was applied to the
  endowment of schools, universities, and charitable institutions.
  The monasteries fell under a doom which by reason of their
  corruptions they had richly deserved. A restoration of such
  establishments in an evangelical spirit was not to be thought
  of during a period of convulsion and revolution.--Continuation,
  § 165, 5.

  § 142.2. =Public Worship and Art.=--While the Roman Catholic
  order of worship was dominated almost wholly by fancy and
  feeling, and that of the reformed church chiefly by the reason,
  the Lutheran church sought to combine these two features in
  her services. In Romish worship all appealed to the senses,
  and in that of the Calvinistic churches all appealed to the
  understanding; but in the Lutheran worship both sides of human
  nature were fully recognised, and a proportionate place assigned
  to each. The unity of the church was not regarded as lying in
  the rigid uniformity of forms of worship, but in the unity of
  the confession. Altars ornamented with candles and crucifixes,
  as well as all the images that might be in churches, were
  allowed to remain, not as objects of worship, but rather to
  aid in exciting and deepening devotion. The liturgy was closely
  modelled upon the Romish ritual of the mass, with the exclusion
  of all unevangelical elements. The preaching of the word was
  made the central point of the whole public service. Luther’s
  style of preaching, the noble and powerful popularity of
  which has probably never since been equalled, certainly
  never surpassed, was the model and pattern which the other
  Lutheran preachers set before themselves. Among these,
  the most celebrated were Ant. Corvin, Justus Jonas, George
  Spalatin, Bugenhagen, Jerome Weller, John Brenz, Veit Dietrich,
  J. Mathesius, Martin Chemnitz. It was laid down as absolutely
  essential to the idea of public worship, that the congregation
  should take part in it, and that the common language of the
  people should be exclusively employed. The adoration of the
  sacrament on the altar, as well as the Romish service of the
  mass, were set aside as unevangelical, and the sacrament of
  the supper was to be administered to the whole congregation in
  both kinds. On the other hand, it was admitted that baptism was
  necessary, and might and should be administered in case of need
  by laymen. The customary formulary of exorcism in baptism was
  at first continued without dispute, and though Luther himself
  attached no great importance to it, yet every attempt to secure
  its discontinuance was resisted by the later Gnesio-Lutherans as
  savouring of Cryptocalvinism. Yet it should be remembered that
  such orthodox representatives of Lutheranism as Hesshus, Ægidius
  Hunnius, and Martin Chemnitz, as well as afterwards John Gerhard,
  Quenstedt, and Hollaz, were only in favour of its being allowed,
  but not of its being regarded as necessary. Spener again
  declared himself decidedly in favour of its being removed,
  and in the eighteenth century it passed without any serious
  opposition into disuse throughout almost the whole of the
  Lutheran church, until re-introduced in the nineteenth century
  by the Old Lutherans (§ 176, 2).--The church festivals were
  restricted to celebrations of the facts of redemption; only
  such of the feasts of Mary and the saints were retained as had
  legitimate ground in the Bible history; _e.g._ the days of the
  apostles, the annunciation of Mary, Michael’s Day, St. John’s
  Day, etc. Art was held by Luther in high esteem, especially
  music. Lucas Cranach, who died in A.D. 1553, Hans Holbein,
  father and son, and Albert Dürer, who died in A.D. 1528, placed
  their art as painters at the service of the gospel, and adorned
  the churches with beautiful and thoughtful pictures.

  § 142.3. =Church Song.=--The character common to the sacred
  songs of the Lutheran church of the sixteenth century is
  that they are thoroughly suited for congregational purposes,
  and are truly popular. They are songs of faith and the creed,
  with a clear impress of objectivity. The writers of them do
  not describe their subjective feelings, nor their individual
  experiences, but they let the church herself by their mouths
  express her faith, her comfort, her thanksgiving, and adoration.
  But they are also genuinely songs of the people; true, simple,
  hearty, bright, and bold in expression, rapid in movement,
  no standing still and looking back, no elaborate painting
  and describing, no subtle demonstrating and teaching. Even in
  outward form they closely resemble the old German epics and
  the popular historical ballad, and were intended above all
  not merely to be read, but to be sung, and that by the whole
  congregation. The ecclesiastical authorities began to introduce
  hymn-books into the several provinces toward the end of the
  seventeenth century. Previously there had only been private
  collections of sacred songs, and the hymns were distinguished
  only by the words of the opening line; and so widely known were
  they, that the mentioning of them was sufficient to secure the
  hymn so designated being sung by the congregation present at the
  public service.--The sacred songs of the Reformation age possess
  all these characteristics in remarkable degree. Among all the
  sacred poets of that time =Luther= stands forth pre-eminent.
  His thirty-six hymns or sacred poems belong to five different
  classes.

    1. There are free translations of Latin hymns: “Praised be
       Thou, O Jesus Christ;” “Thou who art Three in unity;”
       “In our true God we all believe;” “Lord God, we praise
       do Thee;” “In the midst of life we are aye in death’s
       embraces;” “Come God, Creator, Holy Ghost,” etc.

    2. There are reproductions of original German songs: “Death
       held our Lord in prison;” “Now pray we to the Holy Ghost;”
       “God the Father with us be;” “Let God be praised, blessed,
       and uplifted.”

    3. We have also paraphrastic renderings of certain psalms:
       “Ah, God in heaven, look down anew” (Ps. xii.); “Although
       the mouth say of the unwise” (Ps. xiv.); “Our God, He
       is a castle strong” (Ps. xlvi.); “God, unto us right
       gracious be” (Ps. lxvii.); “Had God not been with us
       this time” (Ps. cxxiv.); “From trouble deep I cry to
       Thee” (Ps. cxxx.), etc.

    4. We have also songs composed on particular Scripture themes:
       “There are the holy ten commands;” “To Isaiah the prophet
       this was given” (Isa. vi.); “From heaven on high I come to
       you” (Luke ii.); “To Jordan, where our Lord has gone,” etc.

    5. There are, finally, poems original in form and contents:
       “Dear Christians, let us now rejoice;” “Jesus Christ, our
       Saviour true;” “Lord, keep us by Thy word in hope.”[405]

  After Luther, the most celebrated hymn-writers in the Lutheran
  church of the sixteenth century are =Paul Speratus=, reformer
  in Prussia, who died in A.D. 1554; =Nicholas Decius=, first
  a monk, then evangelical pastor at Stettin about A.D. 1524.
  =Paul Eber=, professor and superintendent in Wittenberg, who
  died in A.D. 1569, author of the hymns, “When in the hour of
  utmost need;” “Lord Jesus Christ, true Man and God;” and one of
  which our well-known “Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness,” is a
  paraphrase.[406] Hans Sachs, shoemaker in Nuremberg, who died in
  A.D. 1567, wrote during the famine in that city in A.D. 1552 the
  hymn, “Why art thou thus cast down, my heart?” =John Schneesing=,
  pastor in Gothaschen, who died in A.D. 1567, wrote “Lord Jesus
  Christ, in Thee alone.” =John Mathesius=, rector and deacon
  in Joachimsthal, who also delivered sermons on Luther’s life,
  died in A.D. 1565, wrote a beautiful morning hymn, and other
  sweet sacred pieces. =Nicholas Hermann=, who died in A.D. 1561,
  precentor at Joachimsthal, wrote out Mathesius’ sermons in hymns,
  “The happy sunshine all is gone,” the burial hymn, “Now hush
  your cries, and shed no tear,” etc. =Michael Weisse= closes the
  series of hymn-writers of the Reformation age. He was a German
  pastor in Bohemia, translator and editor of the sacred songs of
  the Bohemian Hussites, and died in A.D. 1540. He wrote “Christ
  the Lord is risen again,” and the burial hymn to which Luther
  added a verse, “Now lay we calmly in the grave.”[407]

  § 142.4. In the period immediately following, from A.D. 1560
  to A.D. 1618, we meet with many poetasters who write on sacred
  themes in doggerel rhymes. Even those who are poets by natural
  endowment, and inspired with Divine grace, are much too prolific;
  but they have bequeathed to us a genuine wealth of beautiful
  church songs, characterized by healthful objectivity, childlike
  simplicity, and a singular power of appealing to the hearts of
  the great masses of the people. But a tendency already begins to
  manifest itself in the direction of that excessive subjectivity
  which was the vice of hymn-writers in the succeeding period;
  the doctrinal element too becomes more and more prominent,
  as well as application to particular circumstances and occasions
  in life; but the objective confession of faith is always still
  predominant. Among the sacred poets of this period the most
  important are =Bartholmaus Ringwaldt=, pastor in Brandenburg,
  who died in A.D. 1597, author of “’Tis sure that awful time will
  come;” =Nicholas Selnecker=, at last superintendent in Leipzig,
  who died in A.D. 1592, as Melanchthon’s scholar suspected at
  one time of Cryptocalvinism, but, after he had taken part in
  the composition of the Formula of Concord, the object of the
  most bitter hatred and constant persecution on the part of the
  Cryptocalvinists of Saxony: he wrote, “O Lord my God, I cry to
  Thee;” =Martin Schalling=, pastor at Regensburg and Nuremberg,
  who died in A.D. 1608, wrote, “Lord, all my heart is fixed on
  Thee;” =Martin Böhme= or Behemb, pastor in Lusatia, who died in
  A.D. 1621, author of “Lord Jesus Christ, my Life, my Light.” The
  series closes with =Philip Nicolai=, a violent and determined
  opponent of Calvinism, who was latterly pastor in Hamburg, and
  died in A.D. 1608. His vigorous and rhythmical poetry, with its
  deep undertone of sweetness, is to some extent modelled on the
  Song of Songs. He wrote “Awake, awake, for night is flying;” the
  chorale in Mendelssohn’s “St. Paul,” “Sleepers, wake, a voice is
  calling,” is a rendering of the same piece.--Continuation,
  § 159, 3.

  § 142.5. =Chorale Singing.=--The congregational singing, which
  the Reformation made an integral part of evangelical worship,
  was essentially a reproduction of the Ambrosian mode (§ 59, 5)
  in a purer form and with richer fulness. It was distinguished
  from the Gregorian style preeminently by this, that it
  was not the singing of a choir of priests, but the popular
  singing of the whole congregation. The name chorale singing,
  however, was still continued, and has come to be the
  technical and appropriate designation of the new mode. It is
  further distinguished from the Gregorian mode by this other
  characteristic, that instead of singing in a uniform monotone
  of simple notes of equal length, it introduces a richer rhythm
  with more lively modulation. And, finally, it is characterized
  by the introduction of harmony in place of the customary unison.
  But, on the other hand, the chorale singing may be regarded as
  a renewal of the old _cantus firmus_, while at the same time
  it sets aside the secular music style and the artificialities
  of counterpoint and the elaborate ornamentation with which the
  false taste of the Middle Ages had overlaid it. The congregation
  sang the _cantus firmus_ or melody in unison, the singers in the
  choir gave it the accompaniment of a harmony. The organ during
  the Reformation age was used for support, and accompanied only
  in elaborate, high-class music. But the melody was pitched in
  a medium key, which as the leading voice was called _Tenor_.
  The melodies for the new church hymns were obtained, partly by
  adaptation of the old tunes for the Latin hymns and sequences,
  partly by appropriation of popular mediæval airs, especially
  among the Bohemian Brethren, partly also and mainly by the
  free use of the popular song tunes of the day, to which no one
  made any objection, since indeed the spiritual songs were often
  parodies of the popular songs whose airs were laid hold upon
  for church use. The few original melodies of this age were for
  the most part composed by the authors of the hymns themselves
  or by the singers, and were the outflow of the same inspiration
  as had called forth the poems. They have therefore been rarely
  equalled in impressiveness, spiritual glow, and power by any
  of the more artistic productions of later times. Acquaintance
  with the new melodies was spread among the people by itinerant
  singers, chorister boys in the streets, and the city cornet
  players. From the singers or those who adapted the melodies are
  to be distinguished the composers, who as technical musicians
  arranged the harmony and set it in a form suitable for church
  use. =George Rhaw=, precentor in Leipzig, afterwards printer in
  Wittenberg, and =Hans Walter=, choirmaster to the elector, both
  intimate friends of Luther, were amongst the most celebrated
  composers of their day. The evangelical church music reaches
  its highest point of excellence toward the end of the sixteenth
  century. The great musical composer, =John Eccart=, who was
  latterly choirmaster in Berlin, and died in A.D. 1611, was
  the most active agent in securing this perfection of his art.
  In order to make the melody clearer and more distinctly heard,
  it was transferred from the middle voice, the tenor, to the
  higher voice or treble. The other voices now came in as simple
  concords alongside of the melody, and the organ, which had now
  been almost perfected by the introduction of many important
  improvements, now came into general use with its pure, rich,
  and accurate full harmony, as a support and accompaniment of
  the congregational singing. The distinction too between singers
  and composers passed more and more out of view. The skilled
  artistic singing was thus brought into closer relations with
  the congregational singing, and the creative power, out of which
  an abundant supply of original melodies was produced, grew and
  developed from year to year.

  § 142.6. =Theological Science.=--Inasmuch as the Reformation had
  its origin in the word of God, and supported itself upon that
  foundation alone the theologians of the Reformation were obliged
  to give special attention to biblical studies. John Förster, who
  died in A.D. 1556, and John Avenarius, who died in A.D. 1576,
  both of Wittenberg, compiled Hebrew lexicons, which embodied
  the results of independent investigations. =Matthias Flacius=,
  in his _Clavis Scr. s._, provided what for that time was a
  very serviceable aid to the study of Scripture. The first part
  gives in alphabetical order an explanation of Scripture words
  and forms of speech, the second forms a system of biblical
  hermeneutics. Exegesis proper found numerous representatives.
  Luther himself beyond dispute holds the front rank in this
  department. After him the most important Lutheran exegetes
  of that age are for the New Testament, Melanchthon; Victorin
  Strigel, who wrote _Hyponm. in Novum Testamentum_; Flacius,
  with his _Glossa compendiaria in Novum Testamentum_; Joachim
  Camerarius, with his _Notationes in Nov. Testamentum_; =Martin
  Chemnitz=, with his _Harmonia IV. Evangeliorum_, continued by
  Polic. Leyser, and completed at last by John Gerhard: for the
  Old Testament, especially =John Brenz=, whose commentaries are
  still worthy of being consulted. Of less consequence are the
  numerous commentaries of the comprehensive order, compiled by
  the once scarcely less influential David Chytræus of Rostock,
  who died in A.D. 1600. The series of Lutheran dogmatists
  opens with =Melanchthon=, who published his _Loci communes_
  in A.D. 1521. =Martin Chemnitz=, in his _Loci theologici_,
  contributed an admirable commentary to Melanchthon’s work,
  and it soon became the recognised standard dogmatic treatise
  in the Lutheran church. In A.D. 1562 he published his _Examen
  Conc. Trident._, in which he combated the Romish doctrine
  with as much learning and thoroughness as good sense, mildness,
  and moderation. Polemical theology was engaged upon with
  great vigour amid the many internal and external controversies,
  conducted often with intense passion and bitterness. In the
  department of church history we have the gigantic work of
  the Magdeburg centuriators, the result of the bold scheme of
  =Matthias Flacius=. By his _Catalogus testium veritatis_ he
  had previously advanced evidence to show that at no point in
  her history had the church been without enlightened and pious
  heroes of faith, who had carried on the uninterrupted historical
  continuity of evangelical truth, and so secured an unbroken
  succession from the early apostolic church till that of the
  sixteenth century.--Continuation, § 159, 4.

  § 142.7. =German National Literature.=--The Reformation occurred
  at a time when the poetry and national literature of Germany was
  in a condition of profound prostration, if not utter collapse.
  But it brought with it a reawakening of creative powers in
  the national and intellectual life of the people. Under the
  influence and stimulus of Luther’s own example there arose
  a new prose literature, inspired by a broad, liberal spirit,
  as the expression of a new view of the world, which led the
  Germans both to think and teach in German. It was mainly the
  intellectual friction from the contact of one fresh mind with
  another in regard to questions agitated in the Reformation
  movement that gave to the satirical writings of the age that
  brilliancy, point, and popularity which in the history of German
  literature was not attained before and never has been reached
  since. In innumerable fugitive sheets, in the most diverse forms
  of style and language, in poetry and prose, in Latin and German,
  these satires poured forth contempt and scorn against and in
  favour of the Reformation. As we have on the Catholic side
  Thomas Murner (§ 125, 4), and on the Reformed side Nicholas
  Manuel (§ 130, 4), so we have on the Lutheran side =John
  Fischart=, far excelling the former two, and indeed the greatest
  satirist that Germany has yet produced. To him we are mainly
  indebted for the almost incessant stream of anonymous satires
  of the sixteenth century. He belonged, like Sebastian Brandt and
  Thomas Murner, to Strassburg, was for a long time advocate at
  the royal court of justice at Spires, and died in A.D. 1589. His
  satirical vein was exercised first of all upon ecclesiastical
  matters: “The Night Raven (_Rabe_) and the Hooded Crow,” against
  a certain J. Rabe, who had become a Roman Catholic. “On the
  Pretty Life of St. Dominic and St. Francis,” an abusive effusion
  against the Dominicans and Francisans [Franciscan]. “The Beehive
  of the Romish Swarm,” the best known of all his satires, an
  independent and original working up of the theme of the book
  bearing the same name by Philip von Marnix (§ 139, 12). “The
  Four-horned Bat of the Jesuits,” in rhyme, the most stinging,
  witty, and scathing satire which has ever been written against
  the Jesuits. Then he turned his attention to secular subjects.
  His “Beehive” may be regarded as a companion piece to Murner’s
  “Lutheran Buffoon;” but excelling this passionately severe
  production in spirit, wit, and bright, laughing sarcasm, it is
  as certain to win the pre-eminence and be awarded the victory.
  Among the secular poets of that century the shoemaker of
  Nuremberg, =Hans Sachs=, who died in A.D. 1576, an admirable
  specimen of the Lutheran burgher, holds the first rank.
  As a minstrel he is almost as unimportant as any of his
  contemporaries, but conspicuously excelling in the poetic
  rendering of many tales, legends, and traditions by his naïve
  drollery, honest good-heartedness, and fresh, lively vigour
  and style. He left behind him 208 comedies and tragedies,
  1,700 humorous tales, 4,200 lays and ballads. He gave a bright
  and cheery greeting to the Reformation in A.D. 1523 in his poem,
  “The Wittenberg Nightingale,” and by this he also contributed
  very much to further and recommend the introduction of the
  teachings of the Reformation among his fellow citizens.

  § 142.8. For =Missions to the Heathen= very little was done
  during this period. The reason of this indeed is not far to
  seek. The Lutheran church felt that home affairs had the first
  and in the meantime an all-engrossing claim upon her attention
  and energies. She had not the call which the Roman Catholic
  church had, in consequence of political and mercantile relations
  with distant countries, to prosecute missions in heathen
  lands, nor had she the means for conducting such enterprises
  as those on which the monkish orders were engaged. Yet we
  find the beginnings of a Lutheran mission even in this early
  period, for Gustavus Vasa of Sweden founded, in A.D. 1559,
  an association for carrying the gospel to the neglected and
  benighted Lapps.[408]


          § 143. THE INNER DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMED CHURCH.

  The close connection which all Lutheran national churches had obtained
in their possession of one common confession was wanting to the Reformed
church, inasmuch as there each national church had drawn up its own
confession. The victory of Calvinistic dogmatic over the Zwinglian in
the Swiss mother church (§ 138, 7) was not without influence upon the
other Reformed national churches; and Calvinism, partly in its entire
stringency and severity, partly in a form more or less modified, without
expressing itself in one common symbol, formed henceforth a bond of
union and a common standard for attacks on Lutheran dogmatics. Quite
similar was the origin of the divergence that arose between Zwinglianism
and Calvinism in the department of the ecclesiastical constitution. In
this case also the victory was with the Calvinistic organization. Its
ideal embraced the restoration of the primitive apostolic presbyterial
and synodal constitution, together with the church’s unconditional
independence of the State. This proved much more acceptable than the
theory which, under Zwingli’s auspices, had been adopted in German
Switzerland, according to which church government and the administration
of discipline were put in the hands of the Christian civil magistrates.
A rigid system of ecclesiastical penitential discipline, however, was on
all sides applied to the public and private lives of all church members.
Under such discipline the community came generally to present a picture
of singularly pure and correct morality, and not infrequently we see
exhibited a remarkable development of high moral character. It fostered
the noble confidence of the martyr spirit, which indeed only too often
ran out into extremes and made an unjustifiable use of Old Testament
precedents and patterns.--In reference to worship, the Reformed church,
with its simplest possible form of service, stripped of all pomp and
ceremony, presents the most thorough and marked contrast to the gorgeous
and richly ceremonial worship of the Roman Catholic church.--Yet the
episcopal Anglican national church (§ 139, 6), in almost all particulars
relating to constitution, worship, discipline, and customs, completely
severed its connection with the distinctive characteristics of the
Reformed church, and allied itself to the traditional forms and
ceremonies of the Roman Catholic church. On the other hand, in reference
to dogma it approaches in its mediating attitude nearer in several
respects to the view of the Lutheran church. But all the more rigidly
and exclusively did the Puritans who separated themselves from the
Anglican church, as well as the strict Presbyterian church of Scotland,
appropriate, and even carry out to further extremes, the rigorism of
the Genevan model in regard both to worship and to doctrine.

  § 143.1. =The Ecclesiastical Constitution.=--Just as in the
  Lutheran church, the ecclesiastical leaders had been driven
  by necessity to submit to the so-called _super-episcopate_
  of the princes, it also happened here in German Switzerland
  that, under pressure of circumstances, this power, as well as
  church discipline and infliction of ecclesiastical censures,
  was put in the hands of the magistrates. By order of Zwingli
  and Œcolampadius there were founded in Zürich, in A.D. 1528,
  and in Basel in A.D. 1530, synods to be held yearly for church
  visitation. These were to be attended by all the pastors of
  the city and district, and one or more honourable men should
  be appointed from each congregation, in order to take up
  and dispose of any complaints that might be made against the
  life and doctrine of their pastors. But the intention of both
  reformers to give this institution a controlling influence
  in church government and ecclesiastical organization was
  thwarted in consequence of the jealousy with which the ruling
  magistrates clung to the authority that had been assigned
  them in ecclesiastical matters. In Geneva, on the contrary,
  Calvin’s unbending energy succeeded, after long and painful
  contendings (§ 138, 3, 4), in transferring from the magistrates
  the government of the church, together with church discipline
  and the imposition of censures, to which here also they laid
  claim, to a consistory founded by him, composed of six pastors
  and twelve lay elders or presbyters, which was supreme in its
  own domain, and free from all interference on the part of the
  civil authorities, while the magistrates were bound to execute
  civil penalties upon those excommunicated by the ecclesiastical
  tribunal. The introduction of this presbyterial constitution
  into Reformed national churches of large extent must have
  contributed to their further extension and to the maintenance
  of the national church unity. At the head of each congregation
  now stood a presbytery, called in French _consistoire_, composed
  of pastor and elders, the latter having been chosen either
  directly by the congregation, or by the local magistrate in
  accordance with the votes of the congregation, subsequently they
  were also allowed to add to their own number. Then, again, the
  presbyters of a particular circuit were grouped into so-called
  _classes_, with a moderator chosen for the occasion; and then,
  also, an annual classical synod, consisting of one pastor
  and one lay elder chosen from each of the presbyteries. In a
  similar way, at longer intervals, or just as necessity called
  for it, provincial synods were convened, composed of deputies
  from several classical synods; and from its members were
  chosen representatives to the general or national synod, which
  constituted the highest legislative authority for the whole
  national church.[409]

  § 143.2. =Public Worship.=--Zwingli wished at first to do
  away with church bells, organ playing, and church psalmody,
  and even Calvin would not tolerate altars, crucifixes, images,
  and candles in the churches. These he regarded as contrary
  to the Divine law revealed in the decalogue, inasmuch as
  the commandment that properly stood second as a distinct and
  separate statute, though it had slipped out of the enumeration
  usual among the Catholics and Lutherans, was understood to
  forbid the use of images. The churches were reduced to bare and
  unadorned places for prayer and assembly rooms for preaching,
  and simple communion tables took the place of altars. Kneeling,
  as savouring of ceremonialism, was discountenanced; the breaking
  of bread was again introduced in the administration of the
  Lord’s Supper as forming an important part of the symbolism;
  private confession was abolished; exorcism at baptism, as well
  as baptism in emergencies as a necessary thing, was discontinued;
  the liturgy was reduced to simple prayers spoken, not sung,
  and from a literalist purism the usual _Vater unser_ was changed
  into _Unser Vater_. The festivals were reduced to the smallest
  number possible, and only the principal Christian feasts were
  celebrated, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost; while the Sunday
  festival was observed with almost the Old Testament strictness
  of Sabbath keeping.--In securing the introduction of psalmody
  into the worship of the German Reformed church, John Zwick,
  pastor at Constance, who died in A.D. 1542, was particularly
  active. In A.D. 1536 he published a small psalmody, with some
  Bible psalms set to Lutheran melodies. At Calvin’s request,
  Clement Marot set a good number of the Psalms to popular French
  airs in A.D. 1541-1543; Beza completed it, and then Calvin
  introduced this French psalter into the church of Geneva. Claude
  Goudimel (§ 149, 15) in A.D. 1562 published sixteen of these
  psalms with four-part harmonies. He was murdered in the massacre
  of St. Bartholomew at Lyons, in A.D. 1572. A professor of law at
  Königsberg, Ambrose Lobwasser, in A.D. 1573 made an arrangement
  of the Psalter in the German language after the style of
  Marot. This psalter, notwithstanding its poetical deficiencies,
  continued in use for a long time in Germany and Switzerland.
  Zwingli’s aversion to congregational singing was given effect
  to only in Zürich, but even there the service of praise was
  introduced by a decree of the council in A.D. 1598. In the other
  German Swiss cantons they did not confine themselves to the use
  of the Psalms, but adopted unhesitatingly spiritual songs by
  both Reformed and Lutheran poets. Among the former, who neither
  in number nor in ability could approach the latter, the most
  important were John Zwick and Ambrose Blaurer (§ 133, 3). It
  was only in the seventeenth century that the Lutheran sister
  church abandoned her rigid adherence to the exclusive use of
  Lobwasser’s psalms in congregational singing, when the rise of
  Pietism, and afterwards the spread of rationalism, overcame this
  narrow-mindedness.[410]

  § 143.3. =The English Puritans.=--The Reformation under
  Elizabeth (§ 139, 6), with its Lutheranizing doctrinal
  standpoint and Catholicizing forms of constitution and worship,
  had been sanctioned in A.D. 1559 by the Act of Uniformity
  in the exercise of the royal supremacy that was claimed over
  the whole ecclesiastical institutions of the country. But
  the Protestants who had fled from the persecutions of Bloody
  Mary and had returned in vast troops when Elizabeth ascended
  the throne brought with them from their foreign resorts,
  in Switzerland from Geneva, Zürich, Basel, in Germany from
  Strassburg, Frankfort, Emden, entirely different notions about
  the nature of genuine evangelical Christianity; and now with
  all the assumption of confessors they sought to have these ideas
  realized in their native land. Inspired for the most part with
  the rigorist spirit of the Genevan Reformation, they desired,
  instead of the royal supremacy, to have the independence
  of the church proclaimed, and instead of the hierarchical
  episcopal system a presbyterial constitution with strict church
  discipline, arranged in accordance with the Genevan model.
  They also gave a one-sided prominence to the formal principle
  of the Holy Scripture, adhered rigidly to the doctrinal theory
  of Calvin and to a mode of worship as bare as possible, stripped
  of every vestige of popish superstition, such as priestly dress,
  altars, candles, crucifixes, sign of the cross, forms of prayer,
  godfathers, confirmation, kneeling at the sacrament, bowing the
  head at the mention of the name of Jesus, bells, organs, etc.
  On account of their opposition to the Act of Uniformity, these
  were designated Nonconformists or Dissenters. They were also
  called =Puritans=, because they insisted upon an organization
  of the church purified from every human invention, and ordered
  strictly in accordance with the word of God. Their principles,
  which were enunciated first of all in private conventicles,
  found a very wide acceptance amongst ministers and people.
  This movement proved too strong to be suppressed, even by the
  frequent deprivation and banishment of the ministers, or the
  fining and imprisonment of their adherents. Amid the severity
  of persecution and oppression Puritanism continued to grow,
  and in A.D. 1572 numerous separatist congregations provided
  themselves with a presbyterial and synodal constitution;
  the former for the management of the affairs of particular
  congregations, the latter for the settlement of questions
  affecting the whole church. Specially offensive to the
  queen, and therefore strictly forbidden by her and rigorously
  suppressed, were the prophesyings introduced into many English
  churches after the pattern of the prophesyings of the church
  of Zürich. These were week-day meetings of the congregation,
  at which the Sunday sermons were further explained and
  illustrated from Scripture by the preachers, and applied to
  the circumstances and needs of the church of that day.[411]

  § 143.4. Even before the sixteenth century had come to an end
  an ultra-puritan tendency had been developed, the adherents
  of which were called Brownists, from their leader Robert Brown.
  As chaplain of the Duke of Norfolk, he was brought into contact
  at Norwich with Dutch Anabaptist refugees; and stirred up by
  them, he began a violent and bitter polemic, not only against
  the Cæsaro-papism and episcopacy of the State church, but also
  against the aristocratic element in the presbyterial and synodal
  constitution. He taught that church and congregation were to be
  completely identified; that every separate congregation, because
  subject to no other authority than that of Christ and His word,
  has the right of independently arranging and administering its
  own affairs according to the decisions of the majority. Having
  been cast into prison, but again liberated through the powerful
  influence of his friends, he retired in A.D. 1581 to Holland,
  and founded a small congregation there at Middleburg in Zealand.
  When this soon became reduced to a mere handful, he returned
  to England in A.D. 1589, and there renewed his agitation; but
  afterwards submitted to the hierarchical State church, and
  died in A.D. 1630 in the enjoyment of a rich living. After his
  apostasy, the jurist Henry Barrow took his place as leader of
  the Brownists, who still numbered many thousands, and were now
  called after him Barrowists. Persecuted by the government and
  harassed by severe measures from A.D. 1594, whole troops of them
  retreated to the Netherlands, where in several of the principal
  cities they formed considerable congregations, and issued, in
  A.D. 1598, their first symbolical document, “The Confession of
  Faith of certain English People exiled.”--The second founder of
  the party, a more trustworthy leader and more vigorous apologist,
  was the pastor John Robinson, who, in A.D. 1608, with his
  Norwich congregation settled at Amsterdam, and in A.D. 1610
  moved to Leyden. He died in A.D. 1625. The fundamental points
  in the constitution under his leadership were these:

    1. Complete equality of all the members of the church among
       themselves, and consequently the setting aside of all
       clerical prerogatives;

    2. Thorough subordination of the college of presbyters to
       the will of the majority of the congregation, from which
       circumstance they obtained the name of =Congregationalists=;
       and

    3. The perfect autonomy of separate congregations and their
       independence alike of every civil authority and of every
       synodal judicature, from which characteristic they obtained
       the name of =Independents=.

  Synodal assemblies were allowed merely for the purpose of mutual
  consultation and advice, and when so restricted were regarded
  as beneficial. With this end in view a _Congregational board_
  was appointed to sit in London, which formed a common centre
  of union. And as in constitution, so also in worship there was
  a complete breach made with all the traditions and developments
  of church history. With the exception of Sunday all feast
  days were abolished. In the assemblies for public worship each
  individual had the right of free speech for the edification
  of the congregation. All liturgical formularies and prescribed
  prayers, even the Lord’s Prayer not excepted, were set aside, as
  hindering the mission of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.--In
  order to preserve for their descendants the sacred heritage of
  their faith, and their native English language and nationality,
  and in order to save them from the moral dangers to which they
  were exposed in large cities, but to an equal extent at least
  inspired by the wish to break new ground for the kingdom of God
  in the New World, many of their families set out, in A.D. 1620,
  from Holland for North America, and there, as “Pilgrim Fathers,”
  amid indescribable hardships, established a colony in the wastes
  of Massachusetts, and laid the foundations of that Congregational
  denomination which has now grown into so powerful and influential
  a church.[412]

  § 143.5. =Theological Science.=--In A.D. 1523, the grand
  council at Zürich set up the peculiar institution of prophesying
  (1 Cor. xiv. 29) or biblical conferences. Pastors along with
  students, as well as certain scholars specially called for
  the purpose, were required to meet together every morning,
  with the exception of Sundays and Fridays, in the choir of the
  cathedral, where, after a short opening prayer, public exegetical
  expositions of the Old Testament were given in the regular order
  of books and chapters, with a strict and detailed comparison
  of the Vulgate, the LXX. and the original text; and then at the
  close one of the professors stated the results of the conference
  in a practical discourse for the edification of the congregation.
  At a later period theological studies flourished at Geneva and
  Basel, in the French church at the academy of Saumur and the
  theological seminaries of Montauban, Sedan, and Montpellier.
  =Sebastian Münster=, formerly at Heidelberg, afterwards at Basel,
  issued, in A.D. 1523, a complete Hebrew lexicon. The Zürich
  theologians, Leo Judä and others, in A.D. 1524-1529 translated
  Luther’s Bible into the Swiss dialect, making, however, an
  independent revision in accordance with the original text. At
  the instigation of the Waldensians, =Robert Olivetan= of Geneva
  (§ 138, 1) undertook, in A.D. 1535, a translation of the Holy
  Scriptures from the original into the French language; but in
  so far as the New Testament is concerned he followed almost
  literally the translation of Faber (§ 120, 8). In subsequent
  editions it was in various particulars greatly improved,
  although even to this day it remains very unsatisfactory.
  =Theodore Beza= gave an improved recension of the New Testament
  text and a new Latin translation of it. Sebastian Münster edited
  the Old Testament text with an independent Latin translation.
  Also =Leo Judä= in Zürich undertook a similar work, for which
  he was well qualified by a competent knowledge of languages.
  =Sebastian Castellio= in Geneva endeavoured to make the prophets
  and apostles speak in classical Latin and in full Ciceronian
  periods. Most successful was the Latin translation of the
  Old Testament which =Immanuel Tremellius= at Heidelberg, in
  connection with his son-in-law =Francis Junius=, produced.
  =John Piscator=, dismissed from Heidelberg under the Elector
  Louis VI. (§ 144, 1), from A.D. 1584 professor in the academy
  founded at Herborn during that same year, published a new
  German translation of the Bible, which was authoritatively
  introduced into the churches at Bern and in other Reformed
  communities. Commentators on Holy Scripture were also numerous
  during this age. Besides =Calvin=, who far outstrips them
  all (§ 138, 5), the following were distinguished for their
  exegetical performances: Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Conrad Pellican
  (§ 120, 4 footnote), Theodore Beza, Francis Junius, John
  Piscator, John Mercer, and the Frenchman Marloratus.--As
  a dogmatist =Calvin=, again beyond all question occupies the
  very front rank. In speculative power and thorough mastery
  of his materials he excels all his contemporaries. Leo Judä’s
  catechisms, two in German and one in Latin, in which the
  scholar puts the question and the teacher gives the answer and
  explanation, continued long in use in the Zürich church. Among
  the German Reformed theologians =Andrew Hyperius= of Marburg,
  who died in A.D. 1564, takes an honourable place as an exegete
  by his expositions of the Pauline epistles, as a dogmatist by
  his _Methodus theologiæ_, as a homilist by his _De formandis
  concionibus s._, and as the first founder of theological
  encyclopædia by his _De recte formando theolog. studio_.--The
  pietistic efforts of the English Puritan party found a fit
  nursery in the University of Cambridge, where =William Whitaker=,
  who died in A.D. 1598, the author of _Catechismus s. institutio
  pietatis_, and especially =William Perkins=, who died in
  A.D. 1602, author of _De casibus conscientiæ_, besides many
  other English works of edification, laboured unweariedly in
  endeavouring to infuse a pious spirit into the theological
  studies. Both were also eager and enthusiastic supporters of
  the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination; but the attempt,
  through the “Nine Lambeth Articles,” laid before Archbishop
  Whitgift in his palace in A.D. 1598, and accepted and approved
  by him, to make this doctrine an absolute doctrinal test for
  the university was frustrated by the decided veto of Queen
  Elizabeth.--Continuation, § 160, 6.

  § 143.6. =Philosophy.=--For the formal scientific construction
  of systematic theology the Aristotelian dialectic, as the
  heritage bequeathed by the mediæval scholasticism, continued
  to exercise upon the occupants of the Reformed professorial
  chairs, as well as in Lutheran seminaries, a dominating
  influence far down into the seventeenth century. To emancipate
  philosophy, and with it also in the same degree theology,
  from these fetters, which hindered every free movement, and
  inaugurate a simpler scientific method, was an attempt made
  first of all by =Peter Ramus=, who from A.D. 1551 was professor
  of dialectic and rhetoric in Paris, distinguished also as
  a polyhistor, humanist, and mathematician, and diligent in
  disseminating his views from the platform and by the press.
  As he had openly declared himself a Calvinist, he had repeatedly
  to seek refuge in flight. After a long residence in Switzerland
  and Germany, where he gained many adherents, who were known
  by the name of Ramists, he thought that after the Peace of
  St. Germain (§ 139, 15), in A.D. 1571, he might with safety
  return to Paris; but there, in A.D. 1572, he fell a victim to
  Romish fanaticism on the night of St. Bartholomew.--Continuation,
  § 163, 1.

  § 143.7. The Reformed church made =one missionary= attempt in
  A.D. 1557. A French adventurer, Villegagnon, laid before Admiral
  Coligny a plan for the colonization of the persecuted Huguenots
  in Brazil. With this proposal there was linked a scheme for
  conducting a mission among the heathen aborigines. He sailed
  under Coligny’s patronage in A.D. 1555 with a number of Huguenot
  artisans, and founded Fort Coligny at Rio de Janeiro. At
  his request Calvin sent him two Geneva pastors in A.D. 1557.
  The intolerable tyranny which Villegagnon exercised over the
  unprotected colonists, the failure of their efforts among the
  natives, famine, and want impelled them in the following year
  to seek again their native shores, which they reached after
  a most disastrous voyage. All were not able to secure a place
  in the returning ships, and even of those who started several
  died of starvation on the way.--Continuation, § 161, 7.[413]


        § 144. CALVINIZING OF GERMAN LUTHERAN NATIONAL CHURCHES.

  The Cryptocalvinist controversies conducted with such party violence
proved indeed in vain so far as winning over to Philippist Calvinism
the Lutheran church as a whole was concerned (§ 141, 10, 13); but
they did not succeed in hindering, but rather fostered and advanced,
the public adoption of the Reformed Confession on the part of several
national churches in Germany or their being driven by force to
accept the Calvinistic constitution and creed. The first instance
of a procedure of this sort is to be found in the Palatinate. It was
followed by Bremen, Anhalt, and in the beginning of the next century
by Hesse Cassel and the electoral dynasty of Brandenburg (§ 154, 3).

  § 144.1. =The Palatinate, A.D. 1560.=--Tilemann Hesshus,
  formerly the scholar and devoted admirer of Melanchthon, had
  been banished by the magistrates as a disturber of the peace
  from Goslar, and then from Rostock, on account of his reckless
  and severe administration of church discipline. At Melanchthon’s
  recommendation, the Elector Ottheinrich of the Palatinate called
  him as professor and general superintendent to Heidelberg, in
  A.D. 1558. Here he came into collision with his deacon William
  Klebitz. The latter had produced, on the occasion of his
  receiving his bachelor’s degree, a thesis in which he vindicated
  a Calvinizing theory of the Lord’s Supper, whereupon Hesshus
  condemned and suspended him, in A.D. 1559. But Klebitz would not
  move. Passion on both sides developed into senseless fury, which
  found expression in the pulpit and at the altar. The new elector,
  Frederick III. the Pious, A.D. 1559-1576, sent both into exile,
  and obtained an opinion from Melanchthon, which advised him to
  hold by the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians x. 16, “the bread is
  the communion of the body of Christ.” The elector, who had long
  been favourably inclined to the Reformed doctrine and worship,
  now introduced, in A.D. 1560, into all the churches of his
  domains a Reformed order of service, had altars, baptismal
  fonts, images, and even organs removed from the churches,
  filled the professors’ chairs with foreign Calvinistic teachers,
  and in A.D. 1562 had the “Heidelberg Catechism” composed by two
  Heidelberg professors, Zach. Ursinus and Gaspar Olevianus, for
  use in the schools throughout his territories.[414] In respect
  of that simplicity which befits a popular manual, in power
  and spirituality, it is not to be compared to Luther’s “Short
  Catechism,” but it is certainly distinguished by learning,
  theological genius, Christian fervour, and moderate, peaceful
  spirit, and deserves in an eminent degree the acceptance which
  it has found, not only among the German, but also among the
  foreign Reformed churches. Calvin’s doctrine of predestination
  is avoided, and his theory of the Lord’s Supper is taught in a
  form approaching as near as possible to the Lutheran view, but
  the Roman Catholic mass is characterized as execrable idolatry.
  The introduction of this catechism, however, completed the
  severance of the Palatinate from the Lutheran church. Brenz
  in Stuttgart attacked its doctrine of the supper; Bullinger
  in Zürich and Beza in Geneva defended it with passionate
  eagerness; and the conference arranged by the elector to
  be held at Maulbronn, in A.D. 1564, between the theologians
  of the Palatinate and of Württemberg, during its six days’
  discussions increased the bitterness of parties, and made
  the split perpetual. The Lutheran German states, irritated
  by the secession of the elector, complained of him to the Diet
  of Augsburg, in A.D. 1564, that he had broken the religious
  Peace of Augsburg by the forcible introduction of Calvinism. He
  answered in defence, that he had not himself read Calvin’s works,
  and was therefore not in a position to know what Calvinism was;
  that at Naumburg, in A.D. 1561 (§ 141, 11), he had subscribed
  the _Augustana_, more correctly the _Variata_, and still adhered
  to the confession he then made. The diet then did not venture to
  interfere with him, and was satisfied with a simple expression
  of disapproval. By the introduction of presbyteries by the order
  of the elector, in A.D. 1570, for the administration of church
  discipline, Olevianus embroiled himself in controversy with the
  electoral councillor and professor of medicine at Heidelberg,
  Thomas Erastus (§ 117, 4), who would much rather have the Zürich
  church order introduced (§ 143) than the Zwinglian theory of
  the supper. This idea he very persistently pressed, but without
  success. Although himself a member of the ecclesiastical council,
  he yet fell under its ban, along with Neuser and Sylvanus
  (§ 148, 3) as suspected of unitarianism, but this charge has
  never been proved against him. In A.D. 1510 he settled in Basel,
  and died there, in A.D. 1583, as professor of moral philosophy.
  His controversial treatise, “_Explicatio gravissimæ quæstionis,
  utrum excommunicatio mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata
  sit ab hominibus_,” was published after his death. Beza
  answered in two dissertations: “_De presbyteriis_” and “_De
  excommunicatione_.” Notice of his theory was now taken in
  England and Scotland, and among the names of sects in these
  countries during the seventeenth century we find that of
  Erastians. At this very day all subordinating of church
  government under the authority of the State is commonly styled
  Erastianism.[415]--The reign of Louis VI., A.D. 1576-1583,
  a zealous friend of the Formula of Concord, was of too short
  duration to secure the complete restoration of Lutheranism
  throughout his dominions. The count-palatine, John Casimir,
  who conducted the government as regent during the minority,
  systematically drove out all Lutheran pastors and trained up
  his ward Frederick IV. in Calvinism.--Continuation, § 153, 3.

  § 144.2. =Bremen, A.D. 1562.=--In Bremen the cathedral
  preacher, Albert Rizæus von Hardenberg, long lay under
  suspicion of favouring the Zwinglian theory of the sacraments.
  He publicly repudiated the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of
  the body of Christ, which his colleague John Timann had defended
  in his treatise, “_Farrago sententiarum ... de cœna Domini_,”
  of A.D. 1555. Upon this there began a lively controversy between
  them. All the pastors took Timann’s side, but Hardenberg had
  a powerful supporter in the burgomaster Daniel van Büren, and
  an opinion obtained from Melanchthon in A.D. 1557 also favoured
  him by counselling concession. Through his refusal to subscribe
  a confession of faith in reference to the supper submitted
  to him by the council, the excitement in Bremen was increased,
  and spread from thence over all the provinces of Lower Saxony.
  Timann died in A.D. 1557. His place as champion of the Lutheran
  doctrine of the supper was taken by Hesshus, who had been driven
  out of Heidelberg in A.D. 1559, and had almost immediately
  afterward been called to Bremen. He challenged Hardenberg to
  a public disputation, which, however, did not come off, because
  the new Archbishop of Bremen, Duke George of Brunswick-Lüneberg
  [Lüneburg], forbade Hardenberg to take part in it, and instead
  of this brought the matter before the league of the cities of
  Lower Saxony. The league held a provincial diet at Brunswick,
  in A.D. 1561, where Hardenberg was removed from his office, yet
  without detracting from his honour. He went now to Oldenburg,
  and died in A.D. 1574 as pastor at Emden. Hesshus had left
  Bremen in A.D. 1560, having accepted a call to Magdeburg,
  and from thence continued his controversy with Hardenberg. His
  successor in Bremen, Simon Musæus, no less passionately than he
  insisted upon the expulsion of all adherents of Hardenberg, and
  had indeed managed to get the council to agree to the proposal
  when things took a turn in an altogether different direction.
  Büren, in spite of all opposition, became the chief burgomaster
  in A.D. 1562. Musæus and other twelve pastors were now expelled,
  and also the councillors who were in favour of Lutheranism felt
  that they could do nothing else than quit the city. By foreign
  mediation an understanding was come to in A.D. 1568, by which
  those who had been driven out were allowed to return to the city,
  but not to their offices. All the churches of Bremen, with the
  exception of the cathedral, which obtained a Lutheran pastor
  again in A.D. 1568, continued in the possession of the Reformed
  party.--But Hesshus was in A.D. 1562 expelled also from
  Magdeburg, as well as afterwards from his position as court
  preacher in Neuburg, in A.D. 1569, and from his professorship
  at Jena in A.D. 1573 (§ 141, 10), on account of his passionate
  and violent polemics. He was also expelled from his bishopric
  of Samland, in A.D. 1577, as a teacher of error, because he had
  ascribed omnipotence, etc., to the human nature of Christ _etiam
  in abstracto_. He died in A.D. 1588 as professor in Helmstadt.

  § 144.3. =Anhalt, A.D. 1597.=--After the death of Prince
  Joachim Ernest four Anhalt dynasties were formed by his sons,
  Dessau, Bemburg, Köthen, Zerbst. John George, first head of
  the family of Anhalt-Dessau, reigned on behalf of his brothers,
  who had not yet come of age, from A.D. 1587 till A.D. 1603,
  and married a daughter of John Casimir, the count-palatine.
  After having refused to sign the Formula of Concord, he began
  the Calvinization of the land in A.D. 1589 by striking out
  the exorcism, and then, in A.D. 1596, he put the Reformed
  church order in place of the Lutheran. Soon after this Luther’s
  catechism was set aside, and in A.D. 1597 a document was
  produced, consisting of twenty-eight Calvinistic articles with
  a modified doctrine of predestination, which all the pastors
  under pain of banishment from the country, were required to
  subscribe. The most active agents in this movement were Caspar
  Peucer (§ 141, 10), who had been expelled from Wittenberg,
  and the superintendent Wolfgang Amling of Zerbst. In A.D. 1644,
  however, Anhalt-Zerbst returned to the old Lutheran Confession,
  under Prince John, who had been trained up by his mother in the
  Lutheran faith.




                         III. THE DEFORMATION.


                  § 145. CHARACTER OF THE DEFORMATION.

  That in a spiritual movement so powerful as that which the Reformation
called forth enthusiasts and extremists of various sorts should seek to
push forward their fancies and vagaries is nothing more than might have
been expected. But that such excrescences are not to be charged against
the Reformation, as constituting an essential part of it, may be shown
from the way in which the Reformation and the Deformation are constantly
put in antagonism with one another. The starting point is clearly
the same in the one case as in the other; namely, opposition to and
revolt against the debased condition of the church of the age. But the
Reformation distinguishes itself completely from the very first from
the Deformation, often joins its forces even with those of Catholicism
in order to secure the overthrow of what it regarded as a false and
dangerous development; and so generally we find the champions of that
movement manifesting as bitter a hatred toward the Protestant reformers
as toward the Romanists. Its origin is to be explained by the tendency
inherent in human nature, when once embarked on a course of opposition,
to rush to the extreme of radicalism, which showed itself in this case
partly in the form of rationalism, partly in the form of mysticism. The
Reformation recognised the word of God in Holy Scripture as the only
rule and standard in matters of religion, and as a judge and arbiter
over tradition. The rationalistic spirit in the deformatory movement,
on the other hand, subordinates Holy Scripture to reason, and estimates
revealed truth in accordance with the supposed requirement of logical
thought. The Reformation offers opposition to the Catholic deification
of the church, but the Deformation goes the length of contesting the
divinity of Christ (Antitrinitarians and Unitarians). On the other
hand, the mystical side of the Deformation, which not infrequently
amounts to a more or less clearly expressed pantheism, may be regarded
as an extreme and exaggerated statement of the reformers’ demand for
a more spiritual conception of the religious life in opposition to the
externalism of Romanism. It places alongside of the word as expressed
in Holy Scripture what it calls an inner illumination by the Holy
Spirit as an equally high or even a higher kind of revelation, despises
the sacraments, as well as all public or external forms of Divine
worship. A third deformatory tendency, and that indeed which during
the Reformation era was most powerful, is represented by Anabaptism.
The ultra-reformatory endeavours of the movement aimed, not only
at directing the private and ecclesiastical life of the individual
Christian, but also at reconstructing, according to what it regarded
as the apostolic standard, the whole fabric of the social and civil
life. It derived its name from the demand for rebaptism which was made
as a consequence of the denial of the usefulness and validity of infant
baptism. This was, indeed, the one common term of its confession, in
which its members, giving way in many directions to individualistic
subjective peculiarities, were required to agree. Adult baptism was
thus made the characteristic note of their community as a distinct sect.

  The Catholic notions prevailing during the Middle Ages as to
  the manner in which heretics ought to be treated were so firmly
  held by the Protestants, that even Calvin without hesitation,
  in A.D. 1553, delivered over one who denied the doctrine of
  the Trinity (§ 148, 2) to be punished by the civil authorities.
  Their sentence of death by fire at the stake was carried out
  under his sanction and that of almost all the notable reformers
  of the day, Bullinger and Farel, Beza and Viret, Œcolampadius,
  Bucer, and Peter Martyr, even Melanchthon and Urbanus Rhegius.
  At an earlier period indeed Luther had occasionally, roused to
  indignation by what he beheld of the horrors of the Inquisition,
  opposed the idea that heretics as such should be punished with
  torture and death, and gradually he secured the victory in
  Protestant theory and practice for the view that heretics as
  such should neither be compelled to retract nor be put to death,
  but rather should be brought to a better mind and put out of the
  way of doing harm by imprisonment or banishment.


                    § 146. MYSTICISM AND PANTHEISM.

  Besides the true evangelical mysticism within the church, which
Luther throughout his whole life esteemed very highly as a deepening
of the Christian religious life, and which the Lutheran church had
never ruled out of its pale, an unevangelical as well as thoroughly
anti-ecclesiastical mysticism broke out at a very early period in
quite a multitude of different forms. In the case of Schwenkfeld this
tendency, though characterized by very decided hostility to the church,
occupied an advantageous position, as well by the attitude which it
assumed to theology as from the quiet and sober manner in which it
conducted its propaganda. Agrippa and Paracelsus are representatives
of a mysticism with a basis in natural philosophy, which was wrought
out into fantastic forms by Valentine Weigel in his theosophy.
Sebastian Franck drew his mysticism from the fountains of Eckhart’s
and Tauler’s writings; and Giordano Bruno, by his wild, almost
delirious mysticism, culminating in the boldest pantheism, won for
himself the fiery stake. The French _Libertins spirituels_ embraced
a sublime antinomian pantheism, while the Familists, who appeared at
a later period in England, were banded together in the service of an
apotheosis of love like the members of one family.

  § 146.1. =Schwenkfeld and his Followers.=--Among the mystics of
  the Reformation period hostile to the church, Caspar Schwenkfeld,
  a Silesian nobleman of an old family, of the line of Ossingk,
  holds a prominent and honourable place as a man of deep and
  genuine piety. At first he attached himself with enthusiasm
  to the Wittenberg Reformation; but as it advanced his heart,
  which was exclusively set upon an inward, mystical Christianity,
  became dissatisfied. In A.D. 1525 he met personally with Luther
  at Wittenberg. The friendly relations that were maintained
  there, notwithstanding all the divergences that became apparent
  on fundamental matters and in the way of looking at things,
  soon gave place on Schwenkfeld’s side to open antagonism. He
  expressed himself strongly in reference to his dissatisfaction
  with the Wittenberg reformers, saying that he would rather
  join the papists than the Lutherans. Even in A.D. 1528 he had
  been expelled from his native land, and now began operations
  at Strassburg, where Bucer opposed him; and then, in A.D. 1534,
  in Swabia, where he encountered the vigorous opposition
  of Jac. Andreä. In every place he set himself in direct
  antagonism, not only to the German, but also to the Swiss
  reformers, and engaged in incessant controversies with the
  theologians, working steadily in the interests of a reformation
  in accordance with his own peculiar views. He died in A.D. 1561
  at Ulm, and left behind him in Swabia and Silesia a handful of
  followers, who, in A.D. 1563, issued a complete edition of the
  “Christian Orthodox Books and Writings of the Noble and Faithful
  Man, Caspar Schwenkfeld,” in four folio volumes. Expelled from
  Silesia in A.D. 1728, many of them fled into the neighbouring
  state of Lausitz, others to Pennsylvania in North America, where
  they found some small communities. What Schwenkfeld so keenly
  objected to in the Lutheran Reformation was nothing else than
  its firm biblico-ecclesiastical objectivity. Luther’s adherence
  to the unconditional authority of the word of God he declared
  to be a worship of the letter. He himself gave to the inner word
  of God’s Spirit in men a place superior to the outward word of
  God in Scripture. All external institutions of the church met
  with his most uncompromising opposition. In a manner similar
  to that of Osiander (§ 141, 2), he identified justification and
  sanctification, and explained it as an incarnation of Christ
  in the believer. Rejecting the doctrine of the _communicatio
  idiomatum_, he taught a thorough “deifying of the flesh of
  Christ,” having its foundation in the birth by the Virgin Mary,
  regenerated in faith and completed by suffering, death, and
  resurrection; so that in His state of exaltation His Divine
  and human natures are perfectly combined into one. Infant
  baptism he condemned, and affirmed that a regenerate person
  can live without sin. In the Lord’s Supper according to him
  everything depended upon the inward operation of the Spirit.
  The bread in the sacrament is only a symbol of the spiritual
  truth that Christ is the true bread for the soul. He laid
  special emphasis on John vi. 51, and regarded the τοῦτο of the
  words of institution not as the subject but as the predicate:
  “My body is this;” _i.e._ is bread unto eternal life.[416]

  § 146.2. =Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Weigel.=--=Agrippa von
  Nettesheim=, who died in A.D. 1535, a man of extensive and
  varied scholarship, who boasted of his knowledge of secret
  things, led an exceedingly changeful and adventurous career
  as a statesman and soldier, taught medicine, theology, and
  jurisprudence, lashed the monks with his biting satires,
  so that they had him persecuted as a heretic, contended against
  the belief in witchcraft, exposed mercilessly in his treatise
  _De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum_ the weak points of
  the dominant scholasticism, and in opposition to it wrought
  out in his book _De occulta philosophia_ his own system of
  cabbalistic mystical philosophy.--A man of a quite similar
  type was the learned Swiss physician Philip Aureolus
  Theophrastus Bombastus =Paracelsus= of Hohenheim, who
  died in A.D. 1541; a man of genius and a profound thinker, but
  with an ill-regulated imagination and an over-luxuriant fancy,
  which led him to profess that he had found the solution of all
  the mysteries of the Divine nature, as well as of terrestrial
  and super-terrestrial nature, and that he had discovered
  the philosopher’s stone. These two continued to retain their
  position within the limits of the Catholic church.--=Valentine
  Weigel=, on the contrary, who died in A.D. 1588, was a Lutheran
  pastor at Schopau in Saxony, universally respected for his
  consistent, godly character and his earnest, devoted labours.
  His mystico-theosophical tendency, influenced by Tauler and
  Paracelsus, came to be fully understood only long after his
  death by the publication of his practical works, “Church and
  House Postils on the Gospels,” “A Book on Prayer,” “A Directory
  for Attaining the Knowledge of all things without Error,” etc.;
  and down to the nineteenth century he had many followers among
  the quiet and contemplative throughout the land. While utterly
  depreciating as well the theology of the church as all sorts
  of external forms in worship, he placed all the more weight
  upon the inner light and the anointing with the Spirit of God,
  without which all teaching and prayer will be vain. In man he
  sees a microcosmus of the universe, and man’s growth in holiness
  he regarded as a continuation of the incarnation of God in him.
  He still allowed a place to the doctrine of the church as an
  allegorical shell for the knowledge of the soul to God and
  the world, and from this it may be explained how he was able
  unhesitatingly to subscribe the Formula of Concord. Bened.
  Biedermann, who was for a long time his deacon, and then
  his successor in the pastoral office, sympathised with his
  master’s views, and subsequently made vigorous attempts to
  disseminate them in his writings. On this account he was deposed
  in A.D. 1660.[417]

  § 146.3. =Franck, Thamer, and Bruno.=--=Sebastian Franck= of
  Donauwört, in Swabia, a learned printer and voluminous writer
  in German and Latin, for some time also a soap-boiler, had
  attached himself enthusiastically to the Reformation, which for
  several years he served as an evangelical pastor. Subsequently,
  however, he broke off from it, condemned and abused with sharp
  criticism and biting satire all the theological movements of
  his age, demanded unrestricted religious liberty, defended the
  Anabaptists against the intolerance of the theologians, and
  sought satisfaction for himself in a mysticism tending toward
  pantheism constructed out of Erigena, Eckhart, and Tauler.
  Among his theologico-philosophical writings, the most important
  are the “Golden Ark, or Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,”
  and especially the 280 spirited “Paradoxa, _i.e._ Wonderful
  Words out of Holy Scripture.” Against what he regarded as
  the idolatrous worship of the letter in Luther’s theology he
  directed “The Book sealed with Seven Seals.” In unreconciled
  contradictions collected in this tract out of Scripture he
  thinks to be able to prove that God Himself wished to warn us
  against the deifying of the letter. The letter is the devil’s
  seat, the sword of antichrist; he has the letter on his side,
  the spirit against him. With the letter the old Pharisees
  slew Christ, and their modern representatives are doing the
  same to-day. The letter killeth, the spirit alone giveth life.
  He also attached very little importance to the sacrament and
  external ordinances. He makes no distinction, or at most only
  one of degree, between God and nature. God, God’s Word, God’s
  Son, the Holy Spirit, and nature are with him only various
  aspects or manifestations of the same power, which is all
  in all; and his theory of evil inclines strongly to dualism.
  On the other side, he deserves the heartiest recognition as
  a German prose writer in respect of the purity, copiousness,
  and refinement of his style, and as the author of the first
  text books of history and geography in the German language.
  After a changeful and eventful life in several cities of South
  Germany, having been expelled successively from Nuremberg,
  Strassburg, and Ulm, he died at Basel in A.D. 1542.--A career
  in every point resembling his was that of =Theobald Thamer=, of
  Alsace. After having sat at the feet of Luther in Wittenberg as
  an enthusiastic disciple, he took up an attitude of opposition
  to the Reformation by giving absolute determining authority to
  the subjective principle of conscience, and by the rejection of
  the Lutheran doctrine of justification. He went over ultimately
  to the Roman Catholic church in A.D. 1557, to seek there
  the peace of soul that he had lost, and died as professor
  of theology at Freiburg, in A.D. 1569.--A far more powerful
  thinker than either of these two was the Italian Dominican monk,
  =Giordano Bruno= of Nola. His violent and abusive invectives
  against monkery, transubstantiation, and the immaculate
  conception obliged him, in A.D. 1580, to flee to Geneva.
  From thence he betook himself to Paris, where he delivered
  lectures on the _ars magna_ of Lullus (§ 103, 7); afterwards
  spent several years in London engaged in literary work, from
  A.D. 1586 to A.D. 1588 taught at Wittenberg, and on leaving
  that place delivered an impassioned eulogy on Luther. After
  a further continued life of adventure during some years
  in Germany, he returned to Italy, and was burnt in Rome in
  A.D. 1600 as a heretic. A complete edition of his numerous
  writings in the Italian language does not exist. These are
  partly allegorico-satirical, partly metaphysical, on the idea
  of the Divine unity and universality, in which the poetical
  and philosophical are blended together. He adopted the doctrine
  of God set forth by Nicholas of Cusa (§ 113, 6), representing
  the deity as at once the maximum and the minimum, and carried
  out this idea to its logical conclusion in pantheism. Bruno
  deserves special recognition as a consistent protester against
  the geocentric theories of ecclesiastical scholastic science,
  and for this merits a place among the first apologists of the
  Copernican system.[418]

  § 146.4. =The Pantheistic Libertine Sects of the Spirituals=
  in France, reminding us in theory and practice of the mediæval
  Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit (§ 116, 5), had their
  origin in the Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. As early as
  A.D. 1529 a certain Coppin preached their gospel in his native
  city of Lille or Ryssel. Quintin and Pocquet, both from the
  province of Hennegau, transplanted it to France in A.D. 1530.
  At the court of the liberal-minded and talented Queen Margaret
  of Navarre (§ 120, 8), they found at first a hearty welcome, and
  from this centre carried on secretly a successful propaganda,
  until Calvin’s influence over the queen, as well as his
  energetic polemic, “Against the Fantastic and Mad Sect of the
  Libertines, who call themselves Spirituals, A.D. 1545,” put
  a stop to their further progress. The contemporary =Libertines
  of Geneva= (§ 138, 3, 4), who rose up against the rigoristic
  church discipline of Calvin, are not to be confounded with these
  Netherland-French Libertines, although their apostle Pocquet
  also lived and laboured for a long time in Geneva. The impudent
  immorality of the Genevan Libertines was quite different
  from the moral levity of the _Spirituels_, which had always a
  spiritualistic-pantheistic significance, their characteristics
  consisting rather in a broad denial of and contempt for
  Christian doctrines and the facts of gospel history.

  § 146.5. Under the name of =Familists=, _Familia charitatis_,
  Henry Nicolai or Nicholas of Münster, who had previously
  been closely related to David Joris (§ 148, 1), founded a
  new mystical sect in England during the reign of Elizabeth.
  They were distinguished from the Anabaptists by treating with
  indifference the question of infant baptism. Nicholas appeared
  as the apostle of love in and through which the mystical
  deification of man is accomplished. Although uneducated, he
  composed several works, and in one of these designated himself
  as “endowed with God in the spirit of His love.” His followers
  have been charged with immoral practices, and the doctrine has
  been ascribed to them that Christ is nothing more than a Divine
  condition communicating itself to all the saints.[419]


                        § 147. ANABAPTISM.[420]

  The fanatical ultra-reforming tendencies which characterize the later
so called Anabaptism, first made their appearance within the area of the
Saxon reformation. They now broke forth in wild revolutionary tumults,
and were fundamentally the same as the earlier Wittenberg exhibitions
(§ 124). In this instance, too, passionate opposition was shown to
the continuance of infant baptism, without, however, proceeding so far
as decidedly to insist upon rebaptism, and making that a common bond
and badge to distinguish and hold together separate communities of
their own, inspired by that fundamental tendency. This was done first
in A.D. 1525 among the representatives of ultra-reform movements, who
soon secured a position for themselves on Swiss soil. And thus, while
in central Germany this movement was being utterly crushed in the
Peasant War, Switzerland became the nursery and hotbed of Anabaptism.
Its leaders when driven out spread through southern and south-eastern
Germany as far as the Tyrol and Moravia, and founded communities in all
the larger and in many of the smaller towns. And although in A.D. 1531
the Anabaptists, with the exception of some very small and insignificant
remnants, were rooted out of Switzerland, yet in A.D. 1540 they were
able to send out a new colony to settle in Venice, in order to carry on
the work of proselytising in Italy.--Chiefly through the instrumentality
of the south German apostles, Anabaptist communities and conventicles
were sown broadcast over the whole of the north-west as far as the
Baltic and the North Sea. And even as early as the beginning of
A.D. 1530 there issued from the Netherlands an independent movement
of a peculiarly violent, fanatical, and revolutionary character, which
spread far and wide. In A.D. 1534, John of Leyden set up his Anabaptist
kingdom in Münster with endless glitter and display, and sent out
messengers over all the world to gather the “people of God” together
into the “new Zion.” The unfortunate termination of his short reign,
however, had a sobering influence upon the excited enthusiasts, so that
they resolved to abandon those revolutionary and socialistic tendencies,
to which their brethren in south and east Germany had never given way,
or, if at all, only in isolated cases where they had been carried away
by chiliastic expectations. Yet were they in the north as well as in
the south, afterwards as well as before, mercilessly persecuted on
all hands, almost as severely by the Protestant as by the Catholic
governments, and often imprisoned in crowds, banished, scourged,
drowned, hanged, beheaded, burnt. Under all these tribulations they
developed a truly wonderful persistency of belief, and exhibited a
heroic martyr spirit. To collect their scattered remnants, and to save
them from destruction by a calm and sensible reformation, was the work
to which from A.D. 1536 Menno Simons unweariedly applied himself.

  § 147.1. =The Anabaptist Movement in General.=--The name of
  Anabaptists has always been repudiated by those so designated as
  a calumnious nickname and term of reproach. And, in fact, it is
  clearly inadequate, inasmuch as it does not characterize either
  the regulating principle or the essential core and nature of
  the aim of the party, which had been already fully developed
  before rebaptism had been set up as a term of membership.
  Within their own constituted congregations no second baptism
  found place, but only one baptism of adults on the ground of
  a personal profession of faith. Nevertheless, the rejected
  designation had, at the time at which it had originated, this
  justification, that then all the members of this community
  actually were rebaptizers or had been rebaptized; and the
  introduction of a second baptism, as it was the result and
  consequence of their fundamental principle, became also the
  occasion, means, and basis for their incorporation into an
  independent denomination.--The representatives of the Anabaptist
  movement showed their ultra-reforming character by this, that
  while at one with Luther and Zwingli in seeking the overthrow
  of all views and practices of the Roman Catholic church regarded
  by them as unevangelical, they characterized the position of the
  reformers as a halting half way, and so denounced them as still
  deeply rooted in the antichristian errors of the papacy. And
  because the reformers firmly repudiated them, and vigorously
  opposed and refused to countenance those radical demands and
  fanatical chiliastic expectations of theirs that went so much
  further, they turned upon them and their reformed institutions
  often with a fury and bitterness even more intense than they
  manifested to their Romish opponents. Most offensive to them
  was the attitude of the reformers toward the civil authorities.
  They were especially indignant at the reformers for not
  rejecting with scorn the help of magistrates in carrying out
  the Reformation movement, for recognising, not only the right,
  but the duty of civil rulers to co-operate in the reconstruction
  of the church, to exercise control over the ecclesiastical and
  religious life of the community as well as of each individual,
  to see to the maintenance of church order, and to visit the
  refractory with civil penalties. Then their innermost principle
  was the endeavour to make a complete and thorough distinction
  between the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace, the
  kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, of the converted
  and the unconverted, so as to restore a visible kingdom of
  saints by gathering together all true believers from all
  sections of the utterly corrupted church into a new holy
  communion of the regenerate. Thus they would prepare the way
  for the promised millennium, when the saints shall rule the
  world. The State, with its penalties and punishments, belongs
  essentially to the domain of evil, and is to be endured only so
  long as there are unbelievers and unconverted people, who alone
  are under its jurisdiction. The community of true Christians,
  on the other hand, is in no need of any secular magistracy, for
  this law, which the civil power administers, concerns only the
  unrighteous and evildoers. But in matters of religion and the
  inner man, the civil authority can have no manner of right to
  interfere; as, on the other hand, believers ought not to accept
  any sort of magisterial office or civic rank. Freedom in matters
  of conscience, religion, worship, and doctrine is a fundamental
  axiom, which forms the primary privilege of every religious
  denomination, and the only admissible punishment in connection
  with religious questions is exclusion from the particular
  community. The only unconditionally valid legislative code for
  Christians is the Bible. To the law of the State, however, he is
  not to submit at all in spiritual things, and even in temporal
  things only in so far as Holy Scripture and his own conscience,
  enlightened by the Spirit of God, do not enter a protest; but
  where the injunction of a magistrate oversteps the limit, he
  must offer strenuous resistance, and contend even to blood
  and death.--With respect to the mode of life and activity
  within the ranks of the community, the peculiarly high claims
  which they put forth to be regarded as a congregation of chosen
  saints demanded that they should insist upon the actual personal
  conversion and regeneration of each individual member, the
  exclusion of everything sinful and worldly by means of a rigidly
  strict discipline, and where necessary by expulsion from church
  fellowship, as well as the avoiding of all needless intercourse
  with the unconverted and unbelieving, and the exercise of
  true and perfect brotherly love toward one another, which also,
  so far as present circumstances might admit, should evidence
  itself in the voluntary sharing of goods. As a condition of
  the admission of any individual into the community proof had
  to be given of repentance and faith, and as an authenticating
  seal on the one side of the entrance being granted, and on
  the other side of the obligation being undertaken, baptism was
  administered, which now, as infant baptism was denounced as an
  invention of the devil, was understood simply of adult baptism,
  for the most part administered in the usual way by sprinkling.
  The ecclesiastical constitution of the regularly formed
  congregations was modelled after what they regarded as the
  apostolic type. Their congregational worship was extremely
  simple, quite free of any ornament or ceremony. Their doctrinal
  system, owing to the prominence given to the practical and the
  ethical, was but poorly developed, and was therefore never set
  forth in a confession of faith obligatory on all the communities.
  Upon the whole, they inclined more to the Zwinglian than to
  the Lutheran type of doctrine, especially in their views of
  baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The grand Reformation dogma of
  justification by faith alone was rejected, as also the idea that
  even the regenerate may not in this world attain unto perfect
  sinlessness. Here and there, too, antitrinitarian views found
  entrance, but the majority firmly adhered to the œcumenical
  faith of the church, or at least soon returned to it. Chiliastic
  theories and expectations were widely spread, but the attempts
  to realize them in the present by means of revolutionary
  movements were soon recognised and denounced as mischievous,
  and so, too, the fanatical, pseudo-prophetic craze by which many
  of the leaders of the movement were carried away came by-and-by
  to be discredited.

  § 147.2. Keller, in his _Reformation und die ält.
  Reformparteien_ of 1885, has undertaken to give a historical
  basis to a view of the origin and character of the Anabaptist
  movement diverging in several important respects from the
  one that has hitherto been generally accepted. He sees in the
  tendency of the Swiss Anabaptist to go beyond the position
  taken up by Luther and Zwingli not merely, as several earlier
  investigators had already done, a revival of certain mediæval
  endeavours at reform, but an actual, uninterrupted continuation
  of these, involving, not only a relationship, whether conscious
  or unconscious, but also a close historico-genetic and
  personal connection with “those old evangelical brotherhoods,
  which through many centuries, under many names,” in spite of
  persecutions that raged against them, still survived in secret
  remnants down into the 16th century. Of these brotherhoods,
  during the 12th century, the Waldensians formed the heart and
  core. Their precursors were the Petrubrusians [Petrobrusians],
  the Apostolic Brothers, the Arnoldists, the Humiliati, etc.;
  their successors and spiritual kinsmen were the heretical
  Beghards and Lollards, the Spirituals together with Marsilius
  of Padua and King Louis of Bavaria, the German mystics,
  the Friends of God and Winkelers, the Dutch Brethren of
  the Common Life, and, in specially close association with
  the German Waldensians, the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren;
  of like character, too, were John Staupitz, the Zucker family
  of Nuremberg, Albert Dürer, and a great number of other notables
  belonging to the first decades of the 16th century. And these
  all, as belonging to one and the same spiritual family, and
  forming an unbroken chain, link joined to link, when church
  and State raged against them with fire and sword, found always
  nurseries and places of refuge in those “noble corporations
  of builders and masons,” whose tried organization was made by
  them the basis of the church constitution, and has thus been
  handed down to modern times. Luther, who, moved by Staupitz
  and the study of Tauler and the “Deutsche Theologie,” was at
  first inclined to throw himself into the spiritual current,
  from A.D. 1521 more and more withdrew himself from it, and even
  Zwingli detached himself from it on account of some proceedings
  which he did not approve. The origin of the so called Anabaptism
  is thus, not merely traced back to these two great reformers,
  but rather is conditioned by the firm maintenance of a primitive
  evangelical tendency, from which those two turned aside. In the
  one case we have “new evangelicals,” founding a new communion;
  in the other, “old evangelicals,” conserving and continuing
  the old communion. And not Zürich, where the Anabaptist
  movement began to get a footing in A.D. 1524, but Basel,
  was its true birthplace. There in A.D. 1515 the liberal-minded
  printers Frobenius, Curio, and Cratander, who first printed
  the reformatory writings of the Middle Ages, repeatedly gathered
  the secret representatives and friends of those old brotherhoods
  from their hidings in the mountains of Switzerland and Savoy, as
  well as from the south of France and Germany, in their “chapter
  sessions,” held there in order to consult about the founding
  of new brotherhoods; and from thence the opposition to infant
  baptism was first transplanted to Zürich.--But these “chapter
  sessions” served quite another purpose than the fostering
  of Waldensian and Anabaptist societies, and were rather
  devoted to advancing the interests of liberalistic humanism
  and scholarship. And the embracing together of all the
  above-named sects as representing one and the same spiritual
  current, though supported by a great many combinations, guesses,
  suppositions, and deductions, which from their very boldness and
  the confidence with which they are stated are often startling,
  seems to be utterly untenable, and to proceed not so much from
  an unbiassed study of original sources as from a prejudiced
  judgment manipulating the facts with great art and skill.
  In conclusion, then, Keller proceeds to deal with the later
  actors in the Anabaptist movement, and finds them not only in
  the Mennonites and Puritans, but also in the freemason lodges,
  the Rosicrucians, and Pietists. Even the spiritual tendencies
  of Lessing, Kant, to a certain extent also of Schiller, also
  of Schleiermacher, through his connection with the Brethren
  of Herrnhut, seem to him determined and dominated by this same
  fundamental principle! The baselessness of Keller’s arguments
  has been thoroughly exposed by Kolde and Carl Müller, yet he
  continues unweariedly to repeat and set them forth.

  § 147.3. =The Swiss Anabaptists.=--Even in German Switzerland,
  although the reformers of that country had proceeded much
  further than the Saxon reformers in the direction of removing
  every vestige of Roman Catholicism in constitution, doctrine,
  worship, and discipline, ultra-reforming tendencies soon made
  their appearance among those who thought that such changes
  were not radical and thorough enough. Here, too, the refusal
  to recognise infant baptism was made specially prominent. Indeed
  even Zwingli himself at first pronounced against its necessity
  and serviceableness. According to him, baptism was not, as with
  Luther, a means of grace, but analogous to the circumcision
  of the Old Testament--a sign of obligation, by means of which
  the subject of baptism accepted the Christian faith and life as
  binding upon him. Thus he was inclined for a time to depreciate
  infant baptism, without however declaring it absolutely
  unallowable. But when subsequently it became apparent that
  the radical opposition to it on the part of its former friends,
  and their insisting upon the obligation to observe only adult
  baptism, proceeded from an ultra-reforming tendency, which
  threatened with ruin much that was necessary to ecclesiastical
  and civil order, and tended to make the extremest consequences
  of these views the very foundation of their system, he expressed
  himself all the more decidedly in favour of having infant
  baptism obligatorily retained.--The most zealous leaders of
  the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland were Conrad Grebel,
  a cultured humanist, son of a distinguished Zürich senator,
  already designated by Zwingli as “the coryphæus of the Baptists;”
  Felix Manz, also a humanist, and famous as an earnest promoter
  of Hebrew studies, but drowned in A.D. 1527 by order of the
  Zürich council; George Jacobs, a monk of Chur in the Grison
  country, commonly called Blaurock, on account of his dress;
  Louis Hätzer of Thurgau, etc. Besides these native Swiss, the
  following also wrought with equal enthusiasm for the promotion
  of the Anabaptist cause: William Röubli, a priest banished
  from Rottenburg on the Neckar on account of his evangelical
  zeal; Simon Stumpf, who had migrated from Franconia, and Michael
  Sattler from Breisgau; but above all the famous Balthazar
  Hubmeier, a scholar of John Eck, distinguished as a popular
  preacher and an indefatigable apologist and skilful polemical
  writer on the side of the Anabaptists. He was, in A.D. 1512,
  professor of theology at Ingolstadt, in A.D. 1516 pastor of
  the cathedral church of Regensburg; from whence, in A.D. 1522,
  already powerfully influenced in favour of evangelical truth
  by Luther’s writings, he removed to Waldshut, and there entered
  on the work of the Reformation, but afterwards decided against
  the continuance of infant baptism and in favour of Anabaptism.
  The Austrian government, under whose protectorate Waldshut was,
  demanded that he should be delivered up, which the governor
  steadfastly refused to do. But when, in Dec., 1525, Waldshut
  was obliged to surrender at discretion, he fled to Zürich, was
  there taken prisoner, and was driven, through fear of being
  delivered up to Austria, to make a public recantation. He then
  left Zürich and passed over into Moravia.--The original home
  of the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland was Zürich and its
  neighbourhood. At Wyticon and Zollicon, Röubli publicly preached
  in A.D. 1524 against infant baptism, and persuaded several
  parents to refuse to have their young children baptized. When,
  in Jan., 1525, the Zürich council voted for the expulsion of
  all ultra-reform agitators, these assembled together on the
  evening preceding their departure for mutual edification and
  establishment by prayer and Scripture reading. Then Blaurock
  rose, and besought Grebel “for God’s sake to baptize him with
  the true Christian baptism into the true faith,” and, when this
  was done, imparted it himself to all others present. The same
  sort of thing happened soon after at Waldshut, where Hubmeier
  on Easter Eve received baptism by the hand of Röubli, and
  then on Easter Day conferred it upon 110 and afterwards upon
  more than 300 individuals. In this way a thorough break was
  made, not only with the old Catholics, but also with the young
  reformed Church, and the foundation of an independent Anabaptist
  community laid, which now with rapid strides spread over the
  whole of reformed Switzerland. Thus originated, _e.g._, the
  twelve Anabaptist congregations that existed in Zürich and
  neighbourhood as early as A.D. 1527, the twenty-five in the
  Zürich highlands, and also the sixteen which in A.D. 1531 were
  to be found in the Zürich lowlands. An attempt was next made to
  diffuse information among the sectaries and convert them from
  their errors by means of discussions and controversial tracts,
  Zwingli lending his aid by word and pen; and then resort was had
  to fines and imprisonment. In June, 1525, St. Gall, following
  the example of Zürich, issued sentence of banishment against
  the Baptists. But as the expulsion of the leaders in no degree
  contributed to the crushing of the communities, which rather
  gathered strength in secret, and as the exiles were now for
  the first time fully able to spread over all lands the seeds
  of their Anabaptist doctrines, it was finally concluded that
  capital punishment was a necessity. The Zürich council, in
  March, 1527, issued an edict, according to which all rebaptizers
  and rebaptized were without exception to be drowned, and this
  example was followed by the other magistrates. In consequence
  of the general persecution that followed the Anabaptist
  agitation in Switzerland might be regarded as stamped out
  in A.D. 1531, although here and there little groups meeting
  in remote and hidden corners, under constant threat of prison
  and death, dragged out a miserable existence for some twenty
  years more.[421]

  § 147.4. =The South German Anabaptists.=--The Anabaptists
  expelled from Switzerland in A.D. 1525 spread first of all
  over the neighbouring south German provinces. Blaurock,
  publicly whipped in Zürich, returned to the Grison country,
  and, when again driven out of that refuge, to the Tyrol, where
  the Anabaptist views found uncommonly great favour. Röubli and
  Sattler retired to Alsace, where Strassburg especially became
  one of the chief nurseries of Anabaptism, and from thence
  they carried on a successful mission work in Swabia. Louis
  Hätzer and John Denck (§ 148, 1) gathered a large following in
  Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Strassburg; also in Passau, Regensburg,
  and Munich; then pressing eastward along the Inn and the Danube,
  their adherents founded Anabaptist communities in Salzburg,
  Styria, Linz, Stein, and even in Vienna. They found the greatest
  success of all among the industrial classes, and travelling
  artisans proved their most zealous apostles. Although, beyond
  carrying on an unwearied propaganda on behalf of their own
  religious confession, they almost invariably refused to identify
  themselves with any other sort of social and political agitation,
  they were on all hands most cruelly persecuted; no city, no
  country town, no village was beyond the reach of inquisitorial
  scrutiny. Their radical extirpation was, by the decision of the
  diet at Spires in A.D. 1529, represented as a duty to the empire
  resting upon all; for the sixth section of its decrees enjoined
  that “each and all of the rebaptizers and rebaptized, both men
  and women, come to years of discretion, should be brought to
  the stake and block or suchlike death without any trial before
  the spiritual judge.” Most blood was indeed shed in lands under
  Catholic governments. In the Tyrol and in Görz, for example, it
  is said that, even in A.D. 1531, the number executed was over
  1,000, among whom was Blaurock, who was burnt in A.D. 1529.
  Sebastian Franck, in A.D. 1530, estimated the number of the
  slain at somewhere about 2,000, and the heat of the persecution
  only began with that year. Duke William of Bavaria went furthest,
  with the atrocious order, “Whoever recants, let him be beheaded;
  whoever refuses to recant, let him be burnt alive.” But also
  Protestant governments, princes, and magistrates took part
  more or less zealously in the work of extermination recommended
  in the interests of the empire. Only the Landgrave Philip of
  Hesse and the magistrates of Strassburg kept at least their
  hands clean from blood, although they also by imprisoning and
  banishing did their best to prevent the spread of this heresy
  in their domains.

  § 147.5. =The Moravian Anabaptists.=--=Balthazar Hubmeier=,
  banished, in A.D. 1526, from Zürich, had found in Nikolsburg in
  Moravia a place of refuge. Under the powerful and far-reaching
  protection of the lords of Liechtenstein, which he obtained for
  his gospel, Moravia became “a delightsome land,” and Nikolsburg
  a “New Jerusalem” to the sorely oppressed Anabaptists, who had
  been hunted like wild beasts and made homeless wanderers. And
  there they remained, notwithstanding severe hostile attacks,
  from which they repeatedly suffered, especially between the
  years 1536 and 1554. This was followed by “the good time,”
  from A.D. 1554 to 1565, and from A.D. 1565 to 1592 by “the
  golden age” of the community, now consisting of 15,000 brethren.
  With A.D. 1592 began again “the times of tribulation,” until
  their church, as well as Protestantism generally throughout the
  country, received its deathblow. According to their numerous
  “chronicles” and “memoirs,” describing to their posterity the
  fortunes of the community, dating from A.D. 1524, the number of
  Anabaptists put to death up to A.D. 1581 in Switzerland, South
  Germany, and throughout the Austrian States was 2,419. Hubmeier
  had already, by the end of A.D. 1527, after Moravia had come
  under Austrian rule, been made prisoner in Vienna, along with
  his wife; and there, in the spring of A.D. 1528, he went to the
  stake with the heroic spirit of a martyr. Three days later his
  wife, showing the same bold contempt for death, was drowned in
  the Danube. In A.D. 1531 =James Huter=, from the Tyrol, stood at
  the head of the Moravian Anabaptists. Owing to the persecution
  which from A.D. 1529 raged there against his companions in
  the faith, he migrated thence with 150 brethren. He succeeded
  in composing the many splits and quarrels which had broken
  out in consequence of these migrations among the various
  sorts of Anabaptists from Silesia, Bavaria, Swabia, and the
  Palatinate, and managed to organize them in one united body
  with the earlier settlers. His reputation and influence were
  consequently so great that the community took the name from him
  of the “Huterian Brethren.” During the persecution which was
  directed against them in A.D. 1535 he fled to the Tyrol, but
  was there taken prisoner and burnt in March, 1536.--The Moravian
  Anabaptists, who had been with perfect propriety designated
  “_the quiet of the land_,” were characterized by exemplary
  piety, strict discipline, moral earnestness, industrial
  diligence, conscientious obedience to the laws, unexampled
  patience and gentleness amid all sufferings, but, above all,
  by the astonishing courage of their martyrs and fortitude
  under torture. In regard to doctrine, with the exception of
  a few “false brethren” affected with Socinian views, they
  unanimously and from the first acknowledged their adherence
  to the œcumenical symbols. Their mode of worship was of an
  extremely simple character. As sacraments, _i.e._ as “symbols
  of a holy thing,” they recognised

    1. true Christian baptism, _i.e._ that of grown up people who
       professed repentance and faith;

    2. the Lord’s Supper as a festival, in memory of the sufferings
       and death of Christ, as well as a thanksgiving for the grace
       of God thereby enjoyed, and as expression of the church’s
       faith in it;

    3. Marriage as a symbol of the espousals of Christ and His
       church (Eph. v. 23-32); and in some fashion

    4. the laying on of the hands of the elders in the ordination
       of the clergy.

  Mass, confirmation, extreme unction, confession, and indulgence,
  worship of images, saints, and relics, as well as infant baptism,
  were utterly rejected by them. They were equally decided in
  denying all merit in fasting and observing the feast days,
  in repudiating the doctrine of purgatory, and many of the
  ceremonies of the Romish church. They also rejected the Lutheran
  and Zwinglian doctrine of justification, which they regarded
  as a remnant of antichristian Romanism. But as the true and
  only communion of saints they regarded themselves as alone
  constituting the true church. At the head of their community
  stood

    1. a bishop; and

    2. next him the ministers of the Lord, divided into apostles
       with the missionary calling for the spread of the church,
       preachers, and pastors over particular congregations, and
       helpers to give assistance to these;

    3. ministers of benevolence, _i.e._ dispensers to the poor and
       administrators of the possessions of the church; and

    4. the elders, as representatives of the church in conducting
       its government.

  A particularly important factor for maintaining the union
  of the scattered communities was the synodal constitution
  introduced by Hubmeier. The superintendents of the smaller
  circuits met together for consultation weekly, and the deputies
  from the larger circuits met together once a month; while the
  general synods, embracing also the brethren beyond the bounds
  of Moravia, were convened for purposes of administration once
  a year, when that was possible.--Continuation, § 162, 2.

  § 147.6. =The Venetian Anabaptists.=--Down to the year 1540
  the evangelical reform movement in Italy (§ 139, 22-24) had
  an essentially Lutheran orthodox character. But after that an
  Anabaptist current set in, coming probably from Switzerland,
  and communicated through Italian refugees residing there, which
  subsequently took the direction of a unitarian rationalistic
  movement. Its main centre was in the domain of Venice, and its
  most zealous promoter an Italian, an exile from home on account
  of his faith, =Tiziano=, who, with no fixed place of abode,
  resided sometimes on this side, sometimes on the other side
  of the Alps. Fuller knowledge of him we owe to the confessions
  of one of his scholars, Manelfi, recently discovered in the
  Venetian archives, which he wrote out voluntarily and penitently
  before the Inquisition, first at Bologna and then at Rome, in
  Oct. and Nov., 1551. Don =Pietro Manelfi=, priest at San Vito,
  was led, in A.D. 1540 or 1541, by the preaching of a Capuchin,
  Jerome Spinazola, to the conclusion that the Romish church is
  contrary to Holy Scripture, and is a human, yea, a devilish
  invention. This same priest also introduced him to Bernardino
  Ochino (§ 139, 24), who furnished him with several writings
  of Luther and Melanchthon, and taught him that the pope
  is antichrist and the mass satanic idolatry. Called by the
  “Lutherans” of Padua, he now for two years travelled through
  all northern Italy and Istria as Lutheran “minister of the word.”
  Then in Florence he made the acquaintance of Tiziano, and after
  long resistance yielded at last to be baptized by him. During
  a conversation which, in A.D. 1549, Tiziano had with him and
  several other friends at Vincenza, the question was raised,
  over Deuteronomy xviii. 18, whether Christ is God or man. It
  was agreed in order to decide the matter to summon an Anabaptist
  council, to meet at Vienna in Sept., 1550. There were somewhere
  about sixty deputies who responded, of whom between twenty and
  thirty were from Switzerland, mostly Italian refugees, who at
  the fortieth session of their secret conclave, “after prayer,
  fasting, and reading of Scripture,” laid down the following
  doctrinal propositions as binding upon all their congregations:
  “Christ is not God, but man, yet a man full of Divine power,
  son of Joseph and Mary, who after him bore also other sons and
  daughters: There are neither angels nor devil in the proper
  sense; but when in Holy Scripture angels appear, they are men
  sent by God for special purposes, and where the devil is spoken
  of the fleshly mind of man is meant: There is no other hell than
  the grave, in which the elect sleep in the Lord till they shall
  be awaked at the last day; while the souls of the ungodly, as
  well as their bodies, like those of the beasts, perish in death:
  To the human seed God has given the capacity of begetting the
  spirit as well as the body: The elect will be justified only
  by God’s mercy and love, without the merits, the blood, and
  the death of Christ: Christ’s death serves merely as a witness
  to the righteousness, _i.e._ ‘the mercy and love’ of God.” On
  their specifically Anabaptist doctrine, because not the subject
  of controversy, there was no deliverance. The denial of the
  supernatural birth of Christ, however, led to a limitation
  of the fundamental doctrine of the absolute authority of the
  Scriptures of the Old and New Testament by the exclusion of
  the first chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which
  it was now affirmed had been forged by Jerome at the command
  of Pope Damasus. The decrees of the council were adopted by
  all the communities, with the exception of that of Citadella,
  which in consequence was cast out of the union. Manelfi, elected
  bishop, travelled in this capacity during a whole year among the
  churches assigned to him, always accompanied by a brother. Then
  he became penitent, and cast himself upon the grace of the papal
  Inquisition. His confessions, especially as bearing on the names
  and whereabouts of his former companions, Lutherans as well as
  Anabaptists, were sent from Rome to the Venetian tribunal of
  the Inquisition, which now began its work of persecution and
  vengeance with such zeal and success, that after some decades
  every trace of Lutheranism and Anabaptism was rooted out. Many
  escaped imprisonment by opportune flight; many also failed in
  courage, and retracted; but the steadfast confessors were burnt
  or drowned in great numbers. Meanwhile this fiery tribulation
  had proved in most of the communities a purifying fire. The
  radical heretic tendency that had prevailed since the council
  gave place by degrees to the more moderate views of earlier
  days. This change was greatly furthered by the close intimacy
  existing between the Italian Anabaptists and the Moravian
  Brethren from about the middle of A.D. 1550. The credit of
  having effected this alliance, and securing its benefits to
  their fellow countrymen, belongs especially to two noble-minded
  men, Francesco della Saga, formerly a student of Rovigo, and
  Giulio Gherardi, formerly subdeacon at Rome. But the latter, in
  A.D. 1561, the former a year later, fell into the hands of the
  Venetian Inquisition. After all attempts at conversion proved in
  vain, both were thrown by night into the Venice canal, Gherardi
  in A.D. 1562, and Saga in A.D. 1565.

  § 147.7. =The older Apostles of Anabaptism in the North-West of
  Germany.=--In the north-west no less than in the south and east,
  from the lower Rhine as far as Friesland and Holstein, in Jülich,
  Cleves, Berg, in Hesse, Westphalia, and Lower Saxony, as well
  as in Holland and Brabant, where the Reformation had begun to
  gain some footing, Anabaptism also secured an entrance and some
  success. Among their older apostles labouring in these regions
  the most distinguished were Hoffmann and Ring.

    1. =Melchior Hoffmann=, a currier from Swabia, had even in
       his early home taken part in the religious movements of the
       age, and in A.D. 1524, in the prosecution of his handicraft,
       went to Livonia, and became the herald of these views in
       Wolmar, Dorpat, and Reval. When his followers in Dorpat
       broke down the images and attacked the monasteries, he was
       obliged to flee, and carried on his operations for some
       time in Stockholm (§ 139, 1). Expelled by-and-by from that
       city, he next made his appearance in Wittenberg. Luther
       took offence at his prophetic-apocalyptic fanaticism, and
       pointed him to his handicraft as his legitimate calling.
       He now went to Holstein, where King Frederick of Denmark
       afforded him a fixed residence at Kiel, with permission
       to preach throughout the whole land. By contesting the
       Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and representing
       the sacrament as of merely symbolical import, and the
       partaking as purely spiritual, he caused offence even
       here, and was, after a public disputation with Bugenhagen
       at Flensburg in A.D. 1529, driven out of the country. He
       sought refuge in Strassburg, where Bucer received him with
       open arms. There for the first time, under the influence of
       the Swiss Anabaptists, was full and clear expression given
       to those objections to infant baptism which long before
       had been cherished in his heart. He had himself baptized,
       and became from this time forth the most zealous apostle of
       Anabaptism throughout all North Germany. In this capacity
       he wrought unweariedly and successfully, issuing forth from
       Emden in East Friesland, where he had settled in A.D. 1529,
       and by his travels, preaching, and writings spread his
       doctrines far and wide. Besides his heterodox doctrine
       of the sacraments and his apocalyptic-fanaticism, which
       led him to proclaim that the second coming of Christ would
       take place within seven years, and ultimately to announce
       that he himself was the prophet Elias foretold in Malachi
       iv. 5, 6 as its forerunner, he brought forward his theory
       about the incarnation of Christ, according to which the
       eternal Word did not assume from Mary flesh and blood
       but Himself became flesh and passed through Mary, simply
       “as the sun shines through glass,” because otherwise not
       Christ’s but Mary’s flesh would have suffered for us. In
       other respects he utterly rejected the wild, fantastic
       notions of the Anabaptists which were some years later
       developed in Münster. In his own life he was thoughtful,
       pure, and strictly moral, in disposition mild, benevolent,
       and charitable. In A.D. 1533 we find him again at Strassburg,
       where his fanatical-prophetical preaching soon produced
       such dangerous results that the magistrates felt obliged
       to shut him up under bolts and bars, where he could be
       out of the way of doing mischief. He was still in prison
       in A.D. 1543, and from that time onward nothing more is
       known of him. But a sect of Melchiorites, by no means few
       in number, held their ground for a long time in Alsace and
       Lower Germany.

    2. According to other accounts =Melchior Ring=, a currier
       of Swabia, is represented as having wrought during the
       same period and throughout the same places in Sweden,
       Livonia, Holstein, and East Friesland, entertaining similar
       christological, prophetico-apocalyptic, and Anabaptist
       views. The identity of the Christian name, fatherland,
       handicraft, doctrinal tenets, date, and spheres of labour
       is so striking, that one is almost tempted to identify
       him with Melchior Hoffmann, especially as John of Leyden
       in his later examination is said to have affirmed that
       Melchior Hoffmann had actually borne the name of Ring.
       We feel compelled, however, to maintain the distinctness
       of their personalities, since, according to Hochbuth’s
       researches in the history of the Anabaptists in the Hessian
       state, Ring had been actively engaged in Hesse at a time
       during which it can be proved that Hoffmann was at work
       elsewhere.

  § 147.8. So far in respect of place and time as the influence
  of Hoffmann reached,--and it seems down to the time of his
  imprisonment to have been widely predominant throughout the
  whole of the north-western district,--the life and movement of
  the Anabaptists there kept clear of any social revolutionary
  tendencies, and in their aberrations from the ways of the
  reformers were restricted to the purely religious domain.
  In the beginning of the year 1530, however, a movement broke
  forth again in =Holland=, in which there was a resurrection of
  the spirit of Thomas Münzer, and the demand for a thoroughly
  radical and revolutionary reconstruction of social and political
  relations was brought into prominence. The most important
  representative of this tendency was a baker, =Jan Matthys=
  of Haarlem, who, claiming to be a prophet, proclaimed the
  introduction of the millennium of glory as the proper and
  principal task of the Baptists. For the fulfilment of this
  task he insisted upon the overthrow of the present order in
  church and State, resistance to their enemies with weapons
  in hand, even the destruction of all “the ungodly” from the
  face of the earth, in order that “the saints,” as promised in
  Scripture, should rule over the world, and lead to completion
  the kingdom of God. The doctrine of the new prophets may even
  already have taken root in the minds of the Baptists, roused and
  excited by continued persecution, without their having clearly
  perceived what it would ultimately lead to if successfully
  carried out. But when in Münster these fanatical theories were
  shown forth as actual realized facts, when John of Leyden set
  up his pretentious kingdom in that “New Jerusalem,” and sent
  out into all the world his numerous apostles with the demand
  for adhesion, in many cases they found a too willing audience.
  The miserable collapse of the Münster kingdom was the first
  thing that again called people back to their senses, and
  rendered their remnants susceptible to the purification of
  Anabaptism to which Menno Simons devoted his whole life.

  § 147.9. =The Münster Catastrophe, A.D. 1534, 1535.=--The
  preacher Rothmann of Münster had for some time maintained
  the Zwinglian theory of the Lord’s Supper, and then he took
  a further step in the repudiation of infant baptism. A public
  disputation in A.D. 1533 yielded no result, and he refused
  to obey an order to retire into exile. He now sought, and
  that successfully, to increase his following, by the adoption
  of new elements of the Anabaptist creed. On the festival
  of the Three Holy Kings in A.D. 1534, =John of Leyden= or John
  Bockelssohn made his entrance into the city. An illegitimate
  son of a girl in the Münster province, brought up by relatives
  in Leyden, whither he returned after several years spent in
  travelling about as a journeyman tailor, he was in the autumn
  of A.D. 1533 converted by the prophet Matthys, and soon became
  his most zealous apostle. In Münster the young man, now in his
  twenty-fifth year, handsome in appearance and endowed with rich
  intellectual abilities, was favourably received in the house of
  a rich and respectable cloth merchant, Bernard Knipperdolling,
  who had been long interested in the religious movement, and
  married his daughter. In the meantime Jan Matthys also was
  called from Amsterdam to Münster. Both now wrought in common
  among the inhabitants of the city. Their sermons, delivered
  with glowing eloquence, produced a great impression, especially
  among the women, and their following grew to such an extent
  that they believed they might act in defiance of the council.
  In consequence of a riot the magistrates were weak and yielding
  enough to enter into an agreement with them by which they
  obtained legal recognition. Then from all sides Anabaptist
  fanatics crowded into Münster. After some weeks they secured
  a majority in the council, and Knipperdolling was made
  burgomaster. The prophet Matthys declared it to be God’s
  will that all unbelievers should be expelled. This was done
  on 27th February, 1534. Seven deacons divided among the
  believers the property of those who had been banished. In
  May the bishop began the siege of the city. This much at least
  resulted from that proceeding, that the epidemic was confined to
  Münster. After all images, organs, and books, with the exception
  of the Bible, had been destroyed, they introduced the principle
  of community of goods. Matthys, who regarded himself as called
  to slay the besieging foes, in a sortie fell by their swords.
  Bockelssohn took his place. The council in consequence of his
  revelations was dissolved, and a theocratical government of
  twelve elders, who were ready to receive their inspiration
  from the new prophet, was set up. In order that he might marry
  Matthys’ beautiful widow, he introduced polygamy. He took
  seventeen wives; Rothmann satisfied himself with four. In vain
  did the remnants of moral consciousness existing still among
  the inhabitants protest. The discontented, who gathered round
  the smith Mollenhök, were overcome and all of them were put to
  death. Bockelssohn, proclaimed by one of his fellow prophets,
  John Dusendschur, king of the whole earth, set up a splendid
  court, and perpetrated the most revolting iniquities. He
  regarded himself as called to bring in the millennium, sent
  out twenty-eight apostles to spread his kingdom, and appointed
  twelve dukes to govern the world under him. The besiegers had
  meanwhile, in August, 1534, made an utterly unsuccessful attempt
  to storm the city. Had they not toward the end of the year
  received assistance from Treves, Cleves, Mainz, and Cologne,
  they would have been obliged to raise the siege. Even then they
  could only think of securing the surrender of the city by famine.
  It had already been reduced to sore straits. But on St. John’s
  night, 1535, a deserter led the soldiers to the wall. After a
  most determined struggle the Anabaptists were utterly overthrown.
  Rothmann rushed into the hottest of the battle, and there met
  his death. King John and his premier Knipperdolling and his
  chancellor Krechting were taken prisoners, and on 22nd January,
  1536, were pinched to death with redhot pincers and then hung
  in iron chains from St. Lambert’s tower. Catholicism was finally
  restored to absolute and exclusive supremacy.

  § 147.10. =Menno Simons and the Mennonites.=--Menno Simons,
  born at Wittmarsum in Friesland in A.D. 1492, from A.D. 1516
  a Catholic priest, had from careful study of Holy Scripture
  come to entertain serious doubts as to the Romish doctrine.
  The martyr courage of the Baptists called his attention to
  the Baptist views of this sect, and soon he came to feel
  convinced of their correctness. He resigned his priest’s
  office at Wittmarsum in A.D. 1536, and had himself baptized.
  Amid indescribable difficulties and with unwearied patience
  he laboured on, wandering from place to place, devoting all his
  powers to the reorganization of the sect. He gave it a definite
  doctrinal formula, “The Fundamental Book of the True Christian
  Faith,” in A.D. 1539, which in point of doctrine attached
  itself to the Reformed confessions, and was distinguished
  from these only by the rejection of infant baptism, and by
  an unconditional spiritualization of the idea of the church as
  a pure communion of true saints. It distinctly forbade military
  and civil service, as well as all taking of oaths, introduced
  feet washing in addition to baptism and the Lord’s Supper,
  and by severe church discipline maintained a simple manner
  of life and strict morality. The quiet, pious demeanour of
  the Mennonites soon secured for them in Holland, and later
  also in Germany, toleration and religious freedom. Menno
  died in A.D. 1559.--Even during Menno’s lifetime his Dutch
  followers split up into two parties, called “the Fine” and
  “the Coarse.” The former enforced in all its severity Menno’s
  strict discipline, and indeed went beyond it by prohibiting
  all intercourse with the excommunicated, even should these be
  parents or husbands and wives. The latter wished to allow to
  the ban only ecclesiastical and not civil disabilities, and to
  have it exercised only after repeated exhortations had proved
  ineffectual.--Continuation, § 162, 1.


              § 148. ANTITRINITARIANS AND UNITARIANS.[422]

  The first to contest the doctrine of the Trinity arose from among
the German Anabaptists. The Spaniard Michael Servetus wrought out
his Unitarianism into connection with a system that was fundamentally
pantheistic. The real home of Antitrinitarianism, however, was
Italy, a fruit of the half-pagan humanism that flourished there.
Banished the country, its representatives sought refuge in Switzerland.
Expelled by-and-by from these regions, they betook themselves mostly
to Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania, where they found protection
from the princes and nobles. A thoroughly developed system of doctrine,
elaborated by Lælius and Faustus Socinus, uncle and nephew, was now
accepted by them, and by this means they were consolidated into a
corporate society.

  § 148.1. =Anabaptist Antitrinitarians in Germany.=

    1. =John Denck= from the Upper Palatinate, was, on
       Œcolampadius’ recommendation, whose lectures he had
       attended at Basel, made rector of St. Sebald’s school
       in Nuremberg in A.D. 1523. On account of his maintaining
       views inconsistent with Lutheran orthodoxy, he came into
       collision with the reformer of that place, Andrew Osiander,
       in A.D. 1524, and on the ground of a written confession
       of faith extorted from him he was deposed from his office
       and expelled the city. Nor did he find a permanent abode
       in Augsburg, to which he went in A.D. 1525; for Urbanus
       Rhegius, who at first received him in a friendly manner,
       was obliged at last to turn against him on account of
       his Anabaptist views and the great scandal he caused
       by maintaining the belief that the devil and all the
       ungodly would finally repent. He now, in A.D. 1526, went
       to Strassburg, where Hätzer induced him, as a zealous
       student of Hebrew, to assist him in his translation of
       the Old Testament prophets. When here also his influence
       assumed dangerous proportions, a disputation was arranged
       for between him and Bucer, in consequence of which he was
       expelled also from Strassburg. Like treatment awaited him
       at Bergzahern and also at Landau. He then went to Worms
       along with Hätzer, who had meanwhile been banished from
       Strassburg. There they completed their translation of the
       prophets, but from this retreat also after three months
       they were again driven out. Denck now once again, through
       Œcolampadius’ mediation, who unweariedly endeavoured, but
       in vain, to win him back from his errors, found a fixed
       abode among the more liberal-minded citizens of Basel;
       but he died there of the plague in A.D. 1527. Denck was
       indeed one of the most talented men of his day. His high
       intellectual endowments and his pure and noble moral life
       were acknowledged by his most bitterly prejudiced orthodox
       opponents. Of his numerous tracts and pamphlets only that
       “On the Law of God, how the Law is Abolished and yet must
       be Fulfilled,” is still accurately known. It is rich in
       deep thoughts cleverly put, as is also the confession of
       faith already mentioned, but in direct antagonism to the
       Lutheran doctrine on several most vital and cardinal points.
       He placed the inner word of God above the outward, taught
       that man had a natural inclination toward good, attached
       a fundamental importance to the fulfilling of the moral
       law for the attainment of salvation, gave the person of
       Christ only the significance of a pattern and exhibition
       of the Divine love, resolved the doctrine of the Trinity
       into pantheistic speculative ideas, and by his rejection
       of infant baptism became the acknowledged head of the whole
       German Anabaptist movement of his age, so that Bucer could
       designate him “the pope of the Baptists.”

    2. =Louis Hätzer=, from Bischopzell in Thurgau, was priest at
       Wädenschwyl, on the Zürich lake. At first an enthusiastic
       follower of Zwingli and his fellow labourer, he soon
       transcended the Zwinglian reforming tendencies, and with
       fanatical radicalism launched out into fierce iconoclasm,
       and attached himself to the Anabaptists, residing partly
       in Switzerland, in Zürich, Basel, St. Gall, etc., partly
       in Germany, in Augsburg, Strassburg, Worms, etc., but
       soon driven out of every place, and meanwhile leading
       a wandering, unstable life, until at last, in A.D. 1529,
       he was beheaded at Constance as a bigamist and adulterer.
       From Denck, who far excelled him in originality and depth
       of thought, he derived his peculiar views. Among his
       literary productions only his German translation of the
       Old Testament prophets, which he produced in conjunction
       with Denck, is of any importance. It was published at Worms
       in A.D. 1527, two years before the Zürich version, and five
       years before that of Luther, and passed through several
       editions until it was displaced by Luther’s. He also holds
       no mean position as a composer of spiritual songs.

    3. =John Campanus= of Jülich was expelled from Cologne,
       where he had studied, and went to Wittenburg [Wittenberg],
       as tutor to some young noblemen, in A.D. 1528. He
       accompanied the reformers to Marburg, where he sought
       to unite different parties by explaining “This is My
       body” to mean the body created by Me. But when he began
       to spread Anabaptist and Arian views in Wittenberg, and
       to calumniate the reformers by speech and writing, he was
       obliged, in A.D. 1532, to quit Saxony. He now returned to
       Jülich, but after labouring there for a considerable time,
       he was arrested on a charge of preaching revolutionary and
       chiliastic sermons, and died in prison after twenty years’
       confinement at Cleves about A.D. 1578. His Arian-trinitarian
       doctrine of God was just as peculiar as his doctrine of
       the supper. He would acknowledge in the Godhead only two
       Persons, just as its type marriage is a union of only two
       persons. He regarded the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, as
       the Divine nature common to both, and, on the other hand,
       as the operation of these upon man.

    4. =David Joris=, a painter on glass in Delft, received
       his first impulse from Luther’s writings about A.D. 1524,
       but soon plunged into wild excesses of iconoclasm and
       anabaptism. After the overthrow of the short-lived rule
       of the Münster fanatics (§ 133, 6), he travelled up and
       down through the whole of Germany, in order to gather
       together the scattered remnants of the Anabaptists, and
       to proclaim his revelations. He was not to be deterred
       or terrified by imprisonment, scourging, or banishment.
       At last he was pronounced an outlaw, and a price was set
       upon his head. He went now, in A.D. 1544, to Basel, and
       lived there under the assumed name of John of Bruges,
       outwardly professing attachment to the Reformed church,
       but in secret, by the diligent circulation of letters and
       treatises, working for his own ends, till his death in
       A.D. 1556. When afterwards his true name was discovered,
       the authorities had his bones dug up and burnt by the
       public hangman. In theory and practice an antinomian,
       he taught in his fantastic production, “T’Wonderboek”
       of A.D. 1542, on the ground of the most naked naturalism,
       how the perfection of the spiritual life and the true
       reconciliation of all things must be brought about. He
       conceived of the Trinity as the self-revelation of God
       in three different ways. That of the Holy Spirit came to
       pass with himself; the end and aim of that dispensation
       he represented as consisting in the gathering together of
       the people of God, _i.e._ all Anabaptists, who were to take
       possession of the whole earth, as before Israel had of the
       land of Canaan.

  § 148.2. =Michael Servetus= was born in A.D. 1509 at
  Villanueva in Arragon. He was a man of rich speculative ability,
  wide knowledge of science, and restless, inquiring spirit. At
  Toulouse he devoted himself first of all to the study of law,
  but soon after turned his attention with great eagerness to
  theological questions. He became convinced that the fundamental
  Christian doctrine of the Trinity in its accepted ecclesiastical
  form is equally opposed to Scripture and to reason, and that in
  this quarter pre-eminently a reformation was needed. At a later
  period in Paris he gave himself to the study of medicine, and
  is reputed the first discoverer of the circulation of the blood,
  and secured for himself an eminent rank as a practical physician
  and a writer on medical subjects. He began his polemic against
  the prevailing doctrine of the Church at Strassburg in A.D. 1531
  with the treatise _De Trinitatis erroribus, ll. vii._ Next in
  order appeared at Hagenau, in A.D. 1532, his palliating and
  to some extent retractational _Dialogorum de Trin., ll. ii._
  In A.D. 1553 he issued anonymously at Vienne his radical and
  revolutionary principal work, _Christianismi Restitutio_, which
  was the means of bringing him to the stake. As he succeeded in
  escaping from his prison in Vienne they were able there only
  to burn him _in effigie_; but at Geneva he was, at Calvin’s
  instigation, arrested again, and on his refusing to make a
  recantation was sent to the stake on 27th Oct., A.D. 1553.
  The last words heard from the dying man in the flames were,
  “Jesus, Thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me.”--The
  reformatory aim of Servetus in his doctrinal system was to
  raise God as high as possible above the creature. In its very
  earliest form it was fundamentally pantheistic, yet even here
  God is thought of as the original substance, and everything
  existing outside of Him is conceived of as conditioned by
  a substantial emanation from His being. Those pantheistic
  principles, however, make their appearance in a much more
  decided form in the later and more complete developments
  of his system which are completely dominated by Neoplatonic
  speculations. In particular he regards the Logos as an emanation
  of the Divine element of light, which first came into possession
  of personal existence in the incarnation of Christ. The gross
  matter of His corporeity He received from His mother; the
  place of the male seed was taken by the Divine element of
  light. In both respects he is ὁμοούσιος, for even the earthly
  matter is only a grosser form of the primal light. Son and
  Spirit are only different _dispositiones Dei_, the Father alone
  is _tota substantia et unus Deus_. And as the Trinity makes its
  appearance in connection with the redemption of the world, it
  will disappear again when that redemption has been completed.
  The polemic of Servetus, however, extended beyond the doctrine
  of the Trinity to an attack upon the church doctrine of original
  sin, and the repudiation of infant baptism. He also set forth
  a spiritualistic theory of the Lord’s Supper, contended against
  the Lutheran doctrine of justification and the Calvinistic
  doctrine of predestination, sketched out a scheme of chiliastic
  expectations, etc. Amid all these vagaries he maintained his
  high estimate of Christ as the Logos, become Son of God by the
  incarnation, and the centre and end of all history; he also
  continued to reverence Holy Scripture as that which from its
  first book to its last testifies of Christ. His mystical piety,
  too, was deep and sincere. But owing to the immoderate violence
  with which he denounced views opposed to his own as doctrines
  of devils, among other reproachful terms applying to the church
  doctrine of the Trinity the name of “_triceps Cerberus_,” the
  three-headed dog of hell, his contemporaries were prevented
  from getting even a glimpse of the bright side of his life and
  endeavours, so that all the most notable theologians voted for
  his death as salutary and necessary (§ 145, 1).[423]

  § 148.3. =Italian and other Antitrinitarians before
  Socinus.=--=Claudius of Savoy= in A.D. 1534, at Bern, brought
  forward the idea that Christ is to be called God only because
  the fulness of the Divine Spirit has been communicated to Him.
  He was on this account expelled from that city, and soon after
  even from Basel, and was very coldly received at Wittenberg. He
  retracted before a synod at Lausanne in A.D. 1537, afterwards
  played the part of a popular agitator at Augsburg, and was
  regarded in Memmingen down to A.D. 1550 as a prophet. After
  that no further trace of him is found.--Closely connected with
  the previously named Tiziano, by bonds of friendship and of
  spiritual affinity, and subsequently also with Lælius Socinus,
  was the Sicilian exile from his native land, =Camillo Renato=.
  In A.D. 1545 he obtained at Chiavenna in Veltlin, which then
  belonged to the country of the Grisons, a situation as a private
  tutor, and soon became highly respected. He by-and-by, however,
  involved himself in a violent controversy with the evangelical
  pastor there, Agostino Mainardo, about the sacraments, which led
  to his being excommunicated by the Grison synod in A.D. 1550. The
  central point in his theology is the doctrine of predestination.
  Only the elect are by God’s Spirit awakened into life, and
  while the children of the Spirit only slumber in death, and
  in the resurrection assume a renewed, purely spiritual form
  of being, the soul of the non-elect die just like their bodies.
  Although a decided opponent of infant baptism, he did not go so
  far as to insist upon rebaptism, because he depreciated baptism
  generally as a mere outward sign, and therefore not necessary.
  And although he carefully avoided any express repudiation of
  the doctrine of the Trinity, it can scarcely be doubted that
  he and all his friends and followers favoured antitrinitarian
  views.--=Matthew Gribaldo=, a jurist of Padua, the physician
  =George Blandrata= of Saluzzo in Piedmont, and =Valentine
  Gentilis= of Calabria, fugitives from their native lands, took
  up a position of hostility to Calvin in Geneva after Servetus’
  death. When Calvin proposed to have them brought before a legal
  tribunal Gribaldo and Blandrata retired from Geneva and went to
  Poland. Only Gentilis remained, and he subscribed a confession
  of faith which Calvin laid before him, but soon declared
  that he could not continue to hold by it, and set forth as
  consistent with Scripture doctrine the opinion that the Father
  as _Essentiator_ is not a person in the Godhead, but the whole
  substance of the Godhead, and that the Son as _Essentiatus_
  proceeding from Him, is only the perfect reflex and highest
  image of the one deity of the Father. Having been cast into
  prison and condemned to death he retracted once again, and then
  withdrew also to Poland. Subsequently, however, he returned to
  Switzerland, was arrested at Bern, and beheaded as an apostate
  in A.D. 1566.[424] Blandrata had meanwhile betaken himself
  to Transylvania, was there appointed physician to the prince,
  secured the interest of Zapolya II. and many of the nobles
  for his Unitarianism, so that public recognition was given to
  it as a fourth confessional form of religion. According to the
  doctrine set forth by him worship is rendered to Jesus as the
  man endowed by God with grace beyond all others and raised to
  universal dominion. But in A.D. 1588 he was murdered by his
  own nephew, who had remained a Catholic, as he had not patience
  to wait for his death in order to secure possession of his
  property. Besides Blandrata we may also mention as one of the
  chief founders of the Unitarian sect in Transylvania =Franz
  Davidis= of Clausenburg. From A.D. 1552 Lutheran pastor,
  he became a Calvinist in A.D. 1564, and was made a Reformed
  superintendent, and, at Blandrata’s recommendation, Zapolya’s
  court preacher. He then openly attached himself by word and
  writing to the Unitarians, and became, in A.D. 1571, first
  Unitarian superintendent of Transylvania. On account of his
  opposing the doctrine of the supernatural conception of Christ
  and His right to be worshipped, he was repudiated by Blandrata,
  and was, in A.D. 1579, condemned by Prince Christopher Bathori,
  as a blasphemer and enemy of Christ, to imprisonment for
  life. After three months he died in prison.--The Italian
  Antitrinitarians who had fled to =Poland= attached themselves
  there to the Reformed church, and secured many followers not
  only among the nobles, but also among the Reformed clergy.
  At their head in Cracow stood the pastor Gregor Pauli, and
  in Princzov George Schomann. At the Synod of Patrikaw, in
  A.D. 1562, they first appeared as a close phalanx, making a
  regular attempt to have the doctrine of the Trinity set aside.
  Their attack, however, was repelled. A royal edict of A.D. 1564
  enacted that all Italian Antitrinitarians should be banished,
  and a second synod at Patrikaw, in A.D. 1565, excommunicated
  all their followers. A final endeavour to arrive at a mutual
  understanding by means of yet another religious conference,
  while a diet was summoned in connection with this matter at
  Patrikaw, led to no successful result. From this time forth
  the Polish Antitrinitarians, who have generally been called
  Arians, occupy a distinct position as a separate religious
  denomination.--In the Reformed church of the Palatinate, too,
  this Unitarian movement ended in an equally tragical scene. The
  pastor =Adam Neuser= and the Reformed inspector =John Sylvanus=
  took their place about A.D. 1570 along with the Transylvanian
  Unitarians. During an investigation into their doctrinal views,
  a manuscript written out by Sylvanus in his own hand was found:
  “A Confessional Statement against the Tripersonal Idol and
  the Two Natures of Christ.” He was beheaded in A.D. 1572 in
  the market-place of Heidelberg. Neuser fled to Transylvania,
  and at a subsequent period went over to Mohammedanism.--Out
  of the Italian infidelity of this age probably also arose
  that renewal of an idea that had already appeared during the
  Middle Ages (§ 96, 19) in the book _De tribus impostoribus_,
  Moses, Jesus, Mohammed. Of a similar tendency is the _Colloquium
  Heptaplomeres_ of the French jurist =Jean Bodin= (§ 117, 4),
  who died in A.D. 1597. He was one of seven freethinking Venetian
  scholars who carried on a discussion upon religion, in which
  he maintained that deficiencies and mistakes are inherent in
  the same degree in all positive religions. But an ideal deism
  is commended as the true religion.

  § 148.4. =The Two Socini and the Socinians.=--=Lælius Socinus=,
  member of a celebrated family of lawyers in Siena, and himself
  a lawyer, became convinced at an early period that the Romish
  system of doctrine was not in accordance with Scripture. In
  order to reach an assured and certain knowledge of the truth,
  he learnt the original languages in which Scripture was written,
  by travelling made the acquaintance of the most celebrated
  theologians in Switzerland, Germany, and Poland, and wrought
  out for himself a complete and consistent theory of Unitarian
  belief. He died in Zürich in A.D. 1562 in his thirty-seventh
  year. His nephew, =Faustus Socinus=, born at Siena in A.D. 1539,
  was from his early days trained by personal intercourse and
  epistolary correspondence with his uncle, and adopted similar
  views. He was obliged in A.D. 1559 to make his escape to Lyons,
  but returned in A.D. 1562 to Italy, where for twelve years
  he was loaded with honours and offices at the court of the
  Grand-duke Francis de Medici. In order that he might carry on
  his studies undisturbed, he retired in A.D. 1574 to Basel, from
  whence in A.D. 1578, at Blandrata’s request, he proceeded to
  Transylvania to combat Davidis’ refusal of adoration to Christ.
  In the following year he went to Poland in order to unite, if
  possible, the various sections of the Unitarians in that country.
  At Cracow they insisted that he should allow them to rebaptize
  him, and when he firmly refused they declined to admit him to
  the communion table. But the decision of his character, his
  unwearied endeavours to secure peace and union, as well as the
  superiority of his theological scholarship, in the end won for
  his ideas a complete victory over the opposing party strifes.
  He succeeded gradually in expelling from the ranks of the Polish
  Antitrinitarians non-adorationism as well as Anabaptism, and all
  their ethical, social, and chiliastic outgrowths, and finally at
  the Synod of Racau, in A.D. 1603, he secured recognition for his
  own theological views as he had developed them in disputations
  and in writings. Persecutions and ill-treatment on the part of
  the Catholics were not wanting; as, _e.g.,_ in A.D. 1594 by the
  Catholic soldiers, and in A.D. 1598 by the Catholic students
  at Cracow, who dragged him from a sick-bed on Ascension Day,
  drew him half naked through the city, beat him till the blood
  flowed, and would have drowned him had not a Catholic professor
  delivered him out of their hands. He died in A.D. 1604.--The
  chief symbol of the Socinian denomination is the Racovian
  Catechism, published in the Polish language in A.D. 1605.
  Socinus himself, in company with several others, compiled
  it, mainly from an earlier short treatise, _Relig. christ.
  brevissima institutio_. It was subsequently translated into
  Latin and also into German.[425]--=The Socinian system of
  doctrine= therein set forth is essentially as follows: The
  Scriptures are the only source of knowledge of saving truth,
  and as God’s word Scripture can contain nothing that is in
  contradiction to reason. But the doctrine of the Trinity
  contradicts the Bible and reason; God is only one Person.
  Jesus was a mere man, but endowed with Divine powers for the
  accomplishment of salvation, and as a reward for his perfect
  obedience raised to Divine majesty, entrusted with authority
  to judge the living and the dead, so that to him also Divine
  homage should be paid. The Holy Spirit is only a power or
  attribute of God. The image of God in men consisted merely in
  dominion over the creatures. Man was by nature mortal, but had
  he remained without sin he would by the supernatural operation
  of God have entered into eternal life without death. There is
  no such thing as original sin, but only hereditary evil and an
  inherited inclination toward what is bad, which, however, does
  not include in it any guilt. The idea of a Divine foreknowledge
  of human action is to be rejected, because it would lead to the
  acceptance of the idea of an absolute predestination. Redemption
  consists in this, that Christ by life and teaching pointed
  out the better way; and God rewards every one who pursues this
  better way with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The
  death of Christ was no atoning sacrifice, but merely attached
  a seal to the teaching of Christ and formed for him a pathway
  to Divine glory. Conversion must begin by the exercise of one’s
  own powers, but can be perfected only through the assistance of
  the Holy Spirit. The sacraments are only ceremonies, which may
  even be dispensed with, though it is more becoming to retain
  them as old and beautiful customs. The immortality of the pious
  Christian is conditioned and made possible by the resurrection
  of Christ. But the ungodly, along with the devil and his angels,
  are annihilated; and because in this their punishment consists,
  Holy Scripture designates the annihilation as eternal death
  and eternal condemnation. There is no resurrection of the
  flesh; the living indeed have their bodies restored in the
  resurrection; but these are not fleshly, but, as Paul teaches
  in 1 Corinthians xv., spiritual.[426]--Continuation, § 163, 1.




                      IV. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION.


             § 149. THE INTERNAL STRENGTHENING AND REVIVAL
                      OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.[427]

  The strenuous endeavours put forth by the Roman Catholic church to
restrict within the narrowest limits possible the victorious course
of the Reformation, and so far as might be to reconquer lost ground,
bulk so largely in its sixteenth century movement, that we may
review that entire era in its history from the standpoint of the
counter-reformation. This development was carried out, on the one
hand, by means of increased strengthening and revival, and, on
the other hand, by polemics and attack on those without, in this
latter case advanced by missions to the heathen and by violent
persecution and suppression of Protestantism. The Tridentine Council,
A.D. 1545-1547, A.D. 1551, 1552, A.D. 1562, 1563, was devoted to the
realization of these ends. The curialistic side of mediæval scholastic
Catholicism was again presented as the sole representation of the
truth, compacted with iron bands into a rigid system of doctrine,
and declared to be incapable in all time to come of any alteration
or reform; while at the same time it set aside or modified many of
the more flagrant abuses. With two long breaks caused by political
considerations, it had completed its work between 1545 and 1563 in
twenty-five sessions. The first ten sittings were held A.D. 1545-1547,
under Paul III.; the next six in A.D. 1551 and 1552, under Julius III.;
and the last nine in A.D. 1562, 1563, under Pius IV.--The old and
utterly corrupt monkish orders, which had once formed so powerful
a support to the papacy, had not proved capable of surviving the
shock of the Reformation. In their place there now arose a new order,
that of the =Jesuits=, which for centuries formed a buttress to
the severely shaken papacy, and hemmed in on all sides the further
advances of the Protestant movement. Besides this great order there
arose a crowd of others, partly new, partly old ones under reformed
constitutions, mostly of a practical churchly tendency. The strifes
and rivalries that prevailed between the different Protestant sects
stirred up with the Romish Church a new and remarkable activity in
the scientific study of doctrine; and mysticism flourished again in
Spain, and succeeded in reaching there a considerable development.

  § 149.1. =The Popes before the Council.=--=Leo X.= (§ 110, 14)
  the accomplished, extravagant, luxurious, and frivolous Medici,
  was succeeded by one who was in every respect diametrically
  opposed to his predecessor, =Hadrian VI.=, A.D. 1522, 1523,
  the only pope who for many centuries before down to the present
  day retained his own honourable Christian name when he ascended
  the throne of St. Peter. Hadrian Dedel, the son of a poor
  ship-carpenter of Utrecht, a pious and learned Dominican, had
  raised himself to a theological professorship in the University
  of Louvain, when Maximilian I. chose him to be tutor to his
  grandson, who afterwards became the Emperor Charles V. He
  was thus put in the way for obtaining the highest offices in
  the church. He was made Bishop of Tortosa, grand-inquisitor,
  cardinal, and viceroy of Spain for Charles during his absence.
  When, after Leo’s death, neither the imperial candidate Julius
  Medici nor any other of the cardinals present in conclave
  secured the necessary votes, the imperial commissioner pointed
  to Hadrian, and so out of the voting box came the name of a
  new pope whom no one particularly wished. A thoroughly learned,
  scholastic commentator on the Lombard, pious and strict in his
  morals even to rigorism, in his domestic economy practising
  peasant-like simplicity, and saving even to the extent almost
  of niggardliness; a zealot for the Thomist system of doctrine,
  but holding in abhorrence the Renaissance, with all its glitter
  of classical culture, art, and poetry; mourning bitterly over
  the worldliness and corruption of the papacy, as well as over
  the unfathomable depravity throughout the church, and firmly
  resolved to inaugurate a thorough reformation in the head
  and members (§ 126, 1),--he seemed in that position and age,
  and with those surroundings, a Flemish barbarian, who could
  not even understand Italian, and spoke Latin with an accent
  intolerable to Roman ears, the greatest anomaly that had ever
  yet appeared in the history of the popes. The Roman people hated
  him with a deadly hatred, and Pasquino[428] was inexhaustibly
  fruitful in stinging epigrams and scurrilous verses on the new
  pope and his electors. The German reformers were not inclined
  to view him with favour; for he had previously, in his capacity
  as grand-inquisitor, condemned, according to Llorente, between
  20,000 and 30,000 men under the Spanish Inquisition, and
  had more than 1,600 burnt alive. Two attempts were made by
  the Romans to assassinate him by dagger and by poison, but
  neither succeeded. He died, however, after a short pontificate
  of one and a half years, the last German and indeed the last
  non-Italian occupant of the papal throne. But the Romans wrote
  on the house door of his physician, “To the deliverer of the
  fatherland,” and enjoyed themselves, when the corpse of the
  deceased pope was laid between those of Pius I. and Pius II.,
  by repeating the feeble pleasantry, _“Impius inter Pios.”_ The
  jubilation in Rome, however, was extravagant, when by the next
  conclave a member of the family of the Medici, the illegitimate
  son of the murdered Julius (§ 110, 11), the Cardinal Julius
  Medici, who had been rejected on the former occasion, was now
  proclaimed under the title of =Clement VII., A.D. 1523-1534=.
  The brave Romans did not indeed anticipate that this pope,
  in consequence of the shiftiness of his policy and the
  faithlessness of his conduct toward the emperor (§ 126, 6),
  to whose favour and influence mainly he owed his own elevation,
  would reduce their city to a condition of wretchedness and
  depression such as had never been witnessed since the days
  of Alaric and Genseric (§ 132, 2). The position of a pope like
  Clement, who regarded himself as called upon, not only as church
  prince to set right the ecclesiastical institutions of the age,
  which in every department had been thrown into utter confusion
  by the storms of the German Reformation (§ 126, 2), but also as
  a temporal prince to deliver Italy and the States of the church
  from threatened servitude to Germany and Spain, no less than
  from France, was one of peculiar difficulty, so that even a much
  more astute politician than Clement would have found it hardly
  possible to maintain successfully.

  § 149.2. =The Popes of the Time of the Council.=--After
  Clement VII. the papal dignity was conferred upon Alexander
  Farnese, who took the name of =Paul III.=, A.D. 1534-1549, a
  man of classical culture and extraordinary cunning. He owed
  his cardinal’s hat, received some forty years before, to
  an adulterous intrigue of his sister Julia Orsini with Pope
  Alexander VI. His entrance upon this ecclesiastical dignity,
  however, did not lead him to give up his sensual and immoral
  course of life, and after his elevation to the papal chair he
  practised nepotism after the example of the Borgias and the
  Medicis. He was, however, the only pope, at least for a long
  time, who seemed to be actually in earnest about coming to an
  understanding on doctrinal points with the German Protestants
  (§ 139, 23). He at last summoned the =œcumenical council=,
  so long in vain demanded by the emperor, to meet at Mantua on
  23rd May, A.D. 1537; but afterwards postponed the opening of
  it, on account of the Turkish war, until 1st Nov. of that year,
  and then again until 1st May, A.D. 1538. On the latter day it
  was to meet at Vicenza, and after this date had elapsed, it
  was suspended indefinitely. The emperor’s continued insistence
  upon having a final and properly constituted council in a
  German city led him to fix upon =Trent=, where a council was
  summoned to meet on 1st Nov., A.D. 1542, but the troubles that
  meanwhile arose with France gave a welcome excuse for further
  postponement. Persistent pressure on the part of the emperor
  led to the issuing of a new rescript by the pope on 15th March,
  A.D. 1545; there was the usual delay because of the failure to
  secure a sufficient number of orthodox and competent bishops
  and delegates; and thus at last the council opened at Trent on
  =13th Dec., A.D. 1545=. The skilful management of the council
  by the Cardinal-legate del Monte, the statement carefully
  prepared beforehand of the distinctly anti-protestant basis
  upon which they were to proceed (§ 136, 4), and the well
  arranged scheme of the legates to secure its adoption by
  having the votes reckoned not according to nations, but by
  individuals (§ 110, 7), contributed largely during the earlier
  sessions to neutralize the conciliatory tendencies of the
  emperor as well as to prevent the possibility of Protestants
  taking any active share in the proceedings. When the emperor,
  who had now reached the very summit of his power, forbade the
  promulgating of these arrangements, the pope declared that he
  did not think it a convenient and proper thing that the council
  should be held in a German city; and so, on the pretext of a
  plague having broken out in Trent, he issued an order at the
  eighth session that on 11th March, A.D. 1547, it should resume
  at Bologna. The emperor’s decided protest obliged the German
  bishops to remain behind in Trent, and the bishops who assembled
  at Bologna under these circumstances did not venture to continue
  their proceedings. As the emperor persistently refused to
  recognise the change of seat, and in consequence the bishops
  present had one after another left the city, the pope issued
  a decree in Sept., A.D. 1547, again postponing the meeting
  indefinitely.--Paul was succeeded by the Cardinal-legate del
  Monte, who took his place on the papal throne as =Julius III.=,
  A.D. 1550-1555. He could indulge in nepotism only to a limited
  extent, but he did in that direction what was possible. Driven
  to it by necessity, he again opened the Council of Trent on
  1st May, A.D. 1551. Protestant delegates were also to be present
  at it. But without regard to them the council continued to
  hold firmly by the anti-protestant doctrines (§ 136, 8). The
  position of matters was suddenly and unexpectedly changed
  by the appearance of the Elector Maurice. On the approach
  of his victorious army the council broke up, after it had at
  its sixteenth session, on 28th April, A.D. 1552, promulgated
  articles condemning all the Protestants, and resolved to
  sist further proceedings for two years. After the death of
  Julius III., =Marcellus II.= was elected in his stead, one
  of the noblest popes of all times, who once exclaimed, that
  he could not understand how a pope could be happy in the
  strait-jacket of the all-dominating curialism. He occupied
  the chair of St. Peter only for twenty-one days. He was
  succeeded by John Peter Caraffa (§ 139, 23), as =Paul IV.=,
  A.D. 1555-1559. He carried on the operations of the Inquisition,
  reintroduced into Rome at his instigation under Paul III. for
  the suppression of all Protestant movements, with the most
  reckless severity and insistency, was unwearied in searching
  out and burning all heretical books, and protested against the
  Religious Peace of Augsburg. He also opposed the elevation of
  Ferdinand I. to the imperial throne, which led the new emperor
  to issue a decree of state, which concluded with the words:
  “And every one may from this judge that his holiness, by reason
  of age or other causes, is no longer in full possession of
  his senses.” This pope also in the bull, _Cum ex apostolatus
  officio_ of A.D. 1558, released subjects from the duty of
  obedience to heretical princes, and urged orthodox rulers
  to undertake the conquest of their territories. But he also
  embittered himself among the Roman populace by his inquisitorial
  tyranny, so that they upon the report of his death destroyed
  all the buildings of the Inquisition, broke in pieces the
  papal statues and arms, and under threat of death forced all
  the members of the Caraffa family to quit the city.--The mild
  disposition of his successor, =Pius IV.=, A.D. 1560-1565,
  moderated and reduced, as far as he thought safe, the fanatical
  violence and narrowness of the Inquisition, and the reforming
  influence which he allowed to his talented nephew Charles
  Borromeo over the affairs of the curia bore many excellent
  fruits. Without much opposition he again opened the Tridentine
  Council on 18th Jan., A.D. 1562, which now it appeared could
  be resumed with less danger, beginning with the seventeenth
  session and ending with the twenty-fifth on the 3rd or 4th Dec.,
  A.D. 1563. Of the 255 persons who throughout took part in it
  more than two-thirds were Italians. The papal legates domineered
  without restraint, and it was an open secret that “the Holy
  Ghost came from Rome to Trent in the despatch box.” In the
  doctrinal decisions, the mediæval dogmas, with a more decidedly
  anti-protestant complexion, but with a careful avoidance of
  points at issue between Franciscans and Dominicans (§ 113, 2),
  were set forth, together with a formal condemnation of the
  opposed doctrines of Protestantism. In the proposals for
  reformation, decided improvements were introduced in church
  order and church discipline, in so far as this could be
  done without prejudice to the interests of the hierarchy.
  German, Spanish, and especially French bishops, as well as
  the commissioners for Catholic courts urged at first, in the
  interests of conciliation and reform, for permission to priests
  to marry and the granting of the cup to the laity, the limiting
  of the number of fasts and of the worship of saints, relics, and
  images, as well as the more extreme hierarchical extravagances.
  But the legates knew well how to gain time by wily intrigues, to
  disgust their opponents by exciting subtle theological disputes,
  and to weary them out with tedious delays; and so when it
  came at last to the vote, the compact majority of the Italians
  withstood all opposition that could be shown. At the close of
  the last session Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (§ 139, 13),
  who from the opposition had passed over to the majority, cried
  out, “Anathema to all heretics!” and the prelates answered in
  full chorus. The pope confirmed the decrees of the council,
  but forbade on pain of excommunication any exposition of
  them, as that pertained solely to the papal chair. They found
  unhesitating acceptance in Italy, Portugal, and Poland, and
  in Spain in so far as they were agreeable to the laws of the
  empire. In Germany, Hungary, and France the governments
  refused to acknowledge them; but the reforming decrees, which
  could really be recognised as improvements, were willingly
  accepted, and even the objection to particular conclusions
  in matters of faith was soon silenced before the sense of the
  importance of having the thing settled, and securing at any
  cost the unity of the church.[429]

  § 149.3. =The Popes after the Council.=--=Pius V.=,
  A.D. 1566-1572, is the only pope for many centuries before and
  down to the present time who has been canonized. This was done
  by Clement XI. in A.D. 1712. He was previously a Dominican and
  grand-inquisitor, and even as pope continued to live the life of
  a monk and an ascetic. He strove hard to raise Roman society out
  of its deep moral degradation, condemned strict Augustinianism
  in the person of Baius, made more severe the bull _In Cæna
  Domini_ (§ 117, 3), and set the Roman Inquisition to work with
  a fearful activity never before equalled. He also released all
  the subjects of Queen Elizabeth of England from their oaths of
  allegiance, threatened the Emperor Maximilian with deposition
  should he grant religious freedom to the Protestants, and in
  league with Spain and Venice gained a brilliant naval victory
  over the Turks at Lepanto in A.D. 1571.[430]--=Gregory XIII.=,
  A.D. 1572-1585, celebrated the Bloody Marriage as a glorious
  act of faith, produced an improved edition of the _Corpus juris
  canonici_, and carried out in A.D. 1582 the calendar reform
  that had been already moved for at the Tridentine Council.
  The new or Gregorian Calendar, which passed over at a bound
  ten days in order to get rid of the divergence that had arisen
  between the civil or Julian and the natural year, was only
  after considerable opposition adopted even by Catholic states.
  The evangelical governments of Germany introduced it only in
  A.D. 1700, England in A.D. 1752, and Sweden in A.D. 1753; while
  Russia and all the countries under the dominion of the Greek
  church continue to this day their adherence to the old Julian
  Calendar. Gregory’s successor, =Sixtus V.=, A.D. 1585-1590,
  was the greatest and most powerful of all the popes since
  the Reformation, not indeed as a spiritual head of the church,
  but as a statesman and ruler of the Papal States. Sprung from
  a thoroughly impoverished family, Felix Peretti was as a boy
  engaged in herding swine. In his tenth year, however, through
  the influence of his uncle, a Minorite monk, he obtained
  admission and elementary education in his cloister at Montalto
  near Ancona. After completing his studies, he distinguished
  himself as a pulpit orator by his eloquence, as a teacher and
  writer by his learning, as a consulter to the Inquisition by
  his zealot devotion to the interests of orthodoxy, as president
  of various cloisters by the strictness with which he carried
  out moral reforms, and, after he had passed through all the
  stages of the monkish hierarchy and risen to be vicar-general
  of his order, he was elevated by Pius V. to the rank of bishop
  and cardinal. He now took the name of Cardinal Montalto, and
  as such obtained great influence in the administration of
  the curia. The death of his papal patron and the succession
  of Gregory XIII., who from an earlier experience as joint
  commissioner with him to Spain entertained a bitter enmity
  toward him, condemned him to retirement into private life for
  thirteen years. He spent the period of his enforced quiet in
  architectural undertakings, laying out of gardens, editing the
  works of St. Ambrose, in the exercise of deeds of benevolence,
  exhibiting toward every one by the whole course of his conduct
  mildness, gentleness, and friendliness, and, notwithstanding
  occasional sharp and wicked criticisms about the pope, showing
  a conciliatory spirit toward his traducers. Thus the cardinals
  became convinced that he would be a gentle, tractable pope,
  and so they elected him on Gregory’s death to be his successor.
  There is still a story current regarding him as to how, on the
  very day of his elevation, he threw away the stick on which,
  with all the appearance of the feebleness of age, he had up to
  that time been wont to lean; but it is an undoubted fact, that
  from that same day he appeared in the guise of an altogether
  different man. Cold and reserved, crafty and farseeing in
  his schemes, recklessly and unhesitatingly determined even
  to the utmost extremes of harshness in carrying out his devices,
  greedy and insatiable in amassing treasures, parsimonious
  toward his dependants and in his own housekeeping, but lavish
  in his expenditure on great buildings for the adornment of the
  eternal city and for its public weal. He delivered the States
  of the Church from the power of the bandits, who had occasioned
  unspeakable confusion and introduced throughout these dominions
  a reign of terror. By a series of draconic laws, which were
  carried out in the execution of many hundreds without respect
  of person, he spread an indescribable fear among all evil-doers,
  and secured to the city and the state a security of life
  and property that had been hitherto unknown. In theological
  controversies he kept himself for the most part neutral, but
  in the persecution of heretics at home and abroad there was
  no remission of his earlier zeal. In the political movements
  of his time he took a most active share, and the fact that the
  interests of the Papal States lay nearer to his heart than the
  interests of the church had the most important and far reaching
  consequences for the future developments of State and church in
  Europe. That the Hapsburg universal sovereignty aspired after
  by Philip II. of Spain threatened also the independence of the
  Papal States and the political significance of the papacy was
  perceived by him very distinctly; but he did not perceive, or
  at least would not admit, that the success of this scheme would
  have been the one certain way to secure the utter extinction
  of Protestantism and the restoration of the absolute unity of
  the church. This was the reason why he was only half-hearted
  in supporting Philip in the war against the Protestant
  Elizabeth of England, and also so lukewarm toward the Catholic
  league of the Guises in France that wrought in the direction
  of Spanish interests. He did indeed succeed in weakening the
  Spanish power in Italy and in hindering Spanish aggressions
  in France, but at the same time he failed through these very
  devices in obtaining a victory over Protestantism in England
  and in the Netherlands, while the weakness of the German
  Hapsburgs over against the German Protestant princes was
  in great part the result of his policy. The Roman populace,
  excited against him, not so much by his severity as by
  the heavy taxes laid upon them, broke down after his death
  the statue which the senate had erected to his memory
  in the capitol.[431] The next three popes, who had all
  been elected in the Spanish interest, died soon after one
  another. =Urban VIII.= had a pontificate of only twelve days;
  =Gregory XIV.= reigned for ten months; and =Innocent IX.=
  survived only for two months. Then =Clement VIII.=,
  A.D. 1592-1605, ascended the papal throne, his pontificate
  in respect of civil and ecclesiastical polity, “a weak copy
  of that of Sixtus.” His successor, =Leo XI.=, died after he
  had occupied the chair for twenty-seven days.--Continuation,
  § 155, 1.

  § 149.4. =Papal Infallibility.=--The counter-reformation during
  this period exerted itself in bringing again into the foreground
  the assertion of the infallibility of the pope, which had
  been postponed or set to one side during the previous century
  (§ 110, 15). The noble Hadrian VI. indeed had, in his scholastic
  work, _Quæstiones de sacramentis_, of A.D. 1516, reissued during
  his pontificate, laid it down as beyond all doubt that even
  the popes in matters of faith might err and often had erred,
  “_plures enim fuerunt pontifices Rom. hæretici_.” On the other
  hand, Leo X., in the bull issued against Luther, had distinctly
  affirmed that the popes of Rome had never erred in their decrees
  and bulls. Gregory XIII. declared in A.D. 1584, that all papal
  bulls which contained disciplinary decisions on points of
  order were infallible. Sixtus V., in the bull _Æternus ille_,
  with which he issued his unfortunate edition of the Vulgate
  in A.D. 1589, claimed for the popes the right of infallibly
  deciding upon the correctness of the readings of the biblical
  text; but he hastened by the recalling or suppressing of the
  bull to have the mistake covered in oblivion. Bellarmine taught
  that the pope is infallible only when he speaks _ex cathedra_;
  _i.e._ defines a dogma and prescribes it for the belief of all
  Christendom. But when, in spite of all the efforts of the Jesuit
  general Lainez, no final decision was come to at Trent upon the
  question as to whether or how far the pope was to be regarded as
  infallible, the matter remained undefined and uncertain for more
  than three centuries (§ 187, 3).

  § 149.5. =The Prophecy of St. Malachi.=--In his book
  “_Lignum Vitæ_,” published at Venice in A.D. 1595, the
  Benedictine Wion made public for the first time a prophecy
  ascribed to St. Malachi, Archbishop of Armagh, who died in
  A.D. 1148, in which all the popes from Cœlestine II., in
  A.D. 1143, down to the end of the world, embracing in all
  one hundred and eleven, are characterized by short descriptive
  sketches. He also issued a paper purporting to be written by
  the Dominican Ciaconius, who died in A.D. 1599, the author
  of a history of the popes, which, however, in many particulars
  does not harmonize with this document. In this additional
  fragment we have short and frequent characterizations of the
  first seventy-four popes, reaching down to Urban VII., in
  A.D. 1590. The devices for the most part correctly represent
  the coat of arms, the name, the birthplace, the monkish order,
  etc., of the several popes; but these in every case are derived
  from the history of the man before he ascended the papal throne.
  On the other hand, the devices used to designate the three
  succeeding popes down to A.D. 1595 are utterly inapplicable
  and arbitrary. The same is true in almost every case of attempts
  to characterize the later popes. It can therefore be regarded
  as only the result of a chance coincidence, if now and again
  there should seem to be some fair measure of correspondence.
  Thus No. 83, _Montium custos_, describes Alexander VII., whose
  arms show six mountains; No. 100, _De balneis Etruriæ_, answers
  to Gregory XVI., who belonged to a Tuscan cloister; and No. 102,
  _Lumen in cœlo_, designates Leo XIII., who has a star in his
  coat of arms. If after Leo’s death, as Harnack remarks, a
  German pope were possible, No. 103, _Ignis ardens_, might be
  most exactly realized by the election of the Cardinal Hohenlohe.
  Still more striking, though breaking through the principle
  that is rigidly followed with respect to the earlier numbers
  from 1 to 74, is the way in which under No. 96, _Peregrinus
  apostolicus_, ridicule is cast upon the misfortune of Pius VI.
  (§ 165, 10, 13); and in No. 101 _Crux de cruce_ is applied to
  Pius IX. (§ 184, 2, 3). Upon the whole, there can be no doubt
  that the composition of the document belongs to A.D. 1590, and
  indeed to the period during which the conclave sat for almost
  two months after the death of Urban VII., and that the author,
  though unsuccessfully, endeavoured to influence the cardinals
  in their election by making it appear that the appointment
  of Cardinal Simoncelli of Orvieto, _i.e._ _Urbs vetus_, with
  the device, _De antiquitate urbis_, had been thus divinely
  indicated. He chose the name of St. Malachi, because his friend
  and biographer, St. Bernard, had ascribed to him the gift of
  prophecy. His series of popes had, therefore, to begin with a
  contemporary of St. Malachi; and since the author must speak of
  him as a pope that has yet to be elected, he gives designations
  to him, and to all who follow down to his own times, which
  point exclusively to characteristics and relations belonging
  to them before their election to the papal dignity. Weingarten
  thinks that Wion himself is author both of the prophecy and of
  its explanatory appendix, but Harnack has given weighty reasons
  for questioning this conclusion.

  § 149.6. =Reformation of Old Monkish Orders.=

    1. The controversies that prevailed within the ranks of the
       =Franciscans= (§ 112, 3) were finally put to rest by Pope
       Leo X. in A.D. 1517. The Conventuals and Observants were
       allowed to choose respectively their own independent
       general, and from that time forth maintained on equal
       terms a more peaceful relation to one another. The general
       of the Observants, however, who were in number, influence,
       and reputation greatly the superior, boasted of pre-eminence
       over his Conventual colleague. Although all Observants
       under him formed a close and thoroughly united society,
       there were still distinguished within the same _regular_,
       _strict_, and _most strict_ Observants. Among the regulars
       the most prominent were the _Cordeliers_ of France, so
       called because they were girt merely with a cord; to the
       strict belonged the Barefooted monks; and to the most strict
       the Alcantarines, founded by Peter of Alcantara in Spain.
       The founder of the =Capuchins= was the Italian Observant
       Minorite Matth. de Bassi. As he reported that St. Francis
       had worn a cowl with long sharp peak or capouch, and soon
       thereafter saw the saint himself in a vision dressed in
       such a garb, he withdrew from his cloister, went to Rome,
       and obtained from Clement VII., in A.D. 1526, the right
       of restoring the capouch. Falling out with the Observants
       over this, his followers attached themselves, in A.D. 1528,
       to the Conventuals as an independent congregation with
       their own vicar-general. The unusual style of dress
       produced a sensation. Whenever one of the brethren appeared
       the gutter children would run after him, crying out in
       mockery, _Capucino_. But the name that was given in reproach
       they accepted as a title of honour. Their self-denying
       benevolence upon the outbreak of the pestilence in Italy in
       A.D. 1528 soon won high reputation to the order, and secured
       its further spread. In consequence of their vicar-general,
       Bernardino Ochino (§ 139, 24), going over to the Reformed
       church, the order came for a long time into disrepute.
       Thoroughly characteristic of them was their utter deficiency
       in scientific culture, which often went the length of a
       relapse in utter rudeness and vulgarity, and debased their
       preaching into burlesque “_capuchinades_.”

    2. A reformation of the Carmelites was brought about by
       St. Theresa de Jesus in A.D. 1562. The restored order
       bore the name of the “Shoeless Carmelites,” and its members
       distinguished themselves as teachers of the young and in
       works of charity. Alongside of her, as restorer of the male
       Carmelites, stood the pious mystic John of the Cross.[432]

    3. A reformed congregation of =Cistercians= was founded in
       A.D. 1586 by Jean de la Barrière, abbot of the monastery of
       Feuillans [Feuillants]. The mode of life of these Feuillants
       was so severe that fourteen brothers sank under the burden
       within a short time, and this led to the modification of
       the rules in A.D. 1595. The founder was called by Henry III.
       to establish a monastery near Paris. He continued faithful
       to the king after he had withdrawn from the league, and thus
       drew down upon himself the hatred of the fanatical Catholic
       members of the order to such a degree that they deposed and
       banished him in A.D. 1592. A later commission of inquiry,
       however, under Cardinal Bellarmine pronounced him innocent.

  § 149.7. =New Orders for Home Missions.=

    1. =The Theatines= had their origin in an association of
       pious priests at Theate, which Cajetan, at the advice
       of John Peter Caraffa, bishop of that place, afterwards
       Pope Paul IV., constituted into an order. In A.D. 1524,
       having been organized as _clerici regulares_, they chose to
       live not by begging but by depending on Divine providence,
       _i.e._ on gifts bestowed without asking, and came to be
       of importance as a training school for the higher clergy.
       Their statutes expressly required of them to instruct the
       people by frequent preaching, to attend to the bodies and
       souls of the sick, to seek the spiritual good of criminals,
       and to labour for the overthrow of heresy.

    2. =The Barnabites=, also a society of regular clergy,
       founded by Antonio Maria Zaccaria at Milan, and confirmed
       by Clement VII. in A.D. 1533. They assigned to themselves
       the duty of devoting their whole life to works of mercy,
       pastoral care, education of the young, preaching, hearing
       confession, and conducting missions. They took the name
       Barnabites from the church of St. Barnabas, which was
       given over to them. To them was also attached the order
       of =Angelicals=, founded by Louisa Torelli, Countess
       Guastalla, a rich lady who was widowed for the second
       time in her twenty-fifth year, and confirmed by Paul III.
       in A.D. 1534. At first they accompanied the Barnabites on
       their missions, and wrought for the conversion of women,
       while the Barnabites devoted their attention to the men.
       Subsequently, however, on account of loose behaviour,
       they were obliged to keep within their convents. Each
       of the nuns in addition to her own name took that of the
       order, Angelica, which was intended to remind her of her
       obligation to keep herself pure as the angels.

    3. The congregation of the =Somaskians=, or regular clergy
       of St. Majolus, trace their origin from Jerome Emiliani
       of Somascho, a town of Lombardy. While serving as an
       officer in the army, a thoroughly careless man of the
       world, he happened to be cast into prison. In his gloomy
       cell he repented of his past sinful life, and made his
       escape, it is said, by the assistance of the blessed
       Virgin, in a manner similar to that recorded in Acts v. 19.
       Some years after, in A.D. 1518, he entered holy orders,
       and now devoted his whole life to a self-denying practice
       of benevolence, by founding orphanages and training schools,
       asylums for fallen women, etc. In order to secure support,
       instruction, and pastoral care for his numerous and varied
       dependants, he joined with himself several like-minded
       clergymen in A.D. 1532, and formed a benevolent society.
       Its richly blessed activity extended over all northern
       Italy as far down as Rome, and was not arrested even
       by the founder’s early death in A.D. 1537. Pius V.
       in A.D. 1568 prescribed to the society the rule of
       St. Augustine, and on the ground of this raised it into
       an order of St. Majolus, so called from a church gifted
       to it at Pavia by St. Charles Borromeo.

    4. =The Brothers of Charity=, in Spain called Hospitallers,
       in France Frères de Charité, were originally a secular
       fraternity for giving gratuitous attention to the sick,
       which was founded in Granada, in A.D. 1540, by a Portuguese,
       Juan Ciudad, poor in goods but rich in love, to whom
       his bishop gave the honourable title John of God, Juan
       di Dios, and who was canonized by Pope Alexander VIII.
       in A.D. 1690.[433] After Pius V. had in A.D. 1572 given
       the order the character of a monkish order by putting its
       members under the rule of St. Augustine, it soon spread
       over Italy, France, Germany, and Poland. Its cloisters
       were arranged as well-equipped hospitals for the destitute
       sick, without distinction of religious confession, so that
       their studies were directed even more to the medical than
       to the theological sciences.

    5. =The Ursuline Nuns=, founded in A.D. 1537 by a pious
       virgin, Angela Merici of Brescia, for affording help to
       needy sufferers of every sort, but especially for the
       education of girls.

    6. =The Priests of the Oratory=, or the Order of the Holy
       Trinity, founded by St. Philip Neri of Florence in
       A.D. 1548, a saint of the most profound piety, possessed
       at the same time with a bright and genial humour. They
       combined works of charity with exercises of common prayer
       and Bible study, which they conducted in the oratory of
       a hospital erected by them.[434]--Continuation, § 156, 7.

  § 149.8. =The Society of Jesus: Founding of the Order.=--=Ignatius
  Loyola=, Don Inigo Lopez de Recalde, born at the castle of Loyola
  in A.D. 1491, was descended from a distinguished family of Spanish
  knights. Seriously wounded at the siege of Pampeluna by the French
  in A.D. 1521, he sought to relieve the tedium of a prolonged
  and painful sickness by reading romances of chivalry and, when
  he had finished these, the legends of the saints. These last made
  a deep impression upon him, and enkindled in him a glowing zeal
  for the imitation of the saints in their abandonment of the world,
  and their superiority to the world’s thoughts and ways. Nervous
  convulsions and appearances of the queen of heaven gave their
  Divine consecration to this new tendency. After his recovery
  he distributed his goods among the poor, and in beggar’s garb
  subjected himself to the most rigorous asceticism. At the age
  of thirty-three years he began, in A.D. 1524, sitting among boys,
  to learn the first elements of Latin, then studied philosophy
  at Complutum and theology at Salamanca and Paris. With iron
  determination of will he overcame all difficulties. In Paris, six
  like-minded men joined together with him: Peter Favre of Savoy,
  who was already a priest; Francis Xavier, belonging to a family
  of Spanish grandees; James Lainez, a Castilian; Simon Rodriguez,
  a Portuguese; Alphonso Salmeron and Nicholas Bobadilla, both
  Spaniards. With glowing enthusiasm they drew out the plan of a new
  order, which, by its very name, “Compañia de Jesus,” indicated its
  character as that of a spiritual army, and by combining in itself
  all those features which separately were found to characterize
  the several monkish orders, advanced the bold claim of being
  the universal and principal order of the Romish church. But
  pre-eminently they put themselves under obligation, in A.D. 1534,
  by a solemn vow of absolute poverty and chastity, and promised
  to devote themselves to the service of the Catholic faith at the
  bidding of the pope. Practising the strictest asceticism they
  completed their studies, and obtained ordination as priests.
  As insurmountable difficulties, arising from the war carried
  on by Venice with the Turks, prevented the accomplishing of
  their original intention of a spiritual crusade to the Holy Land,
  they travelled to Rome, and after some hesitation Paul III., in
  A.D. 1540, confirmed their association as the =Ordo Societatis
  Jesu=. Ignatius was its first general. As such he continued to
  devote himself with great energy of will to spiritual exercises,
  to the care of the sick, to pastoral duties, and to the conflict
  with the heretics. He died in A.D. 1556, and was beatified by
  Paul V. in A.D. 1609, and canonized by Gregory XV. in A.D. 1622.
  A collection of his letters was published in three vols. by the
  Jesuits in A.D. 1874.[435]--Among his disciples who emulated their
  master in genius, insight, and wide, world-embracing schemes, we
  must name the versatile Lainez, the energetic Francis Borgia, a
  Spanish grandee, grandson of the murdered Giovanni Borgia, son
  of Pope Alexander VI. (§ 110, 12), but above all the Neapolitan
  Claudio Aquaviva, A.D. 1581-1615, who in many respects deserves to
  be regarded as a new founder of Loyola’s creation. Under these the
  order entered upon a career of universal significance in history,
  as a new spiritual army for the defence of the papacy. The popes
  showed their favour by heaping unheard of privileges upon it,
  so that it grew from year to year more and more powerful and
  comprehensive. Never has any human society come to understand
  better how to prove spirits, and to assign to each individual
  a place, and to set him to work for ends for which he is best
  suited; and never has a system of watchful espionage been more
  consistently and strictly carried out. Everything must be given
  up to the interests of the order in unconditional obedience to
  the commands of the superior, even that which is to men most dear
  and sacred, fatherland, relations, likings and dislikings. One’s
  own judgment and conscience count for nothing; the order is all
  in all. They have understood how to use everything that the world
  affords, science, learning, art, worldly culture, politics, and,
  in carrying out their foreign missions, colonization, trade, and
  industry, as means for accomplishing their own ends (§ 156, 13).
  The order got into its own hands the education of the children of
  the higher ranks, and thus secured devoted and powerful patrons.
  By preaching, pastoral work, and the founding of numerous
  brotherhoods and sisterhoods they wrought upon the people, became
  advisers of the princes through the confessional, wormed their way
  into connections and into all secrets. And all these innumerable
  appliances, all these conspicuous powers and talents, united
  under the direction of one will, were unwaveringly directed
  to one end: on the positive side, the furthering and spread of
  Catholicism; on the negative side, the overthrow and uprooting
  of Protestantism. On the death of the founder, in A.D. 1556,
  the order already numbered over 1,000 members in thirteen
  provinces and 100 colonies; and seventy years later, the number
  of provinces had increased to thirty-nine, with 15,493 members
  in 803 houses.[436]--Continuation, §§ 151, 1; 165, 9.

  § 149.9. =Constitution of the Jesuit Order.=--Required to yield
  obedience and render an account of their doings only to the pope,
  exempted from every other kind of ecclesiastical supervision,
  and therefore scorning to accept any spiritual dignities and
  benefices, such as bishoprics, canonries, pastorates, etc.,
  this order, thoroughly self-contained, presents a more perfect
  and compact organization than any large association on this
  earth has ever been able to show. Only those who had good bodily
  health and intellectual ability were admitted to the two years’
  novitiate. After this period of probation had been passed
  in a satisfactory manner, the novices were released from the
  discipline of the novice master and put under the usual three
  monkish vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity. They now
  either entered immediately as “_secular coadjutors_” on the
  duties assigned to such in administrating and taking care of the
  outward affairs of the houses of the order, or as “_scholastici
  approbati_” for their further intellectual culture were received
  into collegiate establishments provided for such under the
  direction of a rector. After completing the prescribed studies
  and exercises, they proceeded as “_scholastici formati_” to
  engage upon their duties as “_spiritual coadjutors_,” who were
  required to continue the prosecution of their studies, teach
  the young, and perform pastoral work. After many years’ trial,
  the most able and active of them were received into the number
  of the “_professi_,” who live purely on alms in a distinct and
  special kind of institution presided over by a superior. But
  among the _professi_, there is a distinction made between those
  who adopt three and those who adopt four vows. The latter, who,
  in addition to the other usual vows, take also one of obedience
  to the pope in regard to any mission among heathens and heretics
  which he may please to commission them to undertake, as the
  choice spirits of the order, constitute its very core and form
  the circle immediately around the general, who with monarchical
  absolutism stands at the head of all. Even this autocrat however
  is himself watched over by the four assistants associated with
  him and by an admonisher, who is at the same time his confessor,
  so that he may not commit anything contrary to the rules of the
  order and unduly stretch his own prerogatives; and he is also
  answerable to the general congregation of all the _professi_,
  which is convened every third year. The provincials officiate
  as his viceroys in different countries in which the order has a
  footing. Alongside of the spiritual superior of every house of
  the order stands a procurator, usually of clerical rank, for the
  administration of the property and the superintendence of the
  secular coadjutors. Like the general all the other superiors are
  watched over by the assistants or advisers associated with them,
  and by the admonishers or father confessors. The _Constitutiones
  Societatis Jesu_ (Rom., 1583), p. vi., c. i. 1, thus describe
  the obedience that must be rendered to the superiors: _Quisquis
  sibi persuadeat, quod qui sub obedientia vivunt, se ferri ac
  regi a divina providentia per superiores suos sinere debent
  perinde ac si cadaver essent, quod quoquoversus ferri et
  quacunque ratione tractari se sinit: vel similiter atque senis
  baculus, qui ubicunque et quacunque in re velit eo uti, qui cum
  manu tenet, ei inservit_. By all members of the order, of every
  rank of degree, by novices and adepts alike, four weeks were
  usually devoted once a year under an exercise master chosen for
  that work to _exercitia spiritualia_, in which rigid attention
  was given to prayer, meditation, examination of conscience,
  mortification, etc., as an effectual means of breaking in
  and breaking down the individual will. The first sketch of
  a directory for exercises of this sort was made by the founder
  himself in his _Exercitia Spiritualia_ (Antwerp, 1638). This
  work, annotated, enlarged, and completed, was finally adopted
  by the general congregation in A.D. 1594, and issued under
  the title _Directorium in exer. sp._--The original rule of the
  Jesuits is set forth in the _Constitutiones Societatis Jesu_
  already referred to; their later rule, finally perfected at the
  eighteenth general congregation, is given in the _Institutum
  Soc. Jesu_ (2 vols., Prag., 1757). The so called _Monita secreta
  Soc. Jesu_, first published at Cracow in A.D. 1612, professing
  to have been obtained from private instructions communicated
  by Aquaviva, the fifth general of the order, only to the
  most trustworthy of the very _élite_ of the _professi_, which
  gives without the slightest reserve an account of the devices,
  often of the most unscrupulous description, to be practised in
  order to secure an increase to the order of power, reputation,
  influence, and possessions, have been repudiated with horror
  by the order as a malevolent calumny, by which probably some
  offender who had been ejected sought vent for his revenge. The
  author, who at all events betrays a thorough acquaintance with
  the internal arrangements of the order, under the fictitious
  form of a course of instruction given by the general named, may
  have communicated, with considerable exaggerations, an account
  of the practices current within the society of his own day.[437]

  § 149.10. =The Doctrinal and Moral System of the Jesuits.=--In
  =dogmatics= Loyola himself and his immediate disciples were
  firmly attached to the prevailing doctrinal system of Thomas
  (§ 113, 2). Gradually, however, it came to be seen, that upon
  this ground their conflict with the Protestants in regard
  to the fundamental doctrines of sin and grace, justification
  and sanctification was in various ways precarious, and this
  occasioned an inclination more and more toward the Scotist side.
  Their general Aquaviva, in his order of study prescribed in
  A.D. 1586, publicly announced this departure from the doctrine
  of the _Doctor Angelicus_, restricting it, however, to the
  doctrines of grace and of the immaculate conception. On
  the other hand, they were the most zealous defenders of the
  characteristic doctrines of St. Thomas (§ 96, 23) even in
  their extremest form, the papal infallibility, the pope’s
  universal episcopate, and his absolute supremacy over every
  earthly potentate. In the interests of the papacy they thus
  laid the foundations of a theory of the sovereignty of the
  people in matters of civil life: Only the papal power is,
  according to Matthew xvi. 18, immediately from God, that of
  the princes is from the people. The people therefore, if their
  prince be a heretic or a tyrant, can rid themselves of him
  by deposing, banishing, or even putting him to death; _i.e._
  tyrannicide. Thus taught Bellarmine, who died in A.D. 1621,
  speaking for the whole order, in his treatise _De potestate
  pontificis in temporalibus_, and still more decidedly and
  openly the careful and reliable Spanish historian Juan Mariana,
  who died in A.D. 1624, in his “Mirror for Princes,” _De rege
  et regis institutione_, which was therefore condemned by the
  parliament of Paris to be burnt; while another work of his,
  published only after his death, reflecting upon the despotic
  proceedings of the general of the order, Aquaviva, and
  mercilessly exposing many other offences of the society, was
  condemned by Urban VIII. Alongside of the Pelagianizing Jesuit
  doctrine of grace there was also developed a lax =doctrine
  of morals=, which threatened to sap the very foundations of
  morality. This they made familiar to people generally through
  the confessional. The following are the principal points upon
  which their quibbling casuistry has been exercised in such a
  manner as to bring the morality of the Jesuits into thorough
  disrepute:

    1. _Probabilism_, which teaches, that in a case where the
       conscience is undecided as to what should be done or borne
       in that particular instance, one is not necessarily bound
       to the more certain and probable meaning, but may even
       take a less certain and less probable view, if this were
       supported by weighty reasons, or could be sustained by
       the authority of some distinguished theologian, a _doctor
       gravis_.

    2. _Intentionalism_, or the doctrine that any action, even it
       be in itself sinful, is to be judged only according to the
       intention with which it was performed, pointedly expressed
       in the saying, The end justifies the means, “_quia cum finis
       est licitus etiam media sunt licita_” (Busembaum).

    3. The distinction between _philosophical and theological
       sin_, according to which only the latter, as a sin
       committed with a clear understanding of the sinfulness of
       the deed, and with the present consciousness and intention
       thereby expressly to break a Divine command, is condemnable
       before God.

    4. The doctrine of the permissibility of a secret reserve,
       _reservatio mentalis_, and the use of ambiguous language,
       by means of which, if one, upon giving a solemn affirmation
       or denial upon oath, has so arranged his words, that besides
       the meaning naturally to be taken from them that is contrary
       to the truth or the intention, they admit of another that is
       in accordance with fact, he is not to be regarded as guilty
       of giving false witness, of breach of faith, deceit, or
       perjury.

  These and other suchlike moral axioms, not indeed expressed for
  the first time by the Jesuit order, but already for the most
  part rooted in the mediæval system of casuistry, were certainly
  first carried out with reckless consistency in the moral code of
  the Society of Jesus. In the most frivolous and lighthearted way
  they were applied to the life, and openly and unreservedly set
  forth in the confessional, by the most celebrated moralists of
  the order. They were laid down as well established principles,
  not merely in learned theological discussion, but in the
  regularly authorized handbooks of morals, approved by the
  congregation of the order, of which some fifty or seventy
  treatises, _e.g._ those of Escobar and Busembaum (§ 157, 1),
  are still extant. They cannot therefore be repudiated as the
  individual opinions of some rash and inconsistent writers. They
  will also be found to lie at the foundation of the whole scheme
  and procedure of the order in their prosecution of foreign
  missions (§§ 150; 156, 12) and in their attempts to proselytise
  Protestants (§ 151, 1, 2), to supply the principle underlying
  their ecclesiastical and civil policy, their industrial and
  commercial activity (§ 156, 13), their pastoral and educational
  work. They are also thoroughly illustrative of their well known
  motto, _Omnia in majorem Dei gloriam_. It need not, however,
  be denied that the order has at all times numbered among its
  members many distinguished by deep piety and strict moral
  principles, and indeed some among them expressly combated from
  Scripture and experience those doctrines so perilous to moral
  truth and purity. The most notorious of the Jesuit moralists who
  taught and defended these pernicious views were Francis Toletus,
  who died in A.D. 1596, Gabriel Vasquez, who died in A.D. 1604,
  Thomas Sanchez, who died in A.D. 1610, Francis Suarez, who
  died in A.D. 1617, the Westphalian Hermann Busembaum, who died
  in A.D. 1668, and the Spaniard Escobar de Mendoza, who died
  in A.D. 1699. The name of the last mentioned has obtained an
  unenviable notoriety by the adoption of the word _escobarderie_
  into the French language.[438]

  § 149.11. =Jesuit Influence upon Worship and Superstition.=--As
  Jesuitism itself may be described as in every respect a
  reproduction in an exaggerated form of the Catholicism of the
  mediæval papacy, with all its unevangelical and anti-evangelical
  deterioration, all this showed itself pre-eminently and
  characteristically in reference to worship and superstition.
  Above all, this appeared in the mariolatry, in which the
  doctrine and practice of the Jesuits far outstripped all the
  extravagances of the Middle Ages. In the scheme of worship
  recommended and practised by the Jesuits the Divine Trinity
  was supplanted by a quaternity, in which Mary was assigned her
  place as the adopted daughter of the Father, mother of the Son,
  and spouse of the Holy Ghost, and thus her fervent devotees
  made her worship overshadow that of the three Persons of the
  Godhead. Along with the worship of Mary the order gave a new
  impetus to the veneration of St. Ann (§ 57, 2), whom Thomas de
  St. Cyrillo in his book, _De laudibus b. Annæ_, celebrated as
  “the grandmother of God and mother-in-law of the Holy Ghost.”
  In like manner it gave an impulse to worship of saints, images,
  and relics, to processions, pilgrimages, and rosary devotions,
  as well as to superstitious beliefs about wonder working
  scapularies, girdles, medals, amulets, and talismans (§ 186, 2),
  Ignatius and Xavier-water, endowed with healing properties
  through contact with the relics or models of these saints.
  The Jesuits were also making endless discoveries of new miracle
  legends and relics previously unknown. They originated the
  worship of the heart of Jesus (§ 156, 6), renewed the practice
  of flagellation, gave a new vitality to the indulgence nuisance,
  and diligently fostered belief in sorcery, demoniacal possession,
  apparitions of the devil, and exorcism. They also encouraged
  the silly notions of the people about witches, with all their
  cruel and horrible consequences (§ 117, 4). The Jesuit Delrio,
  with the approval of his order, published, in A.D. 1599, a book
  with the title, “Disquisitiones Magicæ,” which, as a worthy
  companion volume to the “Hammer for Witches,” branded as heresy
  every doubt as to the truth of witchcraft witnessed to by so
  many infallible popes, and gave a powerful impetus to witch
  persecutions throughout Roman Catholic countries. That two noble
  Jesuits, Tanner, who died in A.D. 1632, and Spee, who died in
  A.D. 1635, are to be numbered among the first opponents of the
  gross delusion, does not in the very least affect the indictment
  brought against the order; for Tanner was persecuted on account
  of his utterances being contrary to the principles of the
  society, and Spee’s “_Cautio Criminalis_” could venture into
  the light only anonymously, and be printed only in a Protestant
  town (Ruiteln, 1631).

  § 149.12. =Educational Methods and Institutions of the
  Jesuits.=--The Jesuit order never interested itself in
  elementary and popular education. The pulpit and confessional,
  as well as the founding and control of spiritual brotherhoods
  and sisterhoods, afforded ample means and opportunities for
  impressing their influence upon the lower orders of the people.
  On the other hand, the order laboured unweariedly to secure
  professorships in gymnasiums, seminaries for priests, and
  universities, and that, not merely in the department of theology,
  but also in all the other faculties. By these means and by
  the founding of regular Jesuit schools they sought to get
  into their own hands the education of the higher ranks, so
  as to secure from among them as large a number as possible of
  members, friends, and protectors. Under the general Aquaviva
  this movement obtained an authorized directory and rule in the
  _Ratio et institutio studiorum Soc. J._, published in A.D. 1586.
  And very remarkable although thoroughly one-sided, and
  thus no doubt most effectually realizing the ends desired,
  were the results which the order gained in the department of
  Catholic education, which had been thrown into deep shade by
  the brilliant advances of Protestant scholarship and educational
  methods. The study of philology had for its almost sole object
  the acquiring of the Latin language with Ciceronian elegance,
  but this only produced fluency in writing and speaking. Greek
  was studied only by the way; and the knowledge of classical
  antiquities, as well as the arts and sciences generally, with
  the exception of mathematics, was utterly neglected. But special
  attention was devoted to rhetoric, and by means of disputations,
  public lectures, and dramatic representations readiness in
  speaking and replying was obtained; but freedom of thought and
  independent culture were rigorously suppressed. The whole course
  of instruction, as well as the method of tuition, had for its
  aim the breaking in and subduing of the pupil’s will. Adherence
  to rigid order, and unconditional obedience to reasonable
  demands, and a mild discipline, with strict control, and a
  regular system by which one was set to watch another, were
  the means used for arousing to the utmost a spirit of emulation
  and giving a sharp spur to ambition. The course of study which
  a scholastic of the order had to pass through in the collegiate
  establishments was divided into the _studia inferiora_ and
  _superiora_. The former, consisting of three classes, embraced
  the _Grammatica_ as a preliminary basis for the two higher
  classes of the _Humanitas_ and the _Rhetorica_. The _superiora_
  comprised a three years’ course of Aristotelian philosophy, and
  a four years’ course of scholastic theology upon the _Sentences_
  of the Lombard and the _Summa_ of St. Thomas, together with
  Bible study upon the Vulgate and the original texts, a little
  Church history, and, as the crown of the whole curriculum,
  casuistic ethics.

  § 149.13. =Theological Controversies.=

    1. The old controversy about the immaculate conception of
       the blessed Virgin had not by any means obtained a final
       settlement at Trent. By firmly maintaining the decree on
       the universality of original sin the Franciscans hoped,
       with the zealous support of the Jesuits Lainez and Salmeron,
       to obtain express recognition of the pet doctrine of their
       order (§ 104, 7); but, on the other hand, the Dominicans so
       vehemently protested, that the council, in order to prevent
       a threatened schism, was obliged to leave the point in
       dispute undecided, and was satisfied with renewing the
       constitution of Sixtus IV., of A.D. 1483 (§ 112, 4), and
       thus prohibiting the one party from accusing the other of
       heresy.--Continuation, § 156, 5.

    2. The council for the same reason was just as little able
       to set at rest the burning controversy between Thomists
       and Scotists on the =doctrine of grace= (§ 113, 2) by
       issuing any decisive statement on the subject. When the
       pious and learned professor =Michael Baius= of Lyons came
       forward in lectures and writings as a zealous defender of
       Augustinianism, the Franciscans extracted from his works
       seventy-six propositions, which were condemned by Pius V.,
       A.D. 1567. And when again the Jesuits came forward in
       support of the papal verdict, the theological faculty
       of Lyons in A.D. 1587, took the field and passed censure
       upon thirty-four Pelagianizing propositions of the Jesuits
       Leonard Less and John Hamel as opposed to Holy Scripture
       and St. Augustine. In the following year the Portuguese
       Jesuit =Louis Molina=, in his treatise _Liberi arbitrii
       cum gratiæ donis concordia_ of A.D. 1588, set forth a
       semi-pelagian modification of the disputed propositions;
       the Dominicans, with the learned Dominicus Bañez at their
       head, opposed with a bitter polemic. But now the whole
       order of the Jesuits stood together as one man on the
       side of Molina. Besieged from both sides into complaints
       and demands, Clement VIII., in A.D. 1597, appointed a
       commission, the so called _congregatio de auxiliis_, to
       make a thorough investigation into the matter, and to give
       an exhaustive report. After this commission had spent ten
       years in vainly endeavouring to construct a formula which
       would give satisfaction to both parties, Paul V. dissolved
       it in A.D. 1607, promised to make known his decision at
       a more suitable time, and then in A.D. 1611 forbade all
       further disputings on that question. But after little
       more than thirty years the controversy broke out again
       at another place in a far more threatening and dangerous
       form (§ 156, 5).

  § 149.14. =Theological Literature.=--Various kinds of
  expedients were tried in order thoroughly to secure the
  establishment of the Tridentine system of belief. Paul IV.
  had as early as A.D. 1499 drawn up a list of prohibited books,
  which was again ratified at Trent in A.D. 1562, and has been
  since then continued and enlarged through some forty editions
  as the _Index librorum prohibitorum et expurgandorum_ (with
  the note, _donec corrigatur_). Pius V. founded in A.D. 1571
  a special “Congregation of the Index,” for looking after
  this business.[439] The _Professio fidei Tridentinæ_ of
  A.D. 1564, and the _Catechismus Romanus_ of A.D. 1566, were
  issued as authentic statements of the Tridentine doctrine;
  and in A.D. 1588 a permanent congregation was instituted for
  the explaining of that system in all cases of dispute that
  might arise. Also the new _Breviarium Romanum_ of A.D. 1568
  (§ 56, 2), as well as the _Missale Romanum_ of A.D. 1570, served
  the same end. In A.D. 1566 Pius V. had appointed a commission,
  the so called _Correctores Romani_, for the preparing of a
  new edition of the _Corpus juris canonici_, which Gregory XIII.
  issued as the only authentic form in A.D. 1582. Sixtus V.
  published in A.D. 1589 a new edition of the Vulgate, _Editio
  Sixtina_, and, notwithstanding its numerous errata, often
  only pasted over or scratched out, pronounced it authentic.
  Clement VIII., however, issued a much altered revision,
  _Editio Clementina_, in A.D. 1592, and strictly forbade any
  alteration of it, but was induced himself to send out next year
  a second edition, which was guilty of this very fault. Meanwhile
  Roman Catholics and scholars began, in spite of the Tridentine
  decree as to the authenticity of the Vulgate, to give diligent
  attention to the study of the original text of Holy Scripture.
  The Dominican Santes =Pagninus= of Lucca, who died in A.D. 1541,
  a pupil of Savonarola, after careful study of all rabbinical
  aids, produced a Hebrew lexicon in A.D. 1529, a Hebrew grammar
  in A.D. 1528, a literally exact rendering of the Old and the New
  Testaments from the original texts, upon which he was engaged
  for thirty years, an introduction, with a thorough treatment
  of the tropical language of Scripture, and commentaries on the
  Pentateuch and Psalms. The literal meaning was with him _palea,
  folium, cortex_; the mystical, _triticum, fructus, nucleus
  suavissimus_. More importance was attached to the historical
  sense by the Dominican =Sixtus of Siena=, by birth a Jew,
  who died in A.D. 1569. His _Bibliotheca sancta_ is an
  introduction to Holy Scripture extremely credible for that
  age. The Roman Inquisition condemned him to death because of
  heretical expressions in that work, especially with regard to
  the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament; but Pius V.
  pardoned him, after he had prevailed upon him to retract.
  The Jesuit Cardinal =Robert Bellarmine=, who died in A.D. 1621,
  in his _Ll. IV. de verbo Dei_ controverted the Protestant
  principle, _Scriptura scripturæ interpres_. Jerome =Emser=
  bitterly inveighed against Luther’s translation of the Bible,
  and, in A.D. 1527, set over against it an attempted translation
  of his own, which, however, is nothing more than a reprint of
  Luther’s, with the changes necessary in consequence of following
  the Vulgate and unimportant transpositions and alterations
  of words. The same barefaced impudence was practised by John
  =Dietenberger= of Mainz, in whose pretended rendering of the
  Old Testament of A.D. 1534, the translation of Luther and
  Leo Judä is followed almost word for word. John =Eck= of
  Ingolstadt produced, in A.D. 1537, a translation of the Bible
  from the Vulgate in the most wretched German, without the
  least consultation of the original text. On the other hand,
  the Augustinian monk =Luis de Leon=, who died in A.D. 1591,
  was not only celebrated as a learned and brilliant exegete,
  but also distinguished as a poet and prose writer of the first
  rank in the national literature of Spain. He was thrown into the
  prison of the Spanish Inquisition because of a translation and
  exposition of the Song of Songs in the mystico-ecclesiastical
  sense, circulated only in manuscript, and because of his
  depreciation of the Vulgate; and only after a five years’
  confinement, during which he narrowly escaped the hands of
  the hangman, was he set free. The learned Spaniard =Arias
  Montanus=, under the patronage of King Philip II., edited
  the Antwerp polyglott in eight vols. folio, with learned notes
  and excursuses, in A.D. 1569 ff. The number of exegetes who
  now gave decided prominence to the literal sense became very
  considerable toward the end of the century. The most notable
  of these are Arias Montanus, who died in A.D. 1598, having
  commented on almost the whole Bible; the Jesuit John Maldonatus,
  who died in A.D. 1583, on the four gospels; John Mariana, who
  died in A.D. 1624, _Scholia in V. et N.T._; Nich. =Serrarius=,
  who died in A.D. 1609, on the Old and New Testaments; and
  also William =Estius= of Douay, who died in A.D. 1613, on the
  New Testament epistles.--In the department of dogmatics the
  old traditional method was still followed by commenting on
  the Lombard. The most important schoolman of the age was the
  Spanish Jesuit Francis Suarez. In A.D. 1528 Berth. Pirstinger,
  Bishop of Chiemsee, under the title “Tewtsche Theologey,” wrote
  a complete handbook of theology in the High German dialect,
  which had completely emancipated itself from the scholastic
  forms (§ 125, 5). John =Eck= also produced a rival work to
  Melanchthon’s _Loci_, the _Enchiridion locorum communium_,
  which within fifty years passed through forty-six editions.
  But of much greater importance are the _Loci theologici_ of
  the Spanish Dominican Melch. =Canus=, who died in A.D. 1550,
  which were published at Salamanca in A.D. 1563. They consist
  not so much of a system of doctrines properly so called, as
  rather of comprehensive and learned preliminary investigations
  about the sources, principles, method, and fundamental ideas of
  dogmatics. He rejects the charge of absolute perversity brought
  against scholasticism, but grants that the method should be
  simplified, and what is good in it preserved. For instructions
  in higher and lower schools the two catechisms of the first
  German Jesuit provincial, =Petrus [Peter] Canisius= (§ 161, 1),
  _Cat. major_ of A.D. 1554, and _Cat. parvus_ of A.D. 1566,
  were epoch-making. They were circulated in numberless editions
  and translations,--the Little Catechism being printed more
  than 500 times,--and used for two centuries in all the Catholic
  schools in Germany; and even yet they are held in high esteem.
  Among the Catholic polemical writers, Cardinal Bellarmine
  occupies beyond dispute the foremost rank. His _Disputationes
  de controversiis chr. fidei adv. hujus temp. hæreticos_,
  A.D. 1588-1593, are in many respects unsurpassed even to
  this day. Before him William =Lindanus=, Bishop of Ghent,
  author of _Panoplia evangelica_ (Colon., A.D. 1563), and the
  Jesuit Francis =Coster= of Mechlin, author of _Enchiridion
  controversiarum_ (Colon., A.D. 1585), had won a great reputation
  among their own party as disputants against Protestantism. The
  services rendered to church history by Cardinal =Baronius= have
  already been referred to under § 5, 2.

  § 149.15. =Art and Poetry.=--In the second Dutch school
  (§ 115, 8) musical taste was thoroughly depraved, and =Church
  music= especially became so artificial, florid, and secularized,
  that some of the Tridentine fathers in all seriousness proposed
  that figured music should be completely banished from the church
  services, at least in the performance of mass. It was when
  matters had reached this low ebb that =Palestrina=, Giovanni
  Pietro Aloisio Sante of Palestrina, appeared as the saviour and
  regenerator of sacred musical art. He was a scholar of Goudimel,
  who, before he passed over to the Reformed church (§ 143, 2),
  had founded a school of music in Rome. As early as A.D. 1560,
  in his sacred compositions on Micah vi. 3 ff., which to this
  day are performed always on Good Friday in the Sistine Chapel,
  Palestrina secured a firm position as an unsurpassed master
  of genuine ecclesiastical music. The commission appointed by
  Pius IV. for the reformation of church music called upon him
  therefore to submit specimens of his compositions. He produced
  three masses in A.D. 1565, among which was the celebrated
  _Missa Marcelli_, dedicated to his former patron, the deceased
  pope Marcellus II. With this masterpiece, which represents the
  highest perfection of Catholic church music, and entitled its
  author to rank as a prince of musical art, _Musicæ princeps_,
  the retention of the figured music in the mass, so keenly
  contested in the council, was decided upon.--The immense
  success of the =sacred song of= the Protestant church
  as a means for spreading the Reformation constrained the
  Catholic church, very unwillingly, to seek to counteract this
  danger by the translation of Latin hymns and the composition of
  songs of praise in German (§ 115, 7), as well as by the liberal
  introduction of them into the public services. Between A.D. 1470
  and A.D. 1631 there have been enumerated no fewer than sixty-two
  collections of German Catholic church hymns. The most important
  are those of Michael Vehe, Provost of Halle, A.D. 1537; of
  George Witzel, a renegade Lutheran, A.D. 1550; of John
  Leisetritt, dean of the cathedral at Budissin, A.D. 1567;
  and Gregory Corner, Abbot of Gottweih, in his “Great Catholic
  Hymnbook,” A.D. 1625. Caspar Ulenberg, previously a Lutheran,
  in A.D. 1582 rendered the psalms of David into German rhyme;
  and Rutzer Eding published in A.D. 1583 a German mass, with
  translation of the Latin church hymns. The names of the poets
  and translators are for the most part unknown. Many a beautiful
  sacred song, too, is met with among these rich materials, an
  evidence of what might have been the result if the Catholic
  church of Germany, instead of having been opposed or only
  half-hearted, had fostered and encouraged this important part
  of the Divine service with whole-hearted enthusiasm.--The arts
  of architecture and painting continued to be still cultivated
  successfully in the Roman Catholic church (§ 115, 13). Besides
  Correggio and Titian, and after them, named with the noble
  masters of =painting=, are the two Caracci, uncle and nephew,
  Domenichino and Guido Reni. Michael Angelo Buonarotti, who
  died in A.D. 1564 an old man of ninety years, gave expression
  to the most profound Christian ideas in his works of painting
  and sculpture. The Renaissance style during the 16th century
  gave scope for the further application and development of
  ecclesiastical =architecture=. The most magnificent church
  building of the century was the rebuilding of St. Peter’s
  church at Rome, undertaken by Pope Julius II. in A.D. 1506,
  which Bramante began and Michael Angelo after his plan carried
  out. As painter and statuary, Angelo had refused slavishly to
  follow the traditions of the church in respect of the worship
  of Mary and the saints, and so, too, as a poet in glowing
  sonnets he only gave expression to deep sorrow for sin,
  and his true spiritual faith in the crucified Sin-bearer.
  His countryman Torquato Tasso, who died in A.D. 1595, in
  his “Jerusalem Delivered,” celebrated the Christian heroic
  of mediæval Catholicism. In the history of Spanish poetry, the
  Christian lyrics of St. Theresa and Luis de Leon are regarded
  even to this day as unsurpassed in excellence.

  § 149.16. =The Spanish Mystics.=--In consequence of the
  Reformation, the Roman Catholic church was compelled to have
  recourse to the revivification of the mediæval mysticism from
  which it had become alienated in life and doctrine, in order
  by means of it to give that intensity and inward power to
  the religious life which was now felt to be indispensably
  necessary without falling away from the church in which alone
  salvation can be found, and without making surrender to the
  _inanis fiducia hæreticorum_. Thus there arose from about the
  middle of the century, first of all in Spanish cloisters, a new
  development of mysticism, which, without expressly attacking
  the “outer way” of the ecclesiastical practice of piety,
  introduced and recommended a second higher and nobler method,
  called the “inner way,” because leading to Christian perfection.
  This consisted in a regular and deeply spiritual exercise
  in prayer and contemplation, with a decided preference for
  inward unuttered prayer, with complete mortification of
  one’s own self-will and absolute self-surrender to the Divine
  guidance, having for its aim and climax the most blessed
  rest in fellowship with God. A pious Minorite, =St. Peter
  of Alcantara=, gave to this tendency a doctrinal basis by his
  treatise, _De oratione et meditatione_, published in A.D. 1545,
  in which he manifests a most bitter opposition to Protestantism,
  and a zealous readiness to co-operate in all the horrid
  cruelties of the Spanish counter-reformation. Its highest
  point is reached in the famous Carmelite nun of Avila in Old
  Castile, =St. Theresa de Jesus=, who died in A.D. 1582, the
  most celebrated saint of the Spanish church. Introduced by
  Peter of Alcantara in A.D. 1560 to the profound mysteries of
  contemplation, and favoured amid the convulsions of her life
  of prayer with frequent visions of Christ, she undertook, in
  A.D. 1562, by the founding of a new cloister, to lead her order
  back to the strict observance of this old rule. The fame of her
  sanctity soon had spread over all Spain, but all the more did
  the hatred of the brothers and sisters of her order who favoured
  the lax observance increase. They even carried the bitterness so
  far as to get the Inquisition to originate a heretic prosecution
  against her in A.D. 1579, on the ground of her pretension to
  have visions, but this was abandoned by command of the king.
  Among her numerous writings, of which Luis de Leon, in A.D. 1583,
  issued a complete edition, which have been translated into all
  the languages of Europe, the “Castillo interior,” _i.e._ the
  City of Mansoul, or the seven Residences of the Soul, is the
  one in which her mysticism is most completely developed. It
  describes the stages through which the soul must pass in order
  to become wholly one with God. Her faithful fellow labourer in
  the reforming of the order, =St. John of the Cross=, who died in
  A.D. 1591, in regard to mysticism occupied the same ground with
  her. His writings, among which the _Subida del Monte Carmel_,
  “The Climbing of Mount Carmel,” is the most comprehensive,
  are not to be compared with those of St. Theresa in the rare
  witchery of an enchanting style, but are distinguished by
  solidity and maturity of thought. The brethren of the order
  opposed to reform showed toward John a far more severe and
  continuous bitterness than they did toward Theresa. Even in
  A.D. 1575 he was imprisoned in one of their cloisters, and
  cruelly ill used. He made his escape indeed in the following
  year by flight, but only in A.D. 1588 did a papal brief, by
  a formal establishment of the Congregation of the Barefooted
  Carmelites, put an end to all oppressions and persecutions. The
  mysticism recommended by him and St. Theresa found entrance now
  more and more into the cloisters, not only of the Carmelites,
  but also of the other orders, and numbered many adherents
  among the higher and lower clergy, as well as among cultured
  laymen.--But while on this side the traditional forms and
  doctrines usual in the practice of piety in the church sank
  indeed into the background, but were never expressly repudiated
  or contradicted, there arose upon this same mystical basis
  numerous sects designated _enlightened_ “=Alumbrados=,” who went
  all the length of pouring abuse and contempt upon every kind
  of church form and doctrine, and thus calling forth down to the
  17th century constant persecution from the Inquisition. Theresa
  was canonized in A.D. 1622, Peter of Alcantara in A.D. 1669, and
  John of the Cross in A.D. 1726.--Continuation, § 156.

  § 149.17. There were also many noble products of the
  =practical Christian life= brought forth in that new departure
  which Catholicism after the Reformation in the interests of
  self-preservation had been obliged to undertake. Evidence of
  this practical endeavour was given in the zealous manner in
  which home missions were prosecuted. From out of the general
  body of Catholicism there sprang up a new series of saints, who
  were quite worthy to rank alongside those of the Middle Ages.
  Most highly distinguished among these was =Charles Borromeo=,
  born A.D. 1538, died A.D. 1584, who, from his position as
  nephew of Pope Pius IV., and from his high rank in the church as
  cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, exerted a powerful influence
  upon the Tridentine Council and the curia, which he used for
  the removal of many abuses. His life is the realization of the
  perfect ideal of that of a Catholic pastor and prelate. He also
  proved himself worthy of being so regarded during the dreadful
  pestilence that raged in Milan in A.D. 1576. Paul V. canonized
  him in A.D. 1610, and to this day his tall figure in a colossal
  statue looks out upon the province of Milan as the patron of the
  state.[440]--Along with the intensification of the specifically
  Catholic sentiment awakened in the cloisters by means of the
  endeavours put forth in the counter-reformation and spreading
  out from these into the general Catholic community, we meet
  with a revival of the old zeal for monkish =asceticism=. The
  Jesuits especially laboured earnestly for the restoration of
  the =discipline of the lash=, brought at an early period into
  discredit by the extravagances of the Flagellants (§ 116, 3).
  And besides these many also of the new and reformed orders
  gave themselves to further and advance the counter-reformation.
  Cardinal Borromeo, above referred to, took a lively interest
  in this mode of spiritual disciplinary exercise. After he had
  at a council at Milan, in A.D. 1569, given a new organization to
  the flagellant societies of his diocese, and Pope Gregory XIII.,
  in A.D. 1572, had endowed with a rich indulgence all the
  associations of that sort, they in a very short time spread
  again over all Italy. In Rome alone they numbered over a
  hundred, which, according to their colours, were designated as
  white, gray, black, red, green, blue, etc. Especially on Good
  Friday they vied with one another in getting up their flagellant
  processions on the most magnificent scale. In France they were
  patronized by Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, and King Henry III.
  was himself a devoted and enthusiastic member of the order. In
  Germany, too, the Jesuits brought the flagellants into favour,
  wherever they could get a footing, especially in the north
  German cities. The learned Jesuit, Jac. Gretson, in Ingolstadt,
  in the very beginning of the 17th century, wrote seven elaborate
  rhetorical controversial tracts, _De spontanea disciplinarum
  s. flagellorum cruce_, etc., against the Protestant opponents
  of the flagellant craze. Afterwards, however, the ardour and
  zeal for the practice of this discipline cooled down more and
  more in most of the monkish orders as well as in general society,
  and local flagellant processions, in which there was generally
  more of a vain, empty show than of real penitential earnestness,
  are to be met with now only as occasional displays in Spain and
  Italy, and in the Romish states of America.


                        § 150. FOREIGN MISSIONS.

  The grand discoveries of new continents which had preceded
the Reformation age, and the serious losses sustained in European
countries, revived the interest in missions throughout the Roman
Catholic church. Commercial enterprise and campaigns for the conquest
of the world, which were still almost exclusively in the hands of the
Catholic states, afforded opportunities for the prosecution of mission
work in the New World; and abundant means for carrying it on were
furnished by the numerous monkish orders.

  § 150.1. =Missions to the Heathen: East Indies and China.=--The
  Portuguese founded the first bishopric in the =East Indies=,
  at Goa on the Malabar Coast, in A.D. 1534. Soon thereafter a
  tribunal of the Inquisition was established alongside of it.
  The bishop confined his attention to the European immigrants,
  and the inquisitors applied themselves mainly to secure the
  destruction of the Thomas-Christians settled there. Neither
  of them had the remotest idea of doing any properly speaking
  mission work among the native races. But it was quite different
  when, in A.D. 1542, Loyola’s companion =Francis Xavier=, the
  Apostle of the Indians, made his appearance as papal nuncio
  in this wide field along with two other Jesuits. Working with
  glowing zeal and unparalleled self-denial, he baptized in a
  short time a hundred thousand, mostly of the low, despised caste
  of pariahs, going forward certainly with a haste which never
  allowed him time to make sure that the spiritual fruits should
  bear any proportion to the outward successes. His unmeasured
  missionary fervour, to which characteristic expression was
  given in his saying, _Amplius! amplius!_ impelled him constantly
  to go on seeking for new fields of labour. From the East
  Indies he moved on to Japan, and only his death, which occurred
  in A.D. 1552, hindered him from pushing his way into China.
  Numerous successors from Loyola’s order undertook the carrying
  on of his work, and so soon as A.D. 1565 the converts of the
  East Indies numbered 300,000.[441]--Commerce opened the way for
  missions into =China=, where all traces of earlier Christianity
  (§§ 72, 1; 93, 15) had already completely vanished, and proud
  contempt of everything stood in the way of the introduction
  of any western customs or forms of worship. But the Jesuits,
  with =Matthew Ricci= of Ancona at their head, by making use
  of their knowledge of mathematical, mechanical, and physical
  science, secured for themselves access even to the court. Ricci
  at first completely nationalized himself, and then began his
  missionary enterprise by introducing Christian instructions
  into his mathematical and astronomical lectures. In order to
  render the Chinese favourable to the adoption of Christianity,
  he represented it to be a renewal and restoration of the old
  doctrine of Confucius. The confession of faith which the new
  converts before baptism were required to make was confined to
  an acknowledgment of one God and recognition of the obligation
  of the ten commandments. And even in worship he tolerated many
  heathen practices and customs. The mathematical and astronomical
  writings composed by him in the Chinese language are said to
  have extended to 150 volumes. The Chinese artillery also stood
  under his immediate supervision. When he died, in A.D. 1610, the
  Jesuits had even then formed a network of hundreds of churches
  spread over a great part of the land.[442]--Continuation,
  § 156, 11, 12.

  § 150.2. =Japan.=--Xavier had here, chiefly on account of his
  defective acquaintance with the language, relatively speaking
  only a very small measure of success. But other Jesuits followed
  in his footsteps, and enjoyed the most brilliant success; so
  that in A.D. 1581 there were already more than two hundred
  churches and about 150,000 Christians in the land, of whom
  many belonged to the old feudal nobility, the daimios, while
  some were even imperial princes. This distinguished success
  was greatly owing, on the one hand, to the favour of the
  then military commander-in-chief Nobunaga, who greeted the
  advance of Christianity as a welcome means for undermining the
  influence of the Buddhist bonzes, which had become supreme, and,
  on the other hand, to the abundance of money put by Portugal and
  Spain at the disposal of the Jesuits, which they used as well
  in the adorning of the Catholic services as in the bestowing
  of liberal gifts upon the converts. It was, however, chiefly
  owing to the close and essential relationship between the Romish
  ritual and constitution and those of Buddhism, which rendered
  the transition from the one to the other by no means very
  difficult. Then everything that had gone to secure for Buddhism
  in Japan a superiority over the simple old national Sintuism
  or ancestor-worship, as well as everything that the Japanese
  Buddhists had been wont to regard as indispensable requisites
  of worship, the elegance of the temples, altars glittering with
  bright colours blending together, theatrical display in the
  vestments for their priests, grand solemn processions and masses,
  incense, images, statues and rosaries, a hierarchical system,
  the tonsure, celibacy, cloisters for monks and nuns, worship of
  saints and images, pilgrimages, etc., was given them in even an
  exaggerated degree in Jesuit Christianity. The zealous neophytes
  from among the daimios effectually backed up the preaching
  of the Jesuit fathers by fire and sword. They compelled
  the subjects of their provinces to go over to the Christian
  religion, banished or put to death those who proved refractory,
  and overthrew the Buddhist temples and cloisters. In A.D. 1582
  they sent an embassy of four young noblemen to Europe to
  pay homage to the pope. After they had received the most
  flattering reception in Madrid from Philip II., and in Rome
  from Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V., they returned to their own
  home in A.D. 1590, accompanied by seventeen Jesuit priests,
  who were soon followed by whole crowds of mendicant friars. By
  the close of the century the number of native Christians had
  increased to 600,000. But meanwhile the axe was already being
  laid at the root of the tree that had thriven so wondrously.
  Nobunaga’s successor Hidejoshi found occasion, in A.D. 1587,
  to issue a decree banishing from the country all foreign
  missionaries. The Jesuits were wise enough to cease at once
  all public preaching, but the begging monks treated the decree
  with contempt and open defiance. In consequence of this six
  Franciscans and seventeen Japanese converts of theirs, and
  along with them also three Jesuits, were arrested at Nagasaki
  and there crucified (§ 156, 11). Soon afterwards Hidejoshi
  died. One of his generals, Ijejasu, to whom he had assigned the
  regency during the minority of his six year old son, assumed
  the sovereign power to himself. A civil war was the result, and
  in A.D. 1600 his opponents, among whom were certain Christian
  daimios, were conquered in a bloody battle. Ijejasu persuaded
  the mikado to give him the hereditary rank of _shiogun_, _i.e._
  field-marshal of the empire; and his successors down to the
  revolution of A.D. 1867 (§ 182, 5), as military vice-emperors
  alongside of the really powerless mikado, had all the power of
  government in their own hands. Thus were corrupting elements
  introduced which led to the complete overthrow of the Japanese
  church.[443]

  § 150.3. =America.=--The desire to spread Christ’s kingdom
  was not by any means the smallest among the impulses that
  contributed to Christopher Columbus’ enthusiasm for the
  discovery of new countries; but the greediness, cruelty, and
  animosity of the Spanish conquerors, who had less interest in
  converting the natives into Christians than in reducing them to
  slavery, was a terrible hindrance to the Christianizing of the
  New World. The Christian missionaries indeed most emphatically,
  but with only a small measure of success, defended the human
  rights of the ill-used Indians. The noble Mexican bishop,
  =Bartholomew de las Casas=, in particular wrought unweariedly,
  devoting his whole life, A.D. 1474 to A.D. 1566, to the sacred
  task, not only of instructing the Indians, but also of saving
  them from the hands of his greedy and bloodthirsty fellow
  countrymen. Six times he journeyed to Spain in order to use
  personal influence in high quarters for ameliorating the lot
  of his _protégés_, and he was obliged to undertake a seventh
  journey in order to justify himself and repel the violent
  accusations of his enemies. Even in A.D. 1517 Charles V. had, at
  the bishop’s entreaty, granted personal liberty to the Indians,
  but at the same time gave permission to the Spanish colonists
  to introduce African negro slaves for the laborious work
  in the mines and on the plantations. The enslaving of the
  natives, however, was still continued, and only in A.D. 1547
  were vigorous measures taken to secure the suppression of
  the practice, after many millions of Indians had been already
  sacrificed. So far as the Spanish dominion extended Christianity
  also spread, and was established by means of the Inquisition.--In
  South America the Portuguese held sway in the rich and as yet
  little known empire of Brazil. In A.D. 1549 King John III. sent
  thither a Jesuit mission, with Emanuel Nobreya at its head.
  Amid unspeakable hardships they won over the native cannibals
  to Christianity and civilization.[444]

  § 150.4. The newly awakened missionary zeal of the church
  made an attempt also upon the =schismatical Churches of the
  East=. The enterprise, however, was even moderately successful
  only in reference to a portion of the Persian and East Indian
  =Nestorians= (§ 72, 1), who in Persia were called Syrian or
  Chaldæan Christians, because of the language which they used
  in their liturgy, and in India Thomas-Christians, because
  they professed to have had the Apostle Thomas as their founder.
  They had their origin really, in A.D. 1551, in Mesopotamia, in
  consequence of a double episcopal election there. The one party
  chose a priest Sulakas, whom Pope Julius III. had consecrated
  priest under the name of John, but the other party refused to
  acknowledge him. The Archbishop Alexius Menezius also became
  involved in these controversies, and succeeded in getting the
  former party to recognise the Roman primacy and accept the
  Catholic doctrine; while, on the other hand, Rome permitted the
  retention of its ancient ritual and form of constitution. These
  united Nestorians were now called by way of eminence Chaldæan
  Christians. Their chief, chosen by themselves and approved by
  the pope, was called Bishop of Babylon, but had his residence
  at Mosul in Mesopotamia. The Thomas-Christians of India, however,
  proved much more troublesome. But even they were obliged, after
  a long, protracted struggle, at a synod at Diampur in A.D. 1599,
  to abjure the Nestorian heresy. All Syrian books were burnt,
  and a new Malabar liturgy in accordance with the Romish type
  was introduced.--The existence of an independent =Jacobite=
  Christian church in Abyssinia (§ 64, 1) first became known
  in Europe in the beginning of the sixteenth century through
  Portuguese commercial and diplomatic missions. The Abyssinian
  sultan, David, in A.D. 1514, upon promise of Portuguese help,
  of which he stood in need because of the aggressions of the
  neighbouring Mohammadan [Mohammedan] states, agreed to receive
  the physician Bermudez as Catholic patriarch. But the next
  sultan, Claudius, expelled him from his land. In A.D. 1562
  Jesuit missionaries began to settle in the country; but Claudius
  denounced them as Arians, and wished the people to have nothing
  to do with them. As the result of a friendly communication
  from the Coptic patriarch, Paul V., in the beginning of the
  17th century, sent the Jesuit Rodriguez into =Egypt=. The
  patriarch accepted the rich presents which the Jesuit brought
  with him, and then made him return home without having gained
  the object of his mission.


          § 151. ATTEMPTED REGENERATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

  Paul III. had in A.D. 1542 erected a new tribunal of the Inquisition
for the suppression of Protestantism, which Paul IV. (§ 149, 2) brought
up to the highest point of its development. And scarcely had the
Catholic church secured for itself a stable position throughout its
own domains by the happy conclusion of the Tridentine Council, than it
directed all its powers with the utmost energy to reconquer as far as
then possible the ground that had been lost. The means used for this end
were mainly of two sorts: the territorial system, legitimated by a law
of the empire (§ 137, 5), which, devised originally in order to save
Protestantism (§ 126, 6), was now employed for its overthrow; and the
Jesuits, who, sometimes openly and sometimes with carefully concealed
plans, sometimes in conjunction with the civil power, sometimes
intriguing against it, spread like swarms over all the countries of
Europe where Protestantism had already struck its roots. The craftiness
of the members of this order, their diplomatic acts, their machinations,
their practice in controversy, succeeded in some cases in fanning the
scarcely glimmering embers of Catholicism into a bright flame, in other
cases in blighting Protestant churches that had been in a flourishing
condition. They hoped thus to be able to destroy these churches root and
branch, or to reduce Protestantism within the narrow limits of a barely
tolerated sect. But above all they were careful to get into their hands
the control of the higher and lower schools, in order to be able to
implant in the hearts of the young and rising generation a bitter hatred
of Protestantism.

  § 151.1. =Attempts at Regeneration in Germany.=--From the
  time of the Passau Compact the political convulsions and the
  weariness of controversy shown by the princes proved strongly in
  favour of Protestantism. In Catholic states, too, the Protestant
  religion had made rapid advances. The deputies of provinces,
  and especially the nobles, gave unmistakable expression to
  their sympathies, and for every grant of territory demanded a
  religious concession from the prince. Many prelates or spiritual
  princes had more Protestant than Catholic councillors. The
  Protestant nobles frequented their courts without constraint.
  Their residences were often Protestant cities, and their
  revenues not unfrequently in the hands of evangelical superiors.
  But for the Jesuits, in spite of territorial influence and
  prelatical restrictions (§ 137, 5), in a few decades all Germany
  would have fallen into the hands of the evangelical church.
  In A.D. 1558 a Venetian observer of the country and the people
  could bring back the report that in Germany only a tenth of the
  population remained true to the old church; that of the other
  nine parts seven had gone over to the Lutherans, and two were
  distributed among the various anti-Catholic denominations. Of
  all the German cities Ingolstadt was the first, in A.D. 1549,
  to be favoured with a visit of the Jesuits, who were brought
  there by William IV. of Bavaria as teachers of theology. Next
  in order comes Vienna, where, in A.D. 1551, thirteen Jesuits,
  under the name of Spanish priests, were introduced by Ferdinand.
  Some years later they settled in Prague, as also in Cologne.
  From those four capitals they spread out within a few years
  over the whole territorially Catholic Germany, and throughout
  the Austrian states. In A.D. 1552 Loyola founded at Rome the
  _Collegium Germanicum_, which was subsequently extended under
  the name of the _Collegium Germ.-Ungaricum_, for the training of
  German youths for the conversion of Protestants in their native
  land. The first Jesuit provincial for Germany was the Dutchman
  Peter Canisius, who, first of all from Vienna, and afterwards,
  when Maximilian II. (§ 137, 8) put the Jesuits in Austria under
  intolerable restrictions, from Friesburg, had so successfully
  carried the regeneration into Switzerland, until his death in
  A.D. 1598, that while the Protestants designated him _Canis
  Austriacus_ because of his ruthless persecution, the members
  of his order honoured him as the second Apostle of the Germans,
  and Pius IX., in recognition of his services, beatified him
  in A.D. 1864.--The Catholic regeneration began in Bavaria in
  A.D. 1564. Duke Albert V., converted into a zealous Catholic
  by the opposition of his Protestant members of parliament,
  excluded the Protestant nobles from the Bavarian diet, banished
  the evangelical pastors, compelled his Protestant subjects
  who refused to abandon their faith to emigrate, and obliged all
  professors and officials to subscribe the Tridentine _Professio
  fidei_. The Jesuits praised him as a second Josiah and
  Theodosius, called Munich a second Rome, and the pope invested
  him with the ecclesiastico-political privileges of a _summus
  episcopus_ throughout his own dominions. When by inheritance
  he became Count of the Hague, and also Baden-Baden came under
  his rule as regent, Protestantism was there thoroughly rooted
  out. Bavaria’s example was followed, though in a more temperate
  manner, by the electors of Treves (Jac. von Eltz) and Mainz
  (Daniel Brendel). The latter restored Catholicism in A.D. 1574
  into the hitherto thoroughly Protestant city Eichsfelde. In
  A.D. 1575 the Abbot of Fulda also, Balth. von Dernbach, who
  in all his territory was almost the only Catholic, acted in
  a similar manner. In making this attempt Balthasar [Balthazar]
  came into collision with his chapter, and was by it and his
  knights expelled. The Bishop of Würzburg, Jul. Echter of
  Mispelbrunn, who had been aiding them in the revolution, in
  A.D. 1576 undertook the administration of the diocese. But in
  the beginning of the following year the abbot was restored by
  an imperial order, and thus the last vestige of Protestantism
  was rooted out. Julius of Würzburg, seriously compromised,
  would probably have followed the example of Gebhard of Cologne
  (§ 137, 7), though that prelate’s proceedings were dictated by
  altogether different considerations; but by A.D. 1584 he worked
  himself into power again by completely rooting out Protestantism
  from his own territory, which had been almost completely
  Protestant. The bishops of Bamberg, Salzburg, Hildesheim,
  Münster, Paderborn, etc., pursued a similar policy. At all
  points Jesuits were at the front and Jesuits were in the rear.
  In the newly constituted nuncio court, at Vienna, in A.D. 1581,
  at Cologne, in A.D. 1582, they had the grand centres of
  their conspiracies and machinations. Ferdinand II. of Styria,
  emperor from A.D. 1619, and Maximilian I. of Bavaria, were
  both educated by the Jesuits at Ingolstadt. When in A.D. 1596
  Ferdinand celebrated Easter at Grätz, he was the only one there
  who communicated according to the Roman Catholic rite. Two years
  later he successfully carried out the counter-reformation,
  and his cousin, the Emperor Rudolph II., followed his
  example.--Continuation, § 153, 2.

  § 151.2. But the regeneration was not confined to Germany. It
  spread out over all =Europe=. The Jesuits pressed into every
  country, and were successful in compassing their ends even in
  places where there had been very little prospect of success.
  The Cardinal Charles Borromeo (§ 149, 17) laboured with peculiar
  energy to establish Catholicism, and spread it yet more widely
  in the Catholic and mixed cantons of Switzerland. He himself
  undertook a journey thither in A.D. 1570; contrived in A.D. 1574
  to get the Jesuits introduced into Lucerne, in A.D. 1586 into
  Freiburg; founded at Milan a _Collegium Helveticum_ for the
  training of Catholic priests for Switzerland, and secured
  the appointment of a permanent nuncio, who had his residence
  at Lucerne. In the province of Chablais on Lake Geneva,
  under Piedmontese rule, St. Francis de Sales, by the forcible
  conversion of 80,000 heretics in A.D. 1596, completely rooted
  out Protestantism (§ 156, 1).--In France the bloody civil wars
  began in A.D. 1562. The Duke of Alva appeared in the Netherlands
  in A.D. 1567. In Poland the Jesuits secured an entrance first
  in A.D. 1569, and from thence made their way over into Livonia.
  In A.D. 1578 the crafty Jesuit Ant. Possevin gained access to
  Sweden, and there converted the king (§ 139, 1). Even in England,
  where Elizabeth in A.D. 1582 had threatened every Jesuit with
  capital punishment, crowds of them wrought away in secret,
  and in hope of better times tended the flickering spark of
  Catholicism smouldering under the ashes (§ 153, 6).

  § 151.3. =Russia and the United Greeks.=--The attempts, renewed
  from time to time since the meeting of the Florentine Council
  (§ 73, 6), to win over the Russian church, had always failed
  of the end in view. In A.D. 1581, when the war so disastrous
  for Russia between Ivan IV. Wassiljewitch and Stephen Bathori
  of Poland afforded to the pope the desired excuse for putting
  in an appearance as a peacemaker, Gregory XIII. sent the clever
  Jesuit Possevin for this purpose to Poland and Russia. The
  tsar gave him a most flattering reception, allowed him to hold
  a religious conference, but was not prepared either to attach
  himself to Rome or to banish the Lutherans. On the other hand,
  Rome scored a victory, inasmuch as in the West Russian province
  detached and given to Poland the union was consummated, partly
  by force, partly by manœuvre, and obtained ecclesiastical
  sanction at the Council of Brest, in A.D. 1596. These “United
  Greeks” were obliged to acknowledge the Roman supremacy and the
  Romish doctrines, but were allowed to retain their own ancient
  ritual.--Continuation, § 203, 2.




    Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.




                              FOOTNOTES.


  [263] Principal authorities for last two sections:
        Adam of Bremen, “Gesta Hamburg eccl. Pontificum.” and
        Saxo Grammaticus, “Hist. Danica.”

  [264] Snorro Sturleson’s, “Heimskringla, or Chronicle of the
          Kings of Norway.” Transl. from the Icelandic by Laing,
          3 vols., London, 1844.

  [265] Cosmas of Prague [† A.D. 1125], “Chronicon Prag.”

  [266] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo the Venetian.” Edited with
          Commentary by Col. Yule, 2 vols., London, 1871.

  [267] Michaud, “History of the Crusades.” Transl. by Robson,
          3 vols., London, 1852.
        Mill, “History of the Crusades.” 2 vols., London, 1820.
        “Chronicles of the Crusades: Contemporary Narratives of
          Richard Cœur de Lion, by Richard of Devizes and Geoffrey
          de Vinsauf, and of the Crusade of St. Louis, by Lord
          John de Joinville.” London (Bohn).
        Gibbon, “History of Crusades.” London, 1869.

  [268] _Pulleni dicuntur, vel quia recentes et novi, quasi pulli
        respectu Surianorum reputati sunt, vel quia principaliter
        de gente Apuliæ matres habuerunt. Cum enim paucas mulieres
        adduxissent nostri, qui in terras remanserunt, de regno
        Apuliæ, eo quod propius esset aliis regionibus, vocantes
        mulieres, cum eis matrimonia contraxerunt._

  [269] Stubbs, “Chronicle and Memorials of Richard I.”
          London, 1864.

  [270] Prescott, “History of Ferdinand and Isabella.” Good edition
          by Kirk, in 1 vol., London, 1886.
        Geddes, “History of Expulsion of Moriscoes.” In “Miscell.
          Tracts.” Vol. i., London, 1714.
        McCrie, “Hist. of Prop. and Suppr. of Reformation in Spain.”
          London, 1829.
        Ranke, “History of Reformation.” Transl. by Mrs. Austin,
          vol. iii., London, 1847.

  [271] Milman, “History of the Jews.” Book xxiv. 1, “The Feudal
          System.”

  [272] “De sua conversione.” In Carpzov’s edit. of the “Pugio
          Fidei” of Raimund Martini, § 103, 9.

  [273] Milman, “History of the Jews.” 3 vols., London, 1863;
          bks. xxiv., xxvi.
        Prescott, “Ferdinand and Isabella.” Pt. I., ch. xvii.

  [274] Bryce, “The Holy Roman Empire.” London, 1866.
        O’Donoghue, “History of Church and Court of Rome, from
          Constantine to Present Time.” 2 vols., London, 1846.
        Bower’s “History of the Popes.” Vol. v.

  [275] For Lanfranc, see Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of
          Canterbury.” Vol. ii., London, 1861.

  [276] Bowden, “Life and Pontificate of Gregory VII.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1840.
        Villemain, “Life of Gregory VII.” Transl. by Brockley,
          2 vols., London, 1874.
        Stephen, “Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1850.
        Hallam, “Middle Ages.” Vol. i., London, 1840.
        Milman, “Latin Christianity.” Vol. iii., London, 1854.

  [277] Church, “St. Anselm.” London, 1870.
        Rule, “Life and Times of St. Anselm.” 2 vols., London, 1883.
        Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Canterbury.” Vol. ii., London,
          1879, pp. 169-276.

  [278] “Vita et Epistolæ Thomæ Cantuari.” Edited by Giles, 4 vols.,
          London, 1846.
        Morris, “Life and Martyrdom of Thomas à Becket.”
          London, 1859.
        Robertson, “Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.”
          London, 1859.
        “Materials for Life of Thomas à Becket.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1875.
        Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury.” Vol. ii.,
          London, 1879, pp. 354-507.
        Stanley, “Memorials of Canterbury.” London, 1855.
        Freeman, “Historical Essays.” First Series, Essay IV.

  [279] On Stephen Langton see
        Pearson, “History of England during Early and Middle Ages.”
          Vol. ii.
        Milman, “History of Latin Christianity.” Vol. iv.,
          London, 1854.
        Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury.” Vol. ii.,
          4th edition, London, 1879, pp. 657-761.
        Maurice, “Lives of English Popular Leaders. 1. Stephen
          Langton.” London.

  [280] Kingston, “History of Frederick II., King of the Romans.”
          London, 1862.

  [281] Stubbs, “Memorials of St. Dunstan. Collection of six
          Biographies.” London, 1875.
        Soames, “Anglo-Saxon Church.” London, 1835.
        Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Canterbury.” Vol. i., pp. 382-426,
          London, 1860.

  [282] Luard, “Roberti Grosseteste, Episcopi quondam Lincolniensis
          Epistolæ.” London, 1862.

  [283] According to Giordano of Giano, who himself was there, the
        number of brothers present was about 3,000, and the people
        of the neighbourhood supplied them so abundantly with food
        and drink that they had at last to put a stop to their
        bringing. But soon the tradition of the order multiplied
        the 3,000 into 5,000, and transformed the quite natural
        account of their support into a “_miraculum stupendum_,”
        parallel to the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness
        (Matt. xiv. 15-21).

  [284] Trench, “The Mendicant Orders.” in “Lectures on Mediæval
          Church History.” London, 1878.

  [285] Milman, “History of Latin Christianity.” Vol. v.
        Wadding, “Annales Minorum Fratrum.” 8 vols., Lugd., 1625.
        Stephen, “St. Francis of Assisi.” In “Essays in
          Ecclesiastical Biography.” London, 1860.

  [286] “Annales Ordinis Prædicatorum.” Vol. i., Rome, 1746.

  [287] Gieseler, “Ecclesiastical History.” § 72, Edin., 1853,
          vol. iii., pp. 268-276.

  [288] Addison, “History of the Knights Templars.” etc.,
          London, 1842.

  [289] Taafe, “Order of St. John of Jerusalem.” 4 vols.,
          London, 1852.

  [290] Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 355-377.
        Hampden, “The Scholastic Philosophy considered in its
          relation to Christian Theology.” Oxford, 1832.
        Maurice, “Mediæval Philosophy.” London, 1870.
        Harper, “The Metaphysics of the School.” London, 1880 f.

  [291] Kirkpatrick, “The Historically Received Conception of a
          University.” London, 1857.
        Hagenbach, “Encyclopædia of Theology.” Transl. by Crooks
          and Hurst, New York, 1884, § 18, pp. 50, 51.

  [292] Cunningham, “Historical Theology.” Edinburgh, 1870,
          vol. i., ch. xv., “The Canon Law.” Pp. 426-438.

  [293] Räbiger, “Theological Encyclopædia.” Vol. i., p. 28,
          Edin., 1884.

  [294] Maitland, “The Dark Ages: a Series of Essays, to Illustrate
          the State of Religion and Literature in the Ninth, Tenth,
          Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries.” London, 1844.

  [295] The Aelfric Society founded in 1842 has edited his
          Anglo-Saxon writings and those of others. The Homilies
          were edited by Thorpe in 2 vols., in 1843 and 1846.
          “Select Monuments of Doctrine and Worship of Catholic
          Church in England before the Norman Conquest, consisting
          of Aelfric’s Paschal Homily.” Etc., London, 1875.
        On Aelfric and Ethelwold see an admirable sketch, with
          full references to and appropriate quotations from
          early chronicles, in Hook’s “Lives of the Archbishops
          of Canterbury.” Vol. i., pp. 434-455.

  [296] Macpherson on “Anselm’s Theory of the Atonement; its Place
          in History.” In _Brit. and For. Evang. Review_ for 1878,
          pp. 207-232.

  [297] Church, “St. Anselm.” London, 1870.
        Rule, “Life and Times of St. Anselm.” 2 vols., London, 1883.

  [298] On Anselm’s and Abælard’s theories of atonement, see
          Ritschl, “History of Christian Doctrine of Justification
          and Reconciliation.” Pp. 22-40., Edin., 1872.

  [299] Berington, “History of the Lives of Abælard and Heloise.”
          London, 1787.
        Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 386-397,
          London, 1872.

  [300] Neander, “St. Bernard and his Times.” London, 1843.
        Morison, “Life and Times of St. Bernard.” London, 1863.

  [301] Räbiger “Theological Encyclopædia.” Vol. i., p. 27,
          Edin., 1884.

  [302] Westcott, “Epistles of St. John.” London, 1883.
        Dissertation on “The Gospel of Creation.” Pp. 277-280.
        Bruce, “Humiliation of Christ.” Edin., 1876,
          pp. 354 ff., 487 f.

  [303] This work is entitled _Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciæ,
          Seu contra novas hæreses, quas Abælardus, Lombardus,
          Petrus Pictaviensis, et Gilbertus Porretanus libris
          sententiarum acuunt limant, roborant Ll. IV._

  [304] Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy.” London, 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 405-428.
        Ginsburg, “The Kabbalah, its doctrines, development, and
          literature.” London, 1865.
        Palmer, “Oriental Mysticism.” A treatise on the Suffistic
          and Unitarian Theosophy of the Persians, compiled from
          native sources, London, 1867.

  [305] Sighart, “Albert the Great: his Life and Scholastic
          Labours.” Translated from the French by T. A. Dixon,
          London, 1876.

  [306] Hampden, “Life of Thomas Aquinas: a Dissertation of the
          Scholastic Philosophy of the Middle Ages.” London, 1848.
        Cicognani, “Life of Thomas Aquinas.” London, 1882.
        Townsend, “Great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages.” London, 1882.
        Vaughan, “Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquino.”
          2 vols., London, 1870.

  [307] “Monumenta Franciscana.” in “Chronicles and Memorials of
          Great Britain and Ireland.” Edited for the “Master of the
          Rolls Series.” By Brewer, London, 1858.
        In addition to the _Opus Majus_ referred to above, Brewer
          has edited _Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quædum inedita_,
          vol. i., containing _Opus Tertium_, _Opus Minus_, and
          _Compendium Philosophiæ_.

  [308] Neubauer, “Jewish Controversy and the ‘Pugio Fidei.’” In
          _Expositor_ for February and March, 1888.

  [309] Hodge, “Systematic Theology.” Vol. iii., pp. 492-497.

  [310] Preuss, “The Romish Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
          traced from its Source.” Edinburgh, 1867.

  [311] Maccall, “Christian Legends of Middle Ages, from German of
          von Bulow.” London.
        Cox and Jones, “Popular Romances of the Middle Ages.”
          London.
        Baring Gould, “Curious Myths of the Middle Ages.”
          London, 1884.
        “The Legend of St. Ursula and the Virgin Martyrs of
          Cologne.” London, 1860.

  [312] “Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St. Victor.” With transl. into
          English, and notes, by Wrangham, 3 vols., London, 1881.
        Bird, “The Latin Hymns of the Church.” In the _Sunday
          Magazine_ for 1865, pp. 530 ff., 679 ff., 776 ff.
        Trench, “Sacred Latin Poetry.” London, 1849.
        Neale, “Mediæval Hymns.”

  [313] “Christus ist erstanden von der Marter Banden.”

  [314] Eastlake, “History of the Gothic Revival.” London, 1872.
          Norton, “Historical Studies of Church Building in the
          Middle Ages.” New York, 1880.
        Didron, “History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages.”
          London, 1851.

  [315] Kügler, “Handbook of Painting: Italian Schools.” Translated
          by Eastlake, London, 1855.
        Warrington, “History of Stained Glass.” London, 1850.

  [316] Kingsley, “The Saint’s Tragedy.” London, 1848. A dramatic
          poem founded on the story of St. Elizabeth’s life.

  [317] On Hilarius, an English monk, author of several plays,
          see Morley’s “Writers before Chaucer.” London, 1864,
          pp. 542-552.

  [318] Delepierre, “History of Flemish Literature from the 12th
          Century.” London, 1860.

  [319] Cooper, “Flagellation and the flagellants.” London, 1873.

  [320] Perrin, “History of the Vaudois.” London, 1624.
        Muston, “Israel of the Alps.” 2 vols., Glasgow, 1858.
        Monastier, “History of the Vaudois Church from its Origin.”
          New York, 1849.
        Peyran, “Historical Defence of the Waldenses or Vaudois.”
          London, 1826.
        Todd, “The Waldensian Manuscripts.” London, 1865.
        Wylie, “History of the Waldensians.” London, 1880.
        Comba, “History of the Waldenses.” London, 1888.

  [321] Sismondi, “History of Crusades against the Albigenses of
          the 13th Century.” London, 1826.

  [322] Limborch, “History of the Inquisition.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1731.
        Lea, “History of the Inquisition.” 3 vols., Philad. and
          London, 1888.
        Baker, “History of Inquisition in Portugal, Spain, Italy.”
          Etc., London, 1763.
        Prescott, “History of Ferdinand and Isabella.” Pt. i.,
          ch. vii.
        Llorente, “Histoire critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne.”
          Paris, 1818.
        Rule, “History of Inquisition.” 2 vols., London, 1874.

  [323] Creighton, “History of the Papacy during the Reformation.”
          Vols. i.-iv., A.D. 1378-1518, London, 1882 ff.
        Gosselin, “The Power of the Popes during the Middle Ages.”
          2 vols., London, 1853.
        Reichel, “See of Rome in the Middle Ages.” London, 1870.

  [324] On Boniface VIII. see a paper in Wiseman’s “Essays on
          Various Subjects.” London, 1888.

  [325] Lenfant, “History of the Council of Constance.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1730.

  [326] Jenkins, “The Last Crusader; or, The Life and Times of
          Cardinal Julian of the House of Cesarini.” London, 1861.
        Creighton, “History of the Papacy.” Vol. ii., “The Council
          of Basel: the Papal Restoration, A.D. 1418-1464.”

  [327] Creighton, “History of the Papacy.” Vols. iii. and iv.,
          “The Italian Princes, A.D. 1464-1518.”

  [328] Roscoe, “Life and Pontificate of Leo X.” 4 vols.,
          Liverpool, 1805.

  [329] Salmon, “The Infallibility of the Church.” London, 1888.

  [330] Haye, “Persecution of the Knights Templars.” Edin., 1865.

  [331] Kettlewell, “Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common
          Life.” 2 vols., London, 1882.

  [332] Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury.” Vol. iv.,
          “Bradwardine.”

  [333] Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 460-464.

  [334] Luther’s Catholic opponents said, _Si Lyra non lyrasset,
          Lutherus non saltasset_. This saying had an earlier
          form: “Si Lyra non lyrasset, nemo Doctorum in Biblia
          saltasset;” “Si Lyra non _lyrasset, totus mundus
          delirasset_.”

  [335] Dalgairns, “The German Mystics in the 14th Century.”
          London, 1850.
        Vaughan, “Hours with the Mystics.” 3rd ed., 2 vols.,
          London, 1888.

  [336] See an admirable account of Eckhart by Dr. Adolf Lasson in
          Ueberweg’s “History of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 467-484.

  [337] Winkworth, “Life and Times of Tauler, with Twenty-five
          Sermons.” London, 1857.
        Herrick, “Some Heretics of Yesterday.” London, 1884.

  [338] Kettlewell, “The Authorship of the ‘Imitation of Christ.’”
          London, 1877.
        Kettlewell, “Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common
          Life.” 2 vols., London, 1882.
        Ullmann, “Reformers before the Reformation.” Vol. ii.,
          Edin., 1855.
        Cruise, “Thomas à Kempis: Notes of a Visit to the Scenes
          of his Life.” London, 1887.

  [339] Baring-Gould, “Mediæval Preachers: Some Account
          of Celebrated Preachers of the 15th, 16th, and
          17th Centuries.” London, 1865.

  [340] “Biblia Pauperum.” Reproduced in facsimile from MS. in
          British Museum, London, 1859.

  [341] Douce, “The Dance of Death.” London, 1833.


  [342] Symonds, “Renaissance in Italy.” 2 vols., London, 1881.

  [343] Church, “Dante and other Essays.” London, 1888.
        Plumptre, “Commedia, etc., of Dante, with Life and Studies.”
          2 vols., London, 1886-1888.
        Oliphant, “Dante.” Edinburgh, 1877.
        Ozanam, “Dante and the Catholic Philosophy of the
          13th Century.” London, 1854.
        Barlow, “Critical, Historical, and Philosophical
          Contributions to the Study of the _Divina Commedia_.”
          London, 1884.
        Botta, “Dante as Philosopher, Patriot, and Poet.”
          New York, 1865.
        M. F. Rossetti, “A Shadow of Dante.” Boston, 1872.

  [344] Reeve, “Petrarch.” Edinburgh, 1879.
        Simpson, article on Petrarch in _Contemporary Review_
          for July, 1874.

  [345] Wratislaw, “Life and Legend of St. John Nepomucen.”
          Lon., 1873.

  [346] Gairdner and Spedding, “Studies in English History.” I.,
          “The Lollards.”

  [347] Baker, “History of the Inquisition in Portugal, Spain,
          Italy.” Etc., London, 1763.
        Llorente, “History of the Inquisition from its Establishment
          to Ferdinand VII.” Philadelphia, 1826.
        Mocatta, “Jews in Spain and Portugal, and the Inquisition.”
          London, 1877.

  [348] Lewis, “Hist. of Life and Sufferings of John Wiclif.”
          Lond., 1720.
        Vaughan, “John de Wycliffe. A Monograph.” London, 1853.
        Lechler, “John Wiclif and his English Precursors.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1878.
        Buddensieg, “John Wyclif, Patriot and Reformer; his Life
          and Writings.” London, 1884.
        Burrows, “Wiclif’s Place in History.” London, 1882.
        Storrs, “John Wycliffe and the first English Bible.”
          New York, 1880.

  [349] Gillet, “Life and Times of John Huss.” Boston, 2 vols., 1870.
        Wratislaw, “John Huss.” London, 1882.

  [350] Palacky, “Documenta Mag. J. H., Vitam, Doctrinam, Causam.”
          Etc., illust., Prag., 1869.
        Gillett, “Life and Times of John Huss.” 2 vols., Boston, 1863.
        Loserth, “Wiclif and Huss.” London, 1884.

  [351] On these three consult
        Ullmann, “Reformers before the Reformation.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1855.
        Brandt, “History of the Reformation in the Low Countries.”
          Vol. i., London, 1720.

  [352] Heraud, “Life and Times of Savonarola.” London, 1843.
        Villari, “History of Savonarola.” 2 vols., London, 1888.
        Madden, “The Life and Martyrdom of Savonarola.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1854.
        MacCrie, “History of Reformation in Italy.” Edin., 1827.
        Roscoe, “Lorenzo de Medici.” London, 1796.
        See also chapters on Savonarola in Mrs. Oliphant’s “Makers
          of Florence.” London, 1881.
        Milman, “Savonarola, Erasmus.” Etc., Essays, London, 1870.

  [353] Roscoe, “Leo X.” London, 1805.

  [354] Villari, “Niccolo Macchiavelli, and his Times.” 4 vols.,
          Lond., 1878.

  [355] Strauss, “Ulrich von Hutten.” Trans. by Mrs. Sturge,
          London, 1874.
        Hausser, “Period of the Reformation.” 2 vols., London, 1873.

  [356] A young Minorite, =Conrad Pellicanus= of Tübingen, had
        as early as A.D. 1501 composed a very creditable guide
        to the study of the Hebrew language, under the title _De
        modo legendi et intelligendi Hebræum_, which was first
        printed in Strassburg in A.D. 1504. Amid inconceivable
        difficulties, purely self taught, and with the poorest
        literary aids, he had secured a knowledge of the Hebrew
        language which he perfected by unwearied application to
        study and by intercourse with a baptized Jew. He attained
        such proficiency, that he won for himself a place among the
        most learned exegetes of the Reformed Church as professor
        of theology at Basel in A.D. 1523 and at Zürich from
        A.D. 1525 till his death, in A.D. 1556. His chief work
        is _Commentaria Bibliorum_, 7 vols. fol., 1532-1539.

  [357] Strauss, “Ulrich von Hutten.” London, 1874, pp. 120-140.

  [358] Erasmus, “Colloquies.” Trans. by Bailey, ed. by Johnson,
          Lond., 1877.
        “Praise of Folly.” Trans. by Copner, Lond., 1878.
        Seebohm, “Oxford Reformers of 1498: Colet, Erasmus, and
          More.” Lond., 1869.
        Drummond, “Erasmus, His Life and Character.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1873.
        Pennington, “Life and Character of Erasmus.” Lond., 1874.
        Strauss, “Ulrich von Hutten.” Lond., 1874, pp. 315-346.
        Dorner, “Hist. of Prot. Theology.” 2 vols., Edin., 1871,
          vol. i., p. 202.

  [359] Seebohm, “Oxford Reformers.” Lond., 1869.
        Walter, “Sir Thomas More.” Lond., 1840.
        Mackintosh, “Life of Sir Thomas More.” Lond., 1844.

  [360] Beard, “The Reformation of the 16th Cent. in its Relation
          to Modern Thought and Knowledge.” Lond., 1883.
        Wylie, “History of Protestantism.” 3 vols., Lond., 1875.
        Merle d’Aubigné, “History of Reformation in the 16th Cent.
          in Switzerland and Germany.” 5 vols., Lond., 1840.
        D’Aubigné, “History of Reformation in Times of Calvin.”
          8 vols., Lond., 1863.
        Ranke, “History of Reformation in Germany.” 3 vols.,
          Lond., 1845.
        Häusser, “The Period of the Reformation.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1873.
        Hagenbach, “History of the Reformation.” 2 vols.,
          Edinburgh, 1878.
        Köstlin, “Life of Martin Luther.” Lond., 1884.
        Bayne, “Martin Luther: his Life and Work.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1887.
        Rae, “Martin Luther, Student, Monk, Reformer.” Lond., 1884.
        Dale, “Protestantism: Its Ultimate Principle.” Lond., 1875.
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” 2 vols.,
          Edinburgh, 1871.
        Cunningham, “Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation.”
          Edinburgh, 1862.
        Tulloch, “Leaders of the Reformation.” Edinburgh, 1859.

  [361] Ledderhose, “Life of Melanchthon.” Trans. by Krotel,
          Philad., 1855.

  [362] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. i.,
          pp. 98-113.
        “The First Principles of the Reformation Illustrated
          in the Ninety-five Theses and Three Primary Works of
          Martin Luther.” Edited with historical and theological
          introductions by Wace and Bucheim, Lond., 1884.

  [363] Morris, “Luther at the Wartburg and Coburg.” Philad., 1882.

  [364] Weber, “Luther’s Treatise, _De Servo Arbitrio_.” In _Brit.
          and For. Evan. Review_, 1878, pp. 799-816.

  [365] Myconius, “Vita Zwinglii.” Basel, 1536.
        Hess, “Life of Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer.” London, 1832.
        Christoffel, “Zwingli; or, The Rise of the Reformation in
          Switzerland.” Edin., 1858.
        Blackburn, “Ulrich Zwingli.” London, 1868.

  [366] Blackburn, “William Farel (1487-1531): The Story of the
          Swiss Reformation.” Edin., 1867.

  [367] Burrage, “History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland.”
          Philad., 1882.

  [368] Cunningham, “Reformers and Theology of the Reformation.”
          Edin., 1862, pp. 212-291; “Zwingli and the Doctrine of
          the Sacraments.”

  [369] Calvin, “Tracts relating to the Reformation, with Life of
          Calvin by Beza.” 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1844-1851.
        Henry, “Life of John Calvin.” 2 vols., London, 1849.
        Audin (Cath.), “History of Life, Writings, and Doctrines
          of Calvin.” 2 vols., London, 1854.
        Dyer, “The Life of John Calvin.” London, 1850.
        Bungener, “Calvin: his Life, Labours, and Writings.”
          Edinburgh, 1863.

  [370] M’Crie, “The Early Years of John Calvin, A.D. 1509-1536.”
          Ed. by W. Fergusson, Edinburgh, 1880.

  [371] “English Translation of Calvin’s Works.” By Calvin
          Translation Society, in 52 vols., Edinburgh, 1842-1853.
        For a more sympathetic and true estimate of Calvin as a
          commentator, see Farrar, “History of Interpretations.”
          London, 1886.
        Also papers by Farrar on the “Reformers as Commentators.”
          In _Expositor_, Second Series.

  [372] See Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. i.,
          pp. 384-414, for a much truer outline of Calvin’s
          doctrine from another Lutheran pen.

  [373] Cunningham, “Reformers and Theology of the Reformation.”
          Essay vii., “Calvin and Beza.” Pp. 345-412, Edin., 1862.

  [374] Butler, “The Reformation in Sweden, its Rise, Progress, and
          Crisis, and its Triumph under Charles IX.” New York, 1883.
        Geijer, “History of the Swedes.” Trans. from the Swedish by
          Turner, Lond., 1847.

  [375] Pontoppidan, “Annales eccles. Dan.” ii., iii., Han., 1741.
        Ranke, “History of the Reformation.” Vol. iii.

  [376] The chief documentary authorities for the whole period are
          the State Papers edited by Brewer and others. See also
        Froude, “History of England from Fall of Wolsey till Death
          of Elizabeth.” 12 vols., Lond., 1856-1869.
        Burnet, “History of Reformation of Church of England.”
          2 vols., Lond., 1679.
        Blunt, “Reformation of the Church of England.” 4th ed.,
          Lond., 1878.
        Strype, “Ecclesiastical Memorials.” 3 vols., Lond., 1721.
        “Annals of the Reformation.” 4 vols., 1709-1731.
        Foxe, “Acts and Monuments.” (Pub. A.D. 1563), 8 vols.,
          Lond., 1837-1841.

  [377] Demaus, “Life of William Tyndal.” London, 1868.
        Fry, “A Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the
          N.T., Tyndale’s Version in English, etc., the notes in
          full of the Edition of 1534.” London, 1878.
        “Facsimile Edition of Tyndale’s first printed N.T.” Edited
          by Arber, London, 1871.

  [378] Gasquet, “Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries.”
          2 vols., London, 1888.

  [379] Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Canterbury.” Vols. vi., vii.
        Bayly, “Life and Death of Fisher, Bishop of Rochester.”
          London, 1655.
        Dixon, “History of Church of England.” London, 1878,
          vol. i., “Henry VIII.”
        Froude, “History of England.” Vols. i.-iii.

  [380] Heppe, “The Reformers of England and Germany in the
          Sixteenth Century; their Intercourse and Correspondence.”
          London, 1859.

  [381] Phillip, “History of the Life of Reg. Pole.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1765.
        Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Cant.” Vol. viii.
        Lee, “Reginald Pole, Cardinal-Archbishop of Canterbury:
          an Historical Sketch.” London, 1888.

  [382] Demaus, “Life of Latimer.” London, 1869.

  [383] Hayward, “Life of Edward VI.” London, 1630.
        Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Cant.” Vols. vii. and viii.
        Froude, “History of Eng.” Vols. iv. and v.
        Strype, “Life of Cranmer.” London, 1694.
        Norton, “Life of Archb. Cranmer.” New York, 1863.
        Foxe, “Acts and Monuments.”
        Maitland, “Essays on the Reformation in England.”
          London, 1849.

  [384] Procter, “History of Book of Common Prayer.” Cambr., 1855.
        Hole, “The Prayer Book.” London, 1887.
        Hardwick, “History of the Articles of Religion.”
          Cambr., 1851.
        Stephenson, “Book of Common Prayer.” 3 vols., London, 1854.
        Burnet, “Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles.”
          London, 1699.
        Browne, “Exposition of Thirty-Nine Articles.” London, 1858.

  [385] Froude, “History of England.” Vols. vi.-xii.
        Hook, “Lives of Archb. of Cant.” Vol. ix.

  [386] Killen, “Ecclesiastical History of Ireland from Earliest
          to Present Times.” 2 vols., Lond., 1875.
        Mant, “Hist. of Church of Ireland from Reformation.”
          London, 1839.
        Ball, “Hist. of the Church of Ireland.”

  [387] Lorimer, “Patrick Hamilton, First Preacher and Martyr of
          the Scottish Reformation.” Edinburgh, 1857.

  [388] It was certainly at St. Andrews that the execution took
          place. The best and fullest account of Walter Mill is
          given by Mr. Scott, of Arbroath, in his “Martyrs of Angus
          and Mearns.” London, 1885, pp. 210-271.
        For George Wishart, see same book, pp. 99-209; and
        Rogers, “Life of George Wishart.” Edinburgh, 1876.

  [389] Strickland, “Life of Mary Stuart.” 5 vols., Lond., 1875.
        Hosack, “Mary Queen of Scots and Her Accusers.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1874.
        Schiern, “Life of James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, from the
          Danish.” Edin., 1880.
        Skelton, “Maitland of Lethington and the Scotland of Mary
          Stuart.” 2 vols., Edin., 1887 f.

  [390] “The Works of John Knox.” Collected and edited by David
          Laing, 7 vols., Edin., 1846-1864.
        M’Crie, “Life of Knox.” 2 vols., Edin., 1811.
        Lorimer, “John Knox and the Church of England.” Lond., 1875.
        Calderwood, “History of Church of Scotland.” Lond., 1675.
        Stuart, “History of Reformation in Scotland.” Lond., 1780.
        Cook, “History of Church of Scot. from Ref.” 3 vols.,
          Edin., 1815.
        M’Crie, “Sketches of Scottish Church History.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1841.
        Cunningham, “History of the Church of Scotland.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1859.
        Lee, “Lectures on History of Church of Scotland from Ref.
          to Rev.” 2 vols., Edin., 1860.
        General Histories of Scotland:
          “Robertson.” 2 vols., Edin., 1759.
          “Tytler.” 9 vols., Edin., 1826.
          “Burton.” 8 vols., Edin., 1873.
          “Mackenzie.” Edin., 1867.

  [391] Brandt, “History of the Reformation in the Low Countries.”
          4 vols., Lond., 1720.
        Motley, “Rise of the Dutch Republic.” 3 vols., Lond., 1856.

  [392] Bersier, “Coligny: the Earlier Life of the Great Huguenot.”
          Lond., 1884.
        White, “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1868.
        Lord Mahon, “Life of Louis, Prince of Condé.”
          New York, 1848.
        Baird, “History of the Rise of the Huguenots.” 2 vols.,
          London and New York, 1880.

  [393] The following have been translated into English:
          “Treatise on the Church.” London, 1579.
          “The Truth of the Christian Religion, partly by
            Sir Phil. Sydney.” London, 1587.
          “On the Eucharist.” London, 1600.

  [394] De Felice, “History of Protestants in France from Beginning
          of Reformation to the Present Time.” London, 1853.
        Jervis, “History of the Gallican Church from A.D. 1516 to
          the Revolution.” 2 vols., London, 1872.
        Baird, “Huguenots and Henry of Navarre.” 2 vols.,
          New York, 1886.
        Ranke, “Civil Wars and Monarchy in France in the 16th and
          17th Centuries.” 2 vols., London, 1852.
        Smedley, “History of the Reformation in France.” 3 vols.,
          London, 1832.
        Weiss, “History of the Protestant Reformation in France.”
          2 vols., London and New York, 1854.
        “Memoirs of Duke of Sully, Prime Minister to Henry IV.”
          4 vols., London (Bohn).

  [395] Dalton, “John à Lasco: His Earlier Life and Labours.”
          London, 1886.
        Krasinski, “Historical Sketch of the Rise, Progress,
          and Decline of the Reformation in Poland.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1838.

  [396] “History of Persecutions in Bohemia from A.D. 894 to
          A.D. 1632.” London, 1650.

  [397] Bauhoffer, “History of the Protestant Church of Hungary,
          from the beginning of the Reformation to 1850, with
          Reference also to Transylvania.” Trans. by Dr. Craig of
          Hamburg, with introd. by D’Aubigné, Lond., 1854.

  [398] Bochmer, “Spanish Reformers, Lives and Writings.” 2 vols.,
          Strassburg, 1874.
        M’Crie, “History of the Progress and Suppression of
          Reformation in Spain.” Edin., 1829.
        De Castro, “The Spanish Protestants, and their Persecutions
          by Philip II.” Lond., 1852.
        Prescott, “History of the Reign of Philip II.” 3 vols.,
          Boston, 1856.

  [399] M’Crie, “History of the Progress and Suppression of the
          Reformation in Italy.” 2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1833.
        Wiffen, “Life and Writings of Juan Valdez.” London, 1865.
        Young, “Life and Times of Aonio Paleario.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1860.

  [400] Benrath, “Bernardius Ochino of Siena.” London, 1876.
        Gordon, “Bernardius Tommassini (Ochino).” In _Theological
          Review_ for October, 1876, pp. 532-561.

  [401] Bonnet, “Life of Olympia Morata: an Episode of the
          Renaissance and the Reformation in Italy.” Edin., 1854.

  [402] Krauth, “The Conservative Reformation and its Theology.”
          Philadelphia, 1872.
        Döllinger, “The Church and the Churches.” Lond., 1862.

  [403] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. i.,
          pp. 338-383.

  [404] Calvin, “Institutes.” Bk. iii., ch. xi. 5-12.
        Ritschl, “History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
          and Reconciliation.” Edin., 1872, pp. 214-233.

  [405] All the hymns of Luther quoted above are translated by
          George Macdonald in his “Luther the Singer.” Contributed
          to the _Sunday Magazine_ for 1867.

  [406] On Speratus, Decius, and Eber, see an interesting paper by
          the late Dr. Fleming Stevenson in _Good Words_ for 1863,
          p. 542.

  [407] All the hymns referred to above, as well as those which
          are given in the next paragraph, are translations by
          Miss Winkworth in “Lyra Germanica.” New edition,
          London, 1885.

  [408] Warneck, “Outlines of the History of Protestant Missions
          from the Reformation to the Present Time.” Edinburgh,
          1884.

  [409] Hodge, “The Church and its Polity.” Edin., 1879, page 114.

  [410] Morley, “Clement Marot.” London, 1871.

  [411] Lee, “The Church under Queen Elizabeth.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1880.
        M’Crie, “Annals of English Presbytery from the Earliest
          Period to the Present Time.” London, 1872.

  [412] Neal, “History of the Puritans.” 4 vols., London, 1731.
        Paul, “Life of Whitgift.” London, 1699.
        Brook, “Lives of the Puritans.” 3 vols., London, 1813.
        Marsden, “The Early Puritans.” London, 1852; “The Later
          Puritans.” London, 1853.
        Hopkins, “The Puritans.” 3 vols., London, 1860.
        Walker, “History of Independency.” 3 vols., London, 1648.
        Hanbury, “Memorials relating to the Independents.” 3 vols.,
          London, 1839.
        Fletcher, “History of Independ. in England.” 4 vols.,
          London, 1862.
        Waddington, “Congregational History.” London, 1874.
        Dexter, “The Congregationalism of the last Three Hundred
          Years, as seen in its Literature.” London, 1880.
        Marshall, “History of the Mar-Prelate Controversy.”
          London, 1845.
        Robinson, “Apologie, or Defence of Christians called
          Brownists.” 1604.
        Ashton, “Works of John Robinson, Pastor of Pilgrim Fathers,
          with Memoir and Annotations.” 3 vols., London, 1851.
        Mather, “Ecclesiastical History of New England, from its
          Planting in 1620 till 1698.” London, 1702.
        Doyle, “The English in America: The Puritan Colonies.”
          2 vols., London, 1888.
        Bancroft, “History of the United States.”

  [413] Parkman, “Pioneers of France in the New World.”
          London, 1885.
        Baird, “Rise of the Huguenots of France.” Vol. i.,
          p. 291 ff.

  [414] The “Heidelberg Catechism” was translated into English,
          and published at Oxford, 1828.
        Ursinus’ expositions of the catechism have been translated:
          “The Summe of Christian Religion.” Etc., Lond., 1611.

  [415] An English translation of Erastus’ treatise was published
          in 1699, and re-issued with a preface by Dr. Rob. Lee,
          Edin., 1844.
        One of the fullest and ablest statements on “The Erastian
          Controversy” is that given in chap. xxvii. of Principal
          Cunningham’s “Historical Theology.” (Edin., 1870),
          vol. ii., pp. 557-587.

  [416] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. i.,
          pp. 182-189: “The False Theoretical Mystics: Schwenkfeld.”
        Ritschl, “History of the Chr. Doctr. of Justification and
          Reconciliation.” Edinburgh, 1872, p. 292.

  [417] Morley, “Life of Agrippa von Nettesheim.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1856.

  [418] Symmonds, “The Age of the Despots.”
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. i.,
          pp. 191-195.
        See also two articles in the July and October parts of the
          _Scottish Review_ for 1888, pp. 67-107, 244-270: “Giordano
          Bruno before the Venetian Inquisition,” and “The Ultimate
          Fate of Giordano Bruno.”

  [419] More, “Mystery of Godliness.” Bk. vi., chaps. xii.-xviii.
          Also _Enthusiasmus Triumphatus_ in his “Coll. Phil.
          Works.” London, 1662.
        Rutherford, “A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, opening
          the Secrets of Familism and Antinomianism.” London, 1648.

  [420] Mosheim, “Ecclesiastical History.” Cent. xvi., sect. iii.,
          part ii., chap. iii.
        Ranke, “History of the Reformation.” Vol. iii., bk. vi.,
          chap. ix.
        Brandt, “History of the Reformation in the Low Countries.”
          Vol. i.

  [421] Burrage, “History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland.”
          Philadelphia, 1882.

  [422] Wallace, “Antitrinitarian Biography.” 3 vols., London, 1850.
        Dorner, “Hist. Dev. of Doctr. of Person of Christ.”
        Ritschl, “Hist. of Chr. Doctr. of Justification.” P. 289.

  [423] The sketch of Servetus given above is based upon the
          one-sided and wholesale eulogies of his resolute apologist
          Tollin.
        A thoroughly impartial and objective statement of his
          doctrinal system is given by Dorner, “History of Prot.
          Theology.” Vol. i., pp. 189-191.
        Principal Cunningham, in a very thorough manner, examines
          the grounds upon which his enemies seek to fix upon
          Calvin the odium of Servetus’ death in “Reformers and
          Theology of Reformation.” Essay VI., pp. 314-333.
        Rilliet, “Calvin and Servetus.” Trans. by Dr. Tweedie,
          Edinburgh, 1846.
        Drummond, “Life of Servetus.” London, 1848.
        Willis, “Servetus and Calvin.” London, 1876.

  [424] Aretius, “History of Val. Gentilis, the Tritheist, put to
          Death at Bern.” London, 1696.

  [425] Toulmin, “Memoirs of the Life, Char., etc., of Faustus
          Socinus.” London, 1777.

  [426] Ritschl, “Hist. of Chr. Doctr. of Justification.”
          Pp. 298-309.
        Cunningham, “Historical Theology.” Chap. xxiii., “The
          Socinian Controversy,” pp. 155-236.
        Stillingfleet gives an account of the Racovian Catechism
          in the preface to his work on “Christ’s Satisfaction.”
          2nd ed., London, 1697.

  [427] Ranke, “History of the Popes.” Bk. ii., “Beginnings of a
          Regeneration of Catholicism.”

  [428] Pasquino was a statue which shortly before had been dug up
          and placed on the spot where formerly had stood the booth
          of a cobbler of that name, dreaded for his pungent wit.
          It was used for the posting up of “pasquins” of every
          sort, especially about the popes and the curia.

  [429] An admirable paper by Hase on Theiner’s “Acts of the
          Council of Trent” has been translated in the _Brit.
          and For. Evan. Review_ for 1876, pp. 358-369.
        Mendham, “Memoirs of the Council of Trent.” London, 1834.
        Father Paul Sarpi’s “History of the Council of Trent.”
          3rd ed. fol., London, 1640.
        Bungener, “History of the Council of Trent.” Edin., 1852.
        Buckley, “Canons and Decrees of Council of Trent.”
          London, 1851.
        Buckley, “Catechism of Council of Trent.” London, 1852.

  [430] Mendham, “The Life and Pontificate of Pius V.” London, 1832.

  [431] Hübner, “The Life and Times of Sixtus V.” Trans. by
          Jerningham, 2 vols., London, 1872.

  [432] In “Spanish Mystics.” (London, 1886), there is an admirable
          sketch of Theresa, pp. 39-86, and of John of the Cross,
          pp. 106-113.

  [433] “Spanish Mystics.” P. 7, note.

  [434] “Life of St. Philip Neri, Apostle of Rome, and Founder of
          the Congregation of the Oratory.” 2 vols., London, 1847.

  [435] Coleridge, “Life of Ignatius Loyola.” London, 1872.
        Ranke, “History of the Popes.” Vol. i.

  [436] Rose, “Ignatius Loyola, and the Early Jesuits.” London, 1870.
        Nicolini, “History of the Jesuits.” Edin., 1853.
        Sir James Stephens on “The Founders of Jesuitism.” In his
          “Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography.” Vol. i., p. 249.

  [437] Cartwright, “The Jesuits, their Constitution and Teaching.”
          London, 1876.

  [438] Griesinger, “The Jesuits: from the Foundation of the Order
          to the Present Time.” London, 1885.
        Pascal, “Provincial Letters.” Translated by Dr. M’Crie,
          Edin., 1851.
        “The Jesuits’ Morals, collected out of the Jesuit’s own
          Books.” London, 1670.

  [439] Gibbings, “An Exact Reprint of the Roman Index
          Expurgatorius.” The only Vatican Index of this kind ever
          published. Dublin, 1837.

  [440] Butler, “Life of Cardinal Borromeo.” London, 1835.
        Martin, “Life of Borromeo.” London, 1847.

  [441] Venn, “Missionary Life and Labours of Xavier.” Lond., 1863.

  [442] Legge, “Christianity in China: Nestorianism, Roman
          Catholicism, Protestantism; with the Chinese and
          Syriac Texts of the Nestorian Monument of Hsi-an-Fû.”
          London, 1888.

  [443] Adams, “History of Japan from the Earliest Period.”
          2 vols., London, 1874.
        On the religion of Japan before the introduction of
          Christianity, see Ebrard, “Apologetics.” Vol. iii.,
          pp. 66-73, Edin., 1887.

  [444] Helps, “Life of Barth. de las Casas.” 2nd ed., Lond., 1868.
        Prescott, “History of Conquest of Mexico.” London, 1886,
          pp. 178-184.




                         TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES.


  The following corrections have been made in the text:

    § 93, 5.
      Sentence starting: This catastrophe, and the....
        - ‘§ 166, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 167, 9’
          (overthrow of the colony.--Continuation, § 167, 9.)

    § 94, 3.
      Sentence starting: Frederick had already fallen,...
        - ‘brillant’ replaced with ‘brilliant’
          (gained a brilliant victory)

    § 96, 1.
      Sentence starting: =Sergius III.=, A.D. 904-911,...
        - ‘disagraceful’ replaced with ‘disgraceful’
          (starts this disgraceful series.)

    § 96, 3.
      Sentence starting: On a pilgrimage to the grave....
        - ‘§ 83, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 93, 13’
          (Adalbert in Gnesen (§ 93, 13))

    § 96, 23.
      Sentence starting: Nicholas I. was, according....
        - ‘§ 100, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 110, 15’
          (developed into the tiara (§ 110, 15))

    § 97, 3.
      Sentence starting: For the exercise of the....
        - ‘archepiscopal’ replaced with ‘archiepiscopal’
          (exercise of the archiepiscopal office)

    § 98, 10.
      Sentence starting: Their order spread over....
        - ‘§ 192, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 112, 5’
          (Holy Father (Continuation, § 112, 5))

    § 101, 1 (5).
      Sentence starting: As a theologian he may be....
        - ‘profoundity’ replaced with ‘profundity’
          (of acuteness and profundity)

    § 102, 2.
      Sentence starting: Abælard found an asylum....
        - ‘reconcilation’ replaced with ‘reconciliation’
          (effected his reconciliation with Bernard)

    § 103, 1.
      Sentence starting: This philosophy, however, from....
        - ‘Badgad’ replaced with ‘Bagdad’
          (of Bagdad and Cordova)

    § 103, 3.
      Sentence starting: The Augustinians, too, won....
        - ‘apolegetical’ replaced with ‘apologetical’
          (polemical and apologetical purposes)

    § 104, 4.
      Sentence starting: Richard St. Victor held that....
        - ‘§ 61, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 61, 4’
          (pains of purgatory (§ 61, 4))

    § 104, 13.
      Sentence starting: The foundation of the former....
        - ‘§ 173, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 174, 9’
          (completed and consecrated in A.D. 1322 (§ 174, 9))

    § 110, 2.
      Sentence starting: The 15th œcumenical Council....
        - ‘§ 112, 27’ replaced with ‘§ 112, 2’
          (controversies in the Franciscan order (§ 112, 2))

    § 110, 4.
      Sentence starting: Both continued in the possession....
        - ‘§ 164, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 13’
          (the Roman court till A.D. 1791 (§ 165, 13))

    § 112, 3.
      Sentence starting: His greatest feat was the repulse,...
        - ‘Mohammad’ replaced with ‘Mohammed’
          (the Turks, under Mohammed II.,)

    § 112, 7.
      Sentence starting: Stories also were current....
        - ‘Mohammadanism’ replaced with ‘Mohammedanism’
          (apostasy to Mohammedanism,)

    § 113.
      Sentence starting: Moral theology degenerated into....
        - ‘subtlely’ replaced with ‘subtly’
          (abstruse discussion on subtly devised cases)

    § 113, 3.
      Sentence starting: He accompanied his general,...
        - ‘Cevena’ replaced with ‘Cesena’
          (his general, Michael of Cesena,)
      Sentence starting: In accordance with his nominalistic....
        - ‘§ 170, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 171, 10’
          (a precursor of Kant (§ 171, 10))

    § 114.
      Sentence starting: The 14th century was the Augustan....
        - ‘Reichersburg’ replaced with ‘Reichersberg’
          (and the two divines of Reichersberg)

    § 115, 11.
      Sentence starting: Among popular preachers John Tauler....
        - ‘Kaisersburg’ replaced with ‘Kaisersberg’
          (Geiler of Kaisersberg distinguished)

    § 119, 9.
      Sentence starting: The anonymous writer of Passau,...
        - ‘iniquisitorial’ replaced with ‘inquisitorial’
          (the subject of inquisitorial interference)
      Sentence starting: On the Waldensians in German....
        - ‘orginal’ replaced with ‘original’
          (drawn from original documents)
      Sentence starting: Finally, Wattenbach has made....
        - ‘orginal’ replaced with ‘original’
          (which contains the original reports)

    § 119, 9A.
      Sentence starting: This movement originated with....
        - ‘orginated’ replaced with ‘originated’
          (This movement originated with)

    § 123, 9.
      Sentence starting: To all this Köstlin has replied....
        - ‘correpondence’ replaced with ‘correspondence’
          (that his correspondence with Tucher)

    § 131, 1.
      Sentence starting: Luther first openly appeared....
        - ‘1256’ replaced with ‘1526’
          (the Swiss in A.D. 1526)

    § 136, 4.
      Sentence starting: The O.T. Apocrypha....
        - ‘160, 8’ replaced with ‘161, 8’
          (The O.T. Apocrypha (§§ 59, 1; 161, 8))

    § 139, 11.
      Sentence starting: After Elizabeth’s death....
        - ‘§ 154, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 153, 6’
          (the title of James I.[390]--Continuation, § 153, 6.)

    § 142, 1.
      Sentence starting: A restoration of such establishments....
        - ‘§ 166, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 5’
          (convulsion and revolution.--Continuation, § 165, 5.)

    § 142, 6.
      Sentence starting: By his _Catalogus testium veritatis_....
        - ‘§ 158, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 159, 4’
          (the sixteenth century.--Continuation, § 159, 4.)

    § 144.
      Sentence starting: It was followed by Bremen,...
        - ‘§ 154A’ replaced with ‘§ 154, 3’
          (electoral dynasty of Brandenburg (§ 154, 3).)

    § 147, 6.
      Sentence starting: “Christ is not God,...
        - Ending quotation mark added.
          (and love’ of God.”)

    § 149, 2.
      Sentence starting: After the death of Julius III....
        - added omitted word ‘the’
          (one of the noblest popes)
      Sentence starting: At the close of the last session....
        - ‘§ 132, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 13’
          (Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (§ 139, 13))

    § 149, 5.
      Sentence starting: Still more striking, though....
        - ‘§ 164, 10, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 10, 13’
          (the misfortune of Pius VI. (§ 165, 10, 13))

    § 149, 7, 6.
      Sentence starting: They combined works of charity....
        - ‘§ 155, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 7’
          (erected by them.[434]--Continuation, § 156, 7.)

    § 149, 8.
      Sentence starting: They have understood how to....
        - ‘§ 155, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 13’
          (accomplishing their own ends (§ 156, 13))
      Sentence starting: On the death of the founder,...
        - ‘164, 9’ replaced with ‘165, 9’
          (in 803 houses.[436]--Continuation, §§ 151, 1; 165, 9.)

    § 149, 10.
      Sentence starting: They will also be found....
        - ‘155, 12’ replaced with ‘156, 12’
          (prosecution of foreign missions (§§ 150; 156, 12))
        - ‘§ 155, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 13’
          (and commercial activity (§ 156, 13))

    § 149, 11.
      Sentence starting: In like manner it gave....
        - ‘§ 186, 20’ replaced with ‘§ 186, 2’
          (amulets, and talismans (§ 186, 2))
      Sentence starting: They originated the worship....
        - ‘§ 155, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 6’
          (the heart of Jesus (§ 156, 6))

    § 149, 13.
      Sentence starting: By firmly maintaining the decree....
        - ‘§ 155, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 5’
          (the other of heresy.--Continuation, § 156, 5.)

    § 150, 1.
      Sentence starting:
        - ‘§ 155, 11, 12’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 11, 12’
          (part of the land.[442]--Continuation, § 156, 11, 12.)

    § 150, 2.
      Sentence starting: In consequence of this....
        - ‘§ 186, 16’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 11’
          (and there crucified (§ 156, 11))





End of Project Gutenberg's Church History, Volume 2 (of 3), by J. H. Kurtz