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









                     The Foreign Biblical Library.

          EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

           _12 Volumes. Large crown 8vo. Price 7s. 6d. each._

    I. =Still Hours.=
        By RICHARD ROTHE. Translated by JANE T. STODDART. With an
        Introductory Essay by the Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.

   II. =Biblical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.=
        By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH, of Leipzig. From the latest
        edition specially revised by the Author. Translated by the
        Rev. DAVID EATON, M.A. In three Volumes.

  III. =A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament.=
        By BERNHARD WEISS. Translated by Miss DAVIDSON. _In 2 Vols._

   IV. =Church History.=
        By Professor KURTZ. Authorized Translation, from the latest
        Revised Edition, by the Rev. J. MACPHERSON, M.A. _In 3 Vols._

    V. =Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher.=
        Translated by MARY F. WILSON.

   VI. =A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.=
        By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH. Translated by the Rev. JAMES
        DENNEY, B.D. _In 2 Vols._

          LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.




   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │                                                                │
   │                      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   │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.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.


                         THREE VOLUMES IN ONE.


                           _SECOND EDITION._


                                London:
                         HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

                   MDCCCXCI., MDCCCXCII., MDCCCXCIII.




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




                                PREFACE.


  The English reader is here presented with a translation of the ninth
edition of a work which first appeared in 1849, and has obtained a most
distinguished place, it might be said almost a monopoly, as a text-book
of Church History in the German Universities. Since 1850, when the
second edition was issued, an English translation of which has been
widely used in Britain and America, Dr. Kurtz has given great attention
to the improvement of his book. The increase of size has not been caused
by wordy amplification, but by an urgent necessity felt by the author as
he used the vast materials that recent years have spread out before the
historical student. In 1870 Dr. Kurtz retired from his professorship,
and has conscientiously devoted himself to bring up each successive
edition of his text-book to the point reached by the very latest
scholarship of his own and other lands. In his Preface to the ninth
edition of 1885 he claims to have made very special improvements on
the presentation of the history of the first three centuries, where
ample use is made of the brilliant researches of Harnack and other
distinguished scholars of the day.

  In the exercise of that discretion which has been allowed him, the
translator has ventured upon an innovation, which he trusts will be
generally recognised as a very important improvement. The German edition
has frequently pages devoted to the literature of the larger divisions,
and a considerable space is thus occupied at the beginning of most of
the ordinary sections, as well as at the close of many of the sub-
sections. The books named in these lists are almost exclusively German
works and articles that have appeared in German periodicals. Experience
has shown that the reproduction of such lists in an English edition is
utterly useless to the ordinary student and extremely repulsive to the
reader, as it seriously interferes with the continuity of the text. The
translator has therefore ventured wholly to cancel these lists,
substituting carefully selected standard English works known to himself
from which detailed information on the subjects treated of in the
several paragraphs may be obtained. These he has named in footnotes at
the places where such references seemed to be necessary and most likely
to be useful. Those students who know German so thoroughly as to be able
to refer to books and articles by German specialists will find no
difficulty in using the German edition of Kurtz, in which copious lists
of such literature are given.

  The first English volume is a reproduction without retrenchment of the
original; but in the second volume an endeavour has been made to render
the text-book more convenient and serviceable to British and American
students by slightly abridging some of those paragraphs which give
minute details of the Reformation work in various German provinces.
But even there care has been taken not to omit any fact of interest or
importance. No pains have been spared to give the English edition a form
that may entitle it to occupy that front rank among students’ text-books
of Church History which the original undoubtedly holds in Germany.

                                                    JOHN MACPHERSON.

  FINDHORN, _July, 1888_.




                               CONTENTS.


                             INTRODUCTION.

    § 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY.

    § 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS.
          (1) The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course
              of Church History.
          (2) The Separate Branches of Church History.

    § 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS.

    § 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.
          (1) Literature of the Sources.
          (2) Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences.

    § 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY.
          (1) Down to the Reformation.
          (2) The 16th and 17th Centuries.
          (3) The 18th Century.
          (4) The 19th Century.
          (5) The 19th Century--Continued.
          (6) The 19th Century--Continued.


              HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.

               The pre-Christian World preparing the way
                        of the Christian Church.

    § 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY.

    § 7. HEATHENISM.
          (1) The Religious Character of Heathenism.
          (2) The Moral Character of Heathenism.
          (3) The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism.
          (4) The Hellenic Philosophy.
          (5) The Heathen State.

    § 8. JUDAISM.
          (1) Judaism under special Training of God through the
              Law and Prophecy.
          (2) Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy.
          (3) The Synagogues.
          (4) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

    § 9. SAMARITANISM.

   § 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM.
          (1) Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism.
          (2) Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism.

   § 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME.


                     THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.

         The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles.

   § 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.


                         I. THE LIFE OF JESUS.

   § 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.
          (1) Year of Birth and Year of Death of Jesus.
          (2) Earliest Non-Biblical Witnesses to Christ.


                         II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
                              A.D. 30-70.

   § 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL.
              Beginning and Close of Apostolic Age.

   § 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
              Details of Paul’s Life.

   § 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
          (1) The Roman Episcopate of Peter.
          (2) The Apostle John.
          (3) James, the brother of the Lord.
          (4) The Later Legends of the Apostles.

   § 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.
          (1) The Charismata of the Apostolic Age.
          (2) The Constitution of the Mother Church at Jerusalem.
          (3) The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.
          (4) The Church in the Pauline Epistles.
          (5) Congregational and Spiritual Offices.
          (6) The Question about the Original Position of the
              Episcopate and Presbyterate.
          (7) Christian Worship.
          (8) Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.

   § 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
          (1) Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.
          (2) The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.
          (3) False Teachers.




                            FIRST DIVISION.

          History of the Development of the Church during the
                Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Periods.

   § 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THOSE PERIODS.


                            FIRST SECTION.

              History of the Græco-Roman Church during the
               Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323).

   § 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THIS PERIOD.
          (1) The Post-Apostolic Age.
          (2) The Age of the Old Catholic Church.
          (3) The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other.


          I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND
                         JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH.

   § 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.

   § 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
          (1) Claudius, Nero and Domitian.
          (2) Trajan and Hadrian.
          (3) Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.
          (4) Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax.
          (5) Decius, Gallus and Valerian.
          (6) Diocletian and Galerius.
          (7) Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius.

   § 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM.
          (1) Lucian’s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_.
          (2) Worshippers of an Ass.
          (3) Polemic properly so-called.

   § 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism.
          (1) Apollonius of Tyana.
          (2) Neo-platonism.

   § 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction.
          (1) Disciples of John.
          (2) The Samaritan Heresiarchs.
                a. Dositheus.
                b. Simon Magus.
                c. Menander.


             II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH
                     ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE.

   § 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL.
          (1) Gnosticism.
          (2) The Problems of Gnostic Speculation.
          (3) Distribution.
          (4) Sources of Information.

   § 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM.
          (1) Cerinthus.
          (2) The Gnosticism of Basilides.
          (3) Irenæus’ Sketch of Basilideanism.
          (4) Valentinian Gnosticism.
          (5) Two Divisions of the Valentinian School.
          (6) The Ophites and related Sects.
          (7) The Gnosis of the Ophites.
          (8) Antinomian and Libertine Sects.
                a. The Nicolaitans.
                b. The Simonians.
                c. The Carpocratians.
                d. The Prodicians.
          (9) Saturninus.
         (10) Tatian and the Encratites.
         (11) Marcion and the Marcionites.
         (12) Marcion’s Disciples.
         (13) Hermogenes.

   § 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.
          (1) Nazareans and Ebionites.
          (2) The Elkesaites.
          (3) The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings.
                a. Homiliæ XX Clementis.
                b. Recognitiones Clementis.
                c. Epitomæ.
          (4) The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System.

   § 29. MANICHÆISM.
          (1) The Founder.
          (2) The System.
          (3) Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.


            III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL
                        ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.

   § 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC AGE,
         A.D. 70-170.
          (1) The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.
          (2) The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age.
          (3) The so-called Apostolic Fathers.
                a. Clement of Rome.
          (4)   b. Barnabas.
                c. Pastor Hermas.
          (5)   d. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.
          (6)   e. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
                f. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis.
                g. Epistle to Diognetus.
          (7) The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
          (8) The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists.
          (9) Extant Writings of Apologists of the
              Post-Apostolic Age.
                a. Justin Martyr.
         (10)   b. Tatian.
                c. Athenagoras.
                d. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch.
                e. Hermias.

   § 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE,
         A.D. 170-323.
          (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies.


                  1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK.

          (2) Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type.
                a. Irenæus.
          (3)   b. Hippolytus.
          (4) The Alexandrian Church Teachers.
                a. Pantænus.
                b. Titus Flavius Clement.
          (5)   c. Origen.
          (6)   d. Dionysius of Alexandria.
                e. Gregory Thaumaturgus.
                f. Pamphilus.
          (7) Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters.
                a. Hegesippus.
                b. Caius of Rome.
          (8)   c. Sextus Julius Africanus.
          (9)   d. Methodius.
                e. Lucian of Samosata.


                  2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN.

          (10) The Church Teachers of North Africa.
                   Tertullian.
          (11)     Cyprian.
          (12) Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue.
                a. Minucius Felix.
                b. Commodus.
                c. Novatian.
                d. Arnobius.
                e. Victorinus of Pettau.
                f. Lucius Lactantius.

   § 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE.
          (1) Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies.
          (2) Old Testament Pseudepigraphs.
                a. Book of Enoch.
                b. Assumptio Mosis.
                c. Fourth Book of Ezra.
                d. Book of Jubilees.
          (3) Pseudepigraphs of Christian Origin.
                a. History of Assenath.
                b. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.
                c. _Ascensio Isaiæ_ and _Visio Isaiæ_.
                d. _Spelunca thesaurorum._
          (4) New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs.
                I. Apocryphal Gospels.
          (5)  II. Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the Apostles.
          (6)      ---- Apocryphal Monographs.
          (7) III. Apostolic Epistles.
               IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses.
                V. Apostolical Constitutions.
          (8) The Acts of the Martyrs.

   § 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE.
          (1) The Trinitarian Questions.
          (2) The Alogians.
          (3) The Theodotians and Artemonites.
          (4) Praxeas and Tertullian.
          (5) The Noëtians and Hippolytus.
          (6) Beryllus and Origen.
          (7) Sabellius; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome.
          (8) Paul of Samosata.
          (9) Chiliasm.


            IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE.

   § 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.
          (1) The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into
              Post-Apostolic Times.
          (2) The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy.
          (3) The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old
              Catholic Age.
          (4) Clergy and Laity.
          (5) The Synods.
          (6) Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.
          (7) The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.
          (8) The Roman Primacy.

   § 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.
          (1) The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.
          (2) The Baptismal Formula.
          (3) The Administration of Baptism.
          (4) The Doctrine of Baptism.
          (5) The Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism.

   § 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.
          (1) The Agape.
          (2) The _Missa Catechumenorum_.
          (3) The _Missa Fidelium_.
          (4) The _Disciplina Arcani_.
          (5) The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
          (6) The Sacrificial Theory.
          (7) The Use of Scripture.
          (8) Formation of a New Testament Canon.
          (9) The Doctrine of Inspiration.
         (10) Hymnology.

   § 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.
          (1) The Festivals of the Christian Year.
          (2) The Paschal Controversies.
          (3) The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting.

   § 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS.
          (1) The Catacombs.
          (2) The Antiquities of the Catacombs.
          (3) Pictorial Art and the Catacombs.
          (4) Pictorial and Artistic Representations.
                a. Significant Symbols.
                b. Allegorical Figures.
                c. Parabolic Figures.
                d. Historical Pictures of O. T. Types.
                e. Figures from the Gospel History.
                f. Liturgical Figures.

   § 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE.
          (1) Christian Morals and Manners.
          (2) The Penitential Discipline.
          (3) Asceticism.
          (4) Paul of Thebes.
          (5) Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs.
          (6) Superstition.

   § 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION.
          (1) Montanism in Asia Minor.
          (2) Montanism at Rome.
          (3) Montanism in Proconsular Africa.
          (4) The Fundamental Principle of Montanism.
          (5) The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church.

   § 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH.
          (1) The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220.
          (2) The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in A.D. 250.
          (3) The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in
              A.D. 251.
          (4) The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306.


                            SECOND SECTION.

               The History of the Græco-Roman Church from
                         the 4th-7th centuries.
                             A.D. 323-692.


                          I. CHURCH AND STATE.

   § 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
          (1) The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine.
          (2) Constantine the Great and his Sons.
          (3) Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363).
          (4) The Later Emperors.
          (5) Heathen Polemics and Apologetics.
          (6) The Religion of the Hypsistarians.

   § 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.
          (1) The _Jus Circa Sacra_.
          (2) The Institution of Œcumenical Synods.
          (3) Canonical Ordinances.
          (4) Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances.
          (5) The Apostolic Church Ordinances.


             II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM.

   § 44. MONASTICISM.
          (1) The Biography of St. Anthony.
          (2) The Origin of Christian Monasticism.
          (3) Oriental Monasticism.
          (4) Western Monasticism.
          (5) Institution of Nunneries.
          (6) Monastic Asceticism.
          (7) Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.

   § 45. THE CLERGY.
          (1) Training of the Clergy.
          (2) The Injunction of Celibacy.
          (3) Later Ecclesiastical Offices.
          (4) Church Property.

   § 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.
          (1) The Patriarchal Constitution.
          (2) The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.

   § 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS TO THE PRIMACY.
          (3) From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.
          (4) From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to A.D. 402.
          (5) From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.
          (6) From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to A.D. 440.
          (7) From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to A.D. 483.
          (8) From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to A.D. 532.
          (9) From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to A.D. 590.
         (10) From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to A.D. 625.
         (11) From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to A.D. 741.


                III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.

   § 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED
         REPRESENTATIVES.
          (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies.
                a. In the 4th and 5th centuries.
                b. Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.


         1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

          (2) The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old
              Alexandrian School----Eusebius.
          (3) Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.
                a. Athanasius.
          (4) ---- The Three Great Cappadocians.
                b. Basil the Great.
                c. Gregory Nazianzen.
                d. Gregory of Nyssa.
          (5)   e. Apollinaris.
                f. Didymus the Blind.
          (6)   g. Macarius Magnes.
                h. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria.
                i. Isidore of Pelusium.
          (7) ---- Mystics and Philosophers.
                k. Macarius the Great or the Elder.
                l. Marcus Eremita.
                m. Synesius of Cyrene.
                n. Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa.
                o. Æneas of Gaza.
          (8) The Antiocheans.
                a. Eusebius of Emesa.
                b. Diodorus of Tarsus.
                c. John of Antioch (Chrysostom).
          (9)   d. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia.
                e. Polychronius, Bishop of Apamea.
                f. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.
         (10) Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th
              and 5th Centuries.
                a. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.
                b. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis.
                c. Palladius.
                d. Nilus.
         (11) Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.
                a. Johannes Philoponus.
                b. Dionysius the Areopagite.
         (12)   c. Leontius Byzantinus.
                d. Maximus Confessor.
                e. Johannes Climacus.
                f. Johannes Moschus.
                g. Anastasius Sinaita.
         (13) Syrian Church Fathers.
                a. Jacob of Nisibis.
                b. Aphraates.
                c. Ephraim the Syrian.
                d. Ibas, Bishop of Edessa.
                e. Jacob, Bishop of Edessa.


         2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.

         (14)   f. During the Period of the Arian Controversy.
                    a. Jul. Firmicus Maternus.
                    b. Lucifer of Calaris.
                    c. Marius Victorinus.
                    d. Hilary of Poitiers.
                    e. Zeno, Bishop of Verona.
                    f. Philaster, Bishop of Brescia.
                    g. Martin of Tours.
         (15)   g. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
                h. Ambrosiaster.
                i. Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona.
         (16) During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.
                a. Jerome.
         (17)   b. Tyrannius Rufinus.
                c. Sulpicius Severus.
                d. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna.
         (18) The Hero of the Soteriological Controversy--Augustine.
         (19) Augustine’s Works.
                a. Philosophical Treatises.
                b. Dogmatic Treatises.
                c. Controversial Treatises.
                d. Apologetical Treatises.
                e. Exegetical Works.
         (20) Augustine’s Disciples and Friends.
                a. Paulinus, Deacon of Milan.
                b. Paul Orosius.
                c. Marius Mercator.
                d. Prosper Aquitanicus.
                e. Cæsarius, Bishop of Arelate.
                f. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe.
         (21) Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.
                I. Pelagius.
               II. Semi-Pelagians or Massilians.
                    a. Johannes Cassianus.
                    b. Vincent Lerinensis.
                    c. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons.
                    d. Salvianus, Presbyter at Marseilles.
                    e. Faustus of Rhegium.
                    f. Arnobius the Younger.
         (22) The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman Popes.
                a. Leo the Great.
                b. Gelasius I.
                c. Gregory the Great.
         (23) The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.
                a. Boëthius.
                b. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus.
                c. Dionysius Exiguus.

   § 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.
          (1) Exegetical Theology.
          (2) Historical Theology.
          (3) Systematic Theology.
                a. Apologetics.
                b. Polemics.
                c. Positive Dogmatics.
                d. Morals.
          (4) Practical Theology.
          (5) Christian Poetry.
          (6) Christian Latin Poetry.
          (7) Poetry of National Syrian Church.
          (8) The Legendary History of Cyprian.


               IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.

   § 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.
              Heretical Developments.

   § 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.
          (1) Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, A.D. 318-325.
          (2) Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.
          (3) Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.
          (4) Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.
          (5) The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.
          (6) The Literature of the Controversy.
          (7) Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.
          (8) Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.
                I. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.
               II. The Schism of the Luciferians.
              III. The Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome.

   § 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.
          (1) The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.
          (2) The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, A.D. 394-399.
          (3) The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,
              A.D. 399-438.

   § 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.
          (1) The Apollinarian Controversy, A.D. 362-381.
          (2) Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.
          (3) The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-444.
          (4) The Monophysite Controversy.
                I. Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.
          (5)  II. Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.
          (6) III. Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.
          (7)  IV. The Monophysite Churches.
          (8) The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.
          (9) The Case of Honorius.

   § 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.
          (1) Preliminary History.
          (2) The Doctrine of Augustine.
          (3) Pelagius and his Doctrine.
          (4) The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.
          (5) The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.

   § 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.
          (1) Manichæism.
          (2) Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.


                V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.

   § 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.
              The Age of Cyril of Alexandria.

   § 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.
          (1) The Weekly Cycle.
          (2) Hours and Quarterly Fasts.
          (3) The Reckoning of Easter.
          (4) The Easter Festivals.
          (5) The Christmas Festivals.
          (6) The Church Year.
          (7) The Church Fasts.

   § 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.
          (1) The Worship of Martyrs and Saints.
          (2) The Worship of Mary and Anna.
          (3) Worship of Angels.
          (4) Worship of Images.
          (5) Worship of Relics.
          (6) The Making of Pilgrimages.

   § 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
          (1) Administration of Baptism.
          (2) The Doctrine of the Supper.
          (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass.
          (4) The Administration of the Lord’s Supper.

   § 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL.
          (1) The Holy Scriptures.
          (2) The Creeds of the Church.
                I. The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
               II. The Apostles’ Creed.
              III. The Athanasian Creed.
          (3) Bible Reading in Church and Preaching.
          (4) Hymnology.
          (5) Psalmody and Hymn Music.
          (6) The Liturgy.
          (7) Liturgical Vestments.
          (8) Symbolical Acts in Worship.
          (9) Processions.

   § 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS AND WORKS OF ART.
          (1) The Basilica.
          (2) Secular Basilicas.
          (3) The Cupola Style.
          (4) Accessory and Special Buildings.
          (5) Church furniture.
          (6) The Graphic and Plastic Arts.

   § 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.
          (1) Church Discipline.
          (2) Christian Marriage.
          (3) Sickness, Death and Burial.
          (4) Purgatory and Masses for Souls.

   § 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS.
          (1) Audians and Apostolics.
          (2) Protests against Superstition and External Observances.
          (3) Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine.

   § 63. SCHISMS.
          (1) The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415.
          (2) The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692.


              VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

   § 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST.
          (1) The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.
          (2) The Persian Church.
          (3) The Armenian Church.
          (4) The Iberians.

   § 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.
          (1) The Fundamental Principle of Islam.
          (2) The Providential Place of Islam.


                             THIRD SECTION.

                 HISTORY OF THE GRÆCO-BYZANTINE CHURCH
                       IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES
                            (A.D. 692-1453).


           I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination
                           with the Western.

   § 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).
          (1) Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.
          (2) Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.
          (3) Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.
          (4) Leo V., the Armenian, A.D. 813-820.

   § 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND ATTEMPTS
         AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.
          (1) Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.
          (2) Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.
          (3) Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.
          (4) Attempts at Reunion.
          (5) Andronicus III. Palæologus and Barlaam.
          (6) Council of Florence.
          (7) Decay of Byzantine Empire.


           II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the
                      Co-operation of the Western.

   § 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.
          (1) Revival of Classical Studies.
          (2) Aristotle and Plato.
          (3) Scholasticism and Mysticism.
          (4) The Branches of Theological Science.
          (5) Distinguished Theologians.
          (6) Barlaam and Josaphat.

   § 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES.
          (1) Dogmatic Questions.
          (2) The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351.

   § 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE.
          (1) The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312.
          (2) Public Worship.
          (3) Monasticism.
          (4) Endeavours at Reformation.

   § 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS.
          (1) The Paulicians.
          (2) The Children of the Sun.
          (3) The Euchites.
          (4) The Bogomili.

   § 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST.
          (1) The Persian Nestorians.
          (2) Monophysite Churches.
          (3) The Maronites.
          (4) The Legend of Prester John.

   § 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX GREEK
         CONFESSION.
          (1) Slavs in the Greek Provinces.
          (2) The Chazari.
          (3) The Bulgarians.
          (4) The Russian Church.
          (5) Russian Sects.
          (6) Romish Efforts at Union.




                            SECOND DIVISION.

       THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH
                        DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.

   § 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
          (1) The Character of Mediæval History.
          (2) Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman
              Middle Ages.


                            FIRST SECTION.

           HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO
                  THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911).


       I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church.

   § 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS.
          (1) The Predisposition of the Germans for Christianity.
          (2) Unopposed Adoption of Christianity.
          (3) Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times.

   § 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM.
          (1) The Goths in the lands of the Danube.
          (2) The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain.
          (3) The Vandals in Africa.
          (4) The Suevi.
          (5) The Burgundians.
          (6) The Rugians.
          (7) The Ostrogoths.
          (8) The Longobards in Italy.
          (9) The Franks in Gaul.

  § 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH.
          (1) The Conversion of the Irish.
          (2) The Mission to Scotland.
          (3) The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church.
          (4) The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons.
          (5) Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons.
          (6) The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon
              Church.
          (7) Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the
              Continent.
          (8) Overthrow of the Old British System in the
              Iro-Scottish Church.

   § 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY.
          (1) South-Western Germany.
          (2) South-Eastern Germany.
          (3) North-Western Germany.
          (4) The Missionary Work of Boniface.
          (5) The Organization Effected by Boniface.
          (6) Heresies Confronted by Boniface.
          (7) The End of Boniface.
          (8) An Estimate of Boniface.
          (9) The Conversion of the Saxons.

   § 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES.
          (1) The Carantanians and Avars.
          (2) The Moravian Church.
          (3) The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.

   § 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS.
          (1) Ansgar.
          (2) Ansgar’s Successor--Rimbert.

   § 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.
          (1) Islam in Spain.
          (2) Islam in Sicily.


              II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS.

   § 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS.
          (1) The Period of the Founding of the States of the Church.
          (2) Stephen III., A.D. 768-772.
              Hadrian I., A.D. 772-795.
          (3) Charlemagne and Leo III., A.D. 795-816.
          (4) Louis the Pious and the Popes of his Time.
          (5) The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their Days.
          (6) The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna.
          (7) Nicholas I. and Hadrian II.
          (8) John VIII. and his Successors.
          (9) The Papacy and the Nationalities.

   § 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN.
          (1) The Position of Metropolitans in General.
          (2) Hincmar of Rheims.
          (3) Metropolitans in other lands.

   § 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL.
          (1) The Superior Clergy.
          (2) The Inferior Clergy.
          (3) Compulsory Celibacy.
          (4) Canonical life.

   § 85. MONASTICISM.
          (1) Benedict of Nursia.
          (2) Benedict of Aniane.
          (3) Nunneries.
          (4) The Greater Monasteries.
          (5) Monastic Practices among the Clergy.
          (6) The Stylites.

   § 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES.
          (1) The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries.
          (2) The Benefice System.

   § 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION.
          (1) Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law.
          (2) The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore.
          (3) Details of the History of the Forgery.
          (4) The Edict and Donation of Constantine.


                    III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE.

   § 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.
          (1) Liturgy and Preaching.
          (2) Church Music.
          (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass.
          (4) The Worship of Saints.
          (5) Times and Places for Public Worship.
          (6) Ecclesiastical Architecture and Painting.

   § 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
          (1) Superstition.
          (2) Popular Education.
          (3) Christian Popular Poetry.
          (4) Social Condition.
          (5) Practice of Pubic Law.
          (6) Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises.


                     IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.

   § 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.
          (1) Rulers of the Carolingian Line.
                  Charlemagne, A.D. 768-814.
                  Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840.
                  Charles the Bald, A.D. 840-877.
          (2) The most distinguished Theologians of the
              Pre-Carolingian Age.
                1. Merovingian France.
                2. South of the Pyrenees.
                3. England.
          (3) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of
              Charlemagne.
                1. Alcuin.
                2. Paulus Diaconus.
                3. Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans.
                4. Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia and
                   Bishop Leidrad of Lyons.
                5. Hatto, Abbot of Reichenau.
          (4) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of
              Louis the Pious.
                1. Agobard of Lyons.
                2. Claudius, Bishop of Turin.
                3. Jonas of Orleans.
                4. Amalarius of Metz.
                5. Christian Druthmar.
                6. Rabanus Magnentius Maurus.
                7. Walafrid Strabo.
          (5) The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of
              Charles the Bald.
                1. Hincmar of Rheims.
                2. Paschasius Radbertus.
                3. Ratramnus.
                4. Florus Magister.
                5. Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt.
                6. Servatus Lupus.
                7. Remigius of Auxerre.
                8. Regius of Prüm.
          (6)   9. Anastasius Bibliothecarius.
               10. Eulogius of Cordova.
          (7)  11. Joannes Scotus Erigena.
          (8) The Monastic and Cathedral Schools.
          (9) Various Branches of Theological Science.
                1. Exegesis.
                2. Systematic Theology.
                3. Practical Theology.
                4. Historical Theology.
         (10) Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great,
              A.D. 871-901.

   § 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.
          (1) The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.
          (2) Controversy about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
          (3) The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.
          (4) Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.
          (5) The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.
          (6) The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.

   § 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.
          (1) The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship,
              A.D. 790-825.
          (2) Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of Turin.


                            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.


                            SECOND SECTION.

               CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.


              I. Relations between the Different Churches.

  § 152. EAST AND WEST.
          (1) Roman Catholic Hopes.
          (2) Calvinistic Hopes.
          (3) Orthodox Constancy.

  § 153. CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM.
          (1) Conversions of Protestant Princes.
          (2) The Restoration in Germany and the Neighbouring States.
          (3) Livonia and Hungary.
          (4) The Huguenots in France.
          (5) The Waldensians in Piedmont.
          (6) The Catholics in England and Ireland.
          (7) Union Efforts.
          (8) The Lehnin Prophecy.

  § 154. LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM.
          (1) Calvinizing of Hesse-Cassel, A.D. 1605-1646.
          (2) Calvinizing of Lippe, A.D. 1602.
          (3) The Elector of Brandenburg becomes Calvinist, A.D. 1613.
          (4) Union Attempts.

  § 155. ANGLICANISM AND PURITANISM.
          (1) The First Two Stuarts.
          (2) The Commonwealth and the Protector.
          (3) The Restoration and the Act of Toleration.


                     II. The Roman Catholic Church.

  § 156. THE PAPACY, MONKERY, AND FOREIGN MISSIONS.
          (1) The Papacy.
          (2) The Jesuits and the Republic of Venice.
          (3) The Gallican Liberties.
          (4) Galileo and the Inquisition.
          (5) The Controversy on the Immaculate Conception.
          (6) The Devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
          (7) New Congregations and Orders.
                1. Benedictine Congregation of St. Banne.
                2. Benedictine Congregation of St. Maur.
                3. The Fathers of the Oratory of Jesus.
                4. The Piarists.
                5. The Order of the Visitation of Mary.
          (8)   6. The Priests of the Missions and Sisters
                   of Charity.
                7. The Trappists.
                8. The English Nuns.
          (9) The Propaganda.
         (10) Foreign Missions.
         (11) In the East Indies.
         (12) In China.
         (13) Trade and Industry of the Jesuits.
         (14) An Apostate to Judaism.

  § 157. QUIETISM AND JANSENISM.
          (1) Francis de Sales and Madame Chantal.
          (2) Michael Molinos.
          (3) Madame Guyon and Fénelon.
          (4) Mysticism Tinged with Theosophy and Pantheism.
          (5) Jansenism in its first Stage.

  § 158. SCIENCE AND ART IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
          (1) Theological Science.
          (2) Church History.
          (3) Art and Poetry.


                       III. The Lutheran Church.

  § 159. ORTHODOXY AND ITS BATTLES.
          (1) Christological Controversies.
                1. The Cryptist and Kenotist Controversy.
                2. The Lütkemann Controversy.
          (2) The Syncretist Controversy.
          (3) The Pietist Controversy in its First Stage.
          (4) Theological Literature.
          (5) Dogmatics.

  § 160. THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.
          (1) Mysticism and Asceticism.
          (2) Mysticism and Theosophy.
          (3) Sacred Song.
          (4) ---- Its 17th Century Transition.
          (5) Sacred Music.
          (6) The Christian Life of the People.
          (7) Missions.


                        IV. The Reformed Church.

  § 161. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.
          (1) Preliminaries of the Arminian Controversy.
          (2) The Arminian Controversy.
          (3) Consequences of the Arminian Controversy.
          (4) The Cocceian and Cartesian Controversies.
          (5) ---- Continued.
          (6) Theological Literature.
          (7) Dogmatic Theology.
          (8) The Apocrypha Controversy.

  § 162. THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.
          (1) England and Scotland.
          (2) ---- Political and Social Revolutionists.
          (3) ---- Devotional Literature.
          (4) The Netherlands.
          (5) ---- Voetians and Cocceians.
          (6) France, Germany, and Switzerland.
          (7) Foreign Missions.


               V. Anti- and Extra-Ecclesiastical Parties.

  § 163. SECTS AND FANATICS.
          (1) The Socinians.
          (2) The Baptists of the Continent.
                1. The Dutch Baptists.
                2. The Moravian Baptists.
          (3) The English Baptists.
          (4) The Quakers.
          (5) ---- Continued.
          (6) The Quaker Constitution.
          (7) Labadie and the Labadists.
          (8) ---- Continued.
          (9) Fanatical Sects.
         (10) Russian Sects.

  § 164. PHILOSOPHERS AND FREETHINKERS.
          (1) Philosophy.
          (2) ---- Continued.
          (3) Freethinkers--England.
          (4) ---- Germany and France.


                             THIRD SECTION.

               CHURCH HISTORY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.


                I. The Catholic Church in East and West.

  § 165. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
          (1) The Popes.
          (2) Old and New Orders.
          (3) Foreign Missions.
          (4) The Counter-Reformation.
          (5) In France.
          (6) Conversions.
          (7) The Second Stage of Jansenism.
          (8) The Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands.
          (9) Suppression of the Order of Jesuits, A.D. 1773.
         (10) Anti-hierarchical Movements in Germany and Italy.
         (11) Theological Literature.
         (12) In Italy.
         (13) The German-Catholic Contribution to the Illumination.
         (14) The French Contribution to the Illumination.
         (15) The French Revolution.
         (16) The Pseudo-Catholics--The Abrahamites or
              Bohemian Deists.
         (17) ---- The Frankists.

  § 166. THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES.
          (1) The Russian State Church.
          (2) Russian Sects.
          (3) The Abyssinian Church.


                      II. The Protestant Churches.

  § 167. THE LUTHERAN CHURCH BEFORE “THE ILLUMINATION.”
          (1) The Pietist Controversies after the Founding of the
              Halle University.
          (2) ---- Controversial Doctrines.
          (3) Theology.
          (4) Unionist Efforts.
          (5) Theories of Ecclesiastical Law.
          (6) Church Song.
          (7) Sacred Music.
          (8) The Christian Life and Devotional Literature.
          (9) Missions to the Heathen.

  § 168. THE CHURCH OF THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN.
          (1) The Founder of the Moravian Brotherhood.
          (2) The Founding of the Brotherhood.
          (3) The Development of the Brotherhood down to
              Zinzendorf’s Death, A.D. 1727-1760.
          (4) Zinzendorf’s Plan and Work.
          (5) Numerous Extravagances.
          (6) Zinzendorf’s Greatness.
          (7) The Brotherhood under Spangenberg’s Administration.
          (8) The Doctrinal Peculiarities of the Brotherhood.
          (9) The Peculiarities of Worship among the Brethren.
         (10) Christian Life of the Brotherhood.
         (11) Missions to the Heathen.

  § 169. THE REFORMED CHURCH BEFORE THE “ILLUMINATION.”
          (1) The German Reformed Church.
          (2) The Reformed Church in Switzerland.
          (3) The Dutch Reformed Church.
          (4) Methodism.
          (5) ---- Continued.
          (6) Theological Literature.

  § 170. NEW SECTS AND FANATICS.
          (1) Fanatics and Separatists in Germany.
          (2) The Inspired Societies in Wetterau.
          (3) J. C. Dippel.
          (4) Separatists of Immoral Tendency.
          (5) Swedenborgianism.
          (6) New Baptist Sects.
          (7) New Quaker Sects.
          (8) Predestinarian-Mystical Sects.

  § 171. RELIGION, THEOLOGY, AND LITERATURE OF THE “ILLUMINATION.”
          (1) Deism, Arianism, and Unitarianism in the English Church.
                1. The Deists.
                2. The So-called Arians.
                3. The Later Unitarians.
          (2) Freemasons.
          (3) The German “Illumination.”
                1. Its Precursors.
          (4)   2. The Age of Frederick the Great.
          (5)   3. The Wöllner Reaction.
          (6) The Transition Theology.
          (7) The Rationalistic Theology.
          (8) Supernaturalism.
          (9) Mysticism and Theosophy.
         (10) The German Philosophy.
         (11) The German National Literature.
         (12) Pestalozzi.

  § 172. CHURCH LIFE IN THE PERIOD OF THE “ILLUMINATION.”
          (1) The Hymnbook and Church Music.
          (2) Religious Characters.
          (3) Religious Sects.
          (4) The Rationalistic “Illumination” outside of Germany.
          (5) Missionary Societies and Missionary Enterprise.


                            FOURTH SECTION.

               CHURCH HISTORY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.


                      I. General and Introductory.

  § 173. SURVEY OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY.

  § 174. NINETEENTH CENTURY CULTURE IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY
         AND THE CHURCH.
          (1) The German Philosophy.
          (2) ---- Continued.
          (3) The Sciences; Medicine.
          (4) Jurists; Historians; Geography; Philology.
          (5) National Literature--Germany.
          (6) ---- Continued.
          (7) ---- Other Countries.
          (8) Popular Education.
          (9) Art.
         (10) Music and the Drama.

  § 175. INTERCOURSE AND NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCHES.
          (1) Romanizing Tendencies among Protestants.
          (2) The Attitude of Catholicism toward Protestantism.
          (3) Romish Controversy.
          (4) Roman Catholic Union Schemes.
          (5) Greek Orthodox Union Schemes.
          (6) Old Catholic Union Schemes.
          (7) Conversions.
          (8) ---- The Mortara Affair.
          (9) ---- Other Conversions.
         (10) The Luther Centenary, A.D. 1883.


                     II. Protestantism in General.

  § 176. RATIONALISM AND PIETISM.
          (1) Rationalism.
          (2) Pietism.
          (3) The Königsberg Religious Movement, A.D. 1835-1842.
          (4) The Bender Controversy.

  § 177. EVANGELICAL UNION AND LUTHERAN SEPARATION.
          (1) The Evangelical Union.
          (2) The Lutheran Separation.
          (3) The Separation within the Separation.

  § 178. EVANGELICAL CONFEDERATION.
          (1) The Gustavus Adolphus Society.
          (2) The Eisenach Conference.
          (3) The Evangelical Alliance.
          (4) The Evangelical Church Alliance.
          (5) The Evangelical League.

  § 179. LUTHERANISM, MELANCHTHONIANISM, AND CALVINISM.
          (1) Lutheranism within the Union.
          (2) Lutheranism outside of the Union.
          (3) Melanchthonianism and Calvinism.

  § 180. THE “_PROTESTANTENVEREIN_.”
          (1) The Protestant Assembly.
          (2) The “_Protestantenverein_” Propaganda.
          (3) Sufferings Endured.
          (4) ---- In Berlin.
          (5) ---- In Schleswig Holstein.

  § 181. DISPUTES ABOUT FORMS OF WORSHIP.
          (1) The Hymnbook.
          (2) The Book of Chorales.
          (3) The Liturgy.
          (4) The Holy Scriptures.

  § 182. PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN GERMANY.
          (1) Schleiermacher, A.D. 1768-1834.
          (2) The Older Rationalistic Theology.
          (3) Historico-Critical Rationalism.
          (4) Supernaturalism.
          (5) Rational Supernaturalism.
          (6) Speculative Theology.
          (7) The Tübingen School.
          (8) Strauss.
          (9) The Mediating Theology.
         (10) Lutheran Theologians.
         (11) Old Testament Exegetes.
         (12) University Teachers.
         (13) The Lutheran Confessional Theology.
         (14) ---- Continued.
         (15) ---- Continued.
         (16) Reformed Confessionalism.
         (17) The Free Protestant Theology.
         (18) In the Old Testament Department.
         (19) Dogmatists.
         (20) Ritschl and his School.
         (21) ---- Opponents.
         (22) Writers on Constitutional Law and History.

  § 183. HOME MISSIONS.
          (1) Institutions.
          (2) The Order of St. John.
          (3) The Itinerant Preacher Gustav Werner in Württemberg.
          (4) Bible Societies.

  § 184. FOREIGN MISSIONS.
          (1) Missionary Societies.
          (2) Europe and America.
          (3) Africa.
          (4) ---- Livingstone and Stanley.
          (5) Asia.
          (6) China.
          (7) Polynesia and Australia.
          (8) Missions to the Jews.
          (9) Missions among the Eastern Churches.


                      III. Catholicism in General.

  § 185. THE PAPACY AND THE STATES OF THE CHURCH.
          (1) The First Four Popes of the Century.
          (2) Pius IX., A.D. 1846-1878.
          (3) The Overthrow of the Papal States.
          (4) The Prisoner of the Vatican, A.D. 1870-1878.
          (5) Leo XIII.

  § 186. VARIOUS ORDERS AND ASSOCIATIONS.
          (1) The Society of Jesus and Related Orders.
          (2) Other Orders and Congregations.
          (3) The Pius Verein.
          (4) The Various German Unions.
          (5) Omnipotence of Capital.
          (6) The Catholic Missions.
          (7) ---- Mission Societies.

  § 187. LIBERAL CATHOLIC MOVEMENTS.
          (1) Mystical-Irenical Tendencies.
          (2) Evangelical-Revival Tendencies.
          (3) Liberal-Scientific Tendencies.
          (4) Radical-Liberalistic Tendencies.
          (5) Attempts at Reform in Church Government.
          (6) Attempts to Found National Catholic Churches.
          (7) National Italian Church.
          (8) The Frenchman, Charles Loyson.

  § 188. CATHOLIC ULTRAMONTANISM.
          (1) The Ultramontane Propaganda.
          (2) Miracles.
          (3) Stigmatizations.
          (4) ---- Louise Lateau.
          (5) Pseudo-Stigmatizations.
          (6) Manifestations of the Mother of God in France.
          (7) Manifestations of the Mother of God in Germany.
          (8) Canonizations.
          (9) Discoveries of Relics.
         (10) The blood of St. Januarius.
         (11) The Leaping Procession at Echternach.
         (12) The Devotion of the Sacred Heart.
         (13) Ultramontane Amulets.
         (14) Ultramontane Pulpit Eloquence.

  § 189. THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
          (1) Preliminary History of the Council.
          (2) The Organization of the Council.
          (3) The Proceedings of the Council.
          (4) Acceptance of the Decrees of the Council.

  § 190. THE OLD CATHOLICS.
          (1) Formation and Development of the Old Catholic Church
              in the German Empire.
          (2) ---- Continued.
          (3) The Old Catholics in other Lands.

  § 191. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, ESPECIALLY IN GERMANY.
          (1) Hermes and his School.
          (2) Baader and his School.
          (3) Günther and his School.
          (4) John Adam Möhler.
          (5) John Jos. Ignat. von Döllinger.
          (6) The Chief Representatives of Systematic Theology.
          (7) The Chief Representatives of Historical Theology.
          (8) The Chief Representatives of Exegetical Theology.
          (9) The Chief Representatives of the New Scholasticism.
         (10) The Munich Congress of Catholic Scholars, 1863.
         (11) Theological Journals.
         (12) The Popes and Theological Science.


        IV. Relation of Church to the Empire and to the States.

  § 192. THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION.
          (1) The Imperial Commission’s Decree, 1803.
          (2) The Prince-Primate of the Confederation of the Rhine.
          (3) The Vienna Congress and the Concordat.
          (4) The Frankfort Parliament and the Würzburg Bishops’
              Congress of 1848.

  § 193. PRUSSIA.
          (1) The Catholic Church to the Close of the Cologne
              Conflict.
          (2) The Golden Age of Prussian Ultramontanism, 1841-1871.
          (3) The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia down to 1848.
          (4) The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia, 1848-1872.
          (5) The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia, 1872-1880.
          (6) ---- Continued.
          (7) The Evangelical Church in the Annexed Provinces.
          (8) ---- In Hanover.
          (9) ---- In Hesse.

  § 194. THE NORTH GERMAN SMALLER STATES.
          (1) The Kingdom of Saxony.
          (2) The Saxon Duchies.
          (3) The Kingdom of Hanover.
          (4) Hesse.
          (5) Brunswick, Oldenburg, Anhalt, and Lippe-Detmold.
          (6) Mecklenburg.

  § 195. BAVARIA.
          (1) The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under
              Maximilian I., 1799-1825.
          (2) The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under
              Louis I., 1825-1848.
          (3) The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under
              Maximilian II., 1848-1864, and Louis II.
          (4) Attempts at Reorganization of the Lutheran Church.
          (5) The Church of the Union in the Palatine of the Rhine.

  § 196. THE SOUTH GERMAN SMALLER STATES AND RHENISH ALSACE
         AND LORRAINE.
          (1) The Upper Rhenish Church Province.
          (2) The Catholic Troubles in Baden down to 1873.
          (3) The Protestant Troubles in Baden.
          (4) Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau.
          (5) In Protestant Württemberg.
          (6) The Catholic Church in Württemberg.
          (7) The Imperial Territory of Alsace and Lorraine
              since 1871.

  § 197. THE SO-CALLED KULTURKAMPF IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE.
          (1) The Aggression of Ultramontanism.
          (2) Conflicts Occasioned by Protection of the Old
              Catholics, 1871-1872.
          (3) Struggles over Educational Questions, 1872-1873.
          (4) The Kanzelparagraph and the Jesuit law, 1871-1872.
          (5) The Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1873-1875.
          (6) Opposition in the States to the Prussian May Laws.
          (7) Share in the Conflict taken by the Pope.
          (8) The Conflict about the Encyclical _Quod nunquam_
              of 1875.
          (9) Papal Overtures for Peace.
         (10) Proof of the Prussian Government’s willingness
              to be Reconciled, 1880-1881.
         (11) Conciliatory Negotiations, 1882-1884.
         (12) Resumption on both sides of Conciliatory Measures,
              1885-1886.
         (13) Definitive Conclusion of Peace, 1887.
         (14) Independent Procedure of the other German Governments.
                1. Bavaria.
                2. Württemberg.
                3. Baden.
         (15)   4. Hesse-Darmstadt.
                5. Saxony.

  § 198. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
          (1) The Zillerthal Emigration.
          (2) The Concordat.
          (3) The Protestant Church in Cisleithan Austria.
          (4) The Clerical Landtag Opposition in the Tyrol.
          (5) The Austrian Universities.
          (6) The Austrian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1874-1876.
          (7) The Protestant Church in the Transleithan Provinces.

  § 199. SWITZERLAND.
          (1) The Catholic Church in Switzerland till 1870.
          (2) The Geneva Conflict, 1870-1883.
          (3) Conflict in the Diocese of Basel-Soleure, 1870-1880.
          (4) The Protestant Church in German Switzerland.
          (5) The Protestant Church in French Switzerland.

  § 200. HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.
          (1) The United Netherlands.
          (2) The Kingdom of Holland.
          (3) ---- Continued.
          (4) ---- Continued.
          (5) The Kingdom of Belgium.
          (6) ---- Continued.
          (7) ---- Continued.
          (8) The Protestant Church.

  § 201. THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES.
          (1) Denmark.
          (2) Sweden.
          (3) Norway.

  § 202. GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
          (1) The Episcopal State Church.
          (2) The Tractarians and Ritualists.
          (3) ---- Continued.
          (4) Liberalism in the Episcopal Church.
          (5) Protestant Dissenters in England.
          (6) Scotch Marriages in England.
          (7) The Scottish State Church.
          (8) Scottish Heresy Cases.
          (9) The Catholic Church in Ireland.
         (10) The Fenian Movement.
         (11) The Catholic Church in England and Scotland.
         (12) German Lutheran Congregations in Australia.

  § 203. FRANCE.
          (1) The French Church under Napoleon I.
          (2) The Restoration and the Citizen Kingdom.
          (3) The Catholic Church under Napoleon III.
          (4) The Protestant Churches under Napoleon III.
          (5) The Catholic Church in the Third French Republic.
          (6) The French “Kulturkampf,” 1880.
          (7) ---- Continued.
          (8) The Protestant Churches under the Third Republic.

  § 204. ITALY.
          (1) The Kingdom of Sardinia.
          (2) The Kingdom of Italy.
          (3) The Evangelization of Italy.
          (4) ---- Continued.

  § 205. SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
          (1) Spain under Ferdinand VII. and Maria Christina.
          (2) Spain under Isabella II., 1843-1865.
          (3) Spain under Alphonso XII., 1875-1885.
          (4) The Evangelization of Spain.
          (5) The Church in Portugal.

  § 206. RUSSIA.
          (1) The Orthodox National Church.
          (2) The Catholic Church.
          (3) The Evangelical Church.

  § 207. GREECE AND TURKEY.
          (1) The Orthodox Church of Greece.
          (2) Massacre of Syrian Christians, 1860.
          (3) The Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Struggle.
          (4) The Armenian Church.
          (5) The Berlin Treaty, 1878.

  § 208. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
          (1) English Protestant Denominations.
          (2) The German Lutheran Denominations.
          (3) ---- Continued.
          (4) German-Reformed and other German-Protestant
              Denominations.
          (5) The Catholic Church.

  § 209. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC STATES OF SOUTH AMERICA.
          (1) Mexico.
          (2) In the Republics of Central and Southern America.
          (3) Brazil.


              V. Opponents of Church and of Christianity.

  § 210. SECTARIANS AND ENTHUSIASTS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AND
         ORTHODOX RUSSIAN DOMAINS.
          (1) Sects and Fanatics in the Roman Catholic Domain.
                1. The Order of New Templars.
                2. St. Simonians.
                3. Aug. Comte.
          (2)   4. Thomas Pöschl.
                5. Antonians.
                6. Adamites.
                7. David Lazzaretti.
          (3) Russian Sects and Fanatics.
          (4) ---- Continued.

  § 211. SECTARIES AND ENTHUSIASTS IN THE PROTESTANT DOMAIN.
          (1) The Methodist Propaganda.
          (2) The Salvation Army.
          (3) Baptists and Quakers.
          (4) Swedenborgians and Unitarians.
          (5) Extravagantly Fanatical Manifestations.
          (6) Christian Communistic Sects.
                1. Harmonites.
                2. Bible Communists.
          (7) Millenarian Exodus Communities.
                1. Georgian Separatists.
                2. Bavarian Chiliasts.
          (8)   3. Amen Community.
                4. German Temple Communities.
          (9) The Community of “the New Israel.”
         (10) The Catholic Apostolic Church of the Irvingites.
         (11) The Darbyites and Adventists.
         (12) The Mormons or Latter Day Saints.
         (13) ---- Continued.
         (14) ---- Continued.
         (15) The Taepings in China.
         (16) ---- Continued.
         (17) The Spiritualists.
         (18) Theosophism or Occultism.

  § 212. ANTICHRISTIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM.
          (1) The Beginnings of Modern Communism.
          (2) St. Simonism.
          (3) Owenists and Icarians.
          (4) The International Working-Men’s Association.
          (5) German Social Democracy.
          (6) Russian Nihilism.


  CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.


  INDEX.




                          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_.




                             INTRODUCTION.


                 § 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY.

  The Christian Church is to be defined as the one, many-branched
communion, consisting of all those who confess that Jesus of Nazareth
is the Christ who in the fulness of time appeared as the Saviour of
the world. It is the Church’s special task to render the saving work of
Christ increasingly fruitful for all nations and individuals, under all
the varying conditions of life and stages of culture. It is the task
of Church History to describe the course of development through which
the Church as a whole, as well as its special departments and various
institutions, has passed, from the time of its foundation down to our
own day; to show what have been the Church’s advances and retrogressions,
how it has been furthered and hindered; and to tell the story of its
deterioration and renewal.


       § 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS.

  The treatment of Church History, on account of its manifold
ramifications, demands a distribution of its material, on the one hand,
according to definite periods, during which the end hitherto aimed at in
the whole course of development has been practically attained, so that
either entirely new phenomena gain prominence, or else the old go forth
in an altogether different direction; on the other hand, according to
the various phases of endeavour and development, which in respect of
time are evolved alongside of one another. When this last-mentioned
method of division is adopted, we may still choose between two different
modes of treatment. First, we may deal with national churches, in so
far as these are independent and have pursued some special direction;
or with particular churches, which have originated from the splitting
up of the church universal over some important difference in doctrine,
worship, and constitution. Secondly, we may group our material according
to the various departments of historical activity, which are essential
to the intellectual and spiritual life of all national churches and
denominations, and are thus common to all, although in different
churches in characteristic ways and varying degrees. It follows however
from the very idea of history, especially from that of the universal
history of the church, that the distribution according to periods must
be the leading feature of the entire exposition. At the same time,
whatever may now and again, in accordance with the other principles of
arrangement, be brought into prominence will be influenced materially
by the course of the history and formally by the facility afforded for
review by the mode of treatment pursued.

  § 2.1. =The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course of
  Church History.=--The Christian Church has undertaken the task
  of absorbing all peoples and tongues. Hence it is possessed of
  an eager desire to enlarge its borders by the conversion of all
  non-Christian races. The description of what helps or hinders
  this endeavour, the history of the spread and limitation of
  Christianity, is therefore an essential constituent of church
  history. Since, further, the church, in order to secure its
  continued existence and well-being, must strive after a legally
  determined position outwardly, as well as a firm, harmonious
  articulation, combination and order inwardly, it evidently also
  belongs to our science to give the history of the ecclesiastical
  constitution, both of the place which the church has in the state,
  and the relation it bears to the state; and also of its own
  internal arrangements by superordination, subordination, and
  co-ordination, and by church discipline and legislation. Not
  less essential, nay, even more important for the successful
  development of the church, is the construction and establishment
  of saving truth. In Holy Scripture the church indeed has
  possession of the fountain and standard, as well as the
  all-sufficient power and fulness, of all saving knowledge.
  But the words of Scripture are spirit and life, living seeds of
  knowledge, which, under the care of the same Spirit who sows them,
  may and shall be developed so as to yield a harvest which becomes
  ever more and more abundant; and therefore the fulness of the
  truth which dwells in them comes to be known more simply, clearly,
  fully, and becomes always more fruitful for all stages and
  forms of culture, for faith, for science, and for life. Hence
  church history is required to describe the construction of the
  doctrine and science of the church, to follow its course and the
  deviations from it into heresy, whenever these appear. The church
  is, further, in need of a form of public worship as a necessary
  expression of the feelings and emotions of believers toward
  their Lord and God, as a means of edification and instruction.
  The history of the worship of the church is therefore also an
  essential constituent of church history. It is also the duty of
  the church to introduce into the practical life and customs of
  the people that new spiritual energy of which she is possessor.
  And thus the history of the Christian life among the people comes
  to be included in church history as a further constituent of the
  science. Further, there is also included here, in consequence of
  the nature and aim of Christianity as a leaven (Matt. xiii. 33),
  an account of the effects produced upon it by the development of
  art (of which various branches, architecture, sculpture, painting,
  music, have a direct connexion with Christian worship), and
  likewise upon national literature, philosophy, and secular
  science generally; and also, conversely, an estimate of the
  influence of these forms of secular culture upon the condition
  of the church and religion must not be omitted. The order of
  succession in the historical treatment of these phases under
  which the life of the church is manifested, is not to be rigidly
  determined in the same way for all ages after an abstract logical
  scheme. For each period that order of succession should be
  adopted which will most suitably give prominence to those matters
  which have come to the front, and so call for early and detailed
  treatment in the history of that age.

    § 2.2. =The Separate Branches of Church History.=--The
    constituent parts of church history that have been already
    enumerated are of such importance that they might also be treated
    as independent sciences, and indeed for the most part they have
    often been so treated. In this way, not only is a more exact
    treatment of details rendered possible, but also, what is more
    important, the particular science so limited can be construed in
    a natural manner according to principles furnished by itself. The
    history of the spread and limitation of Christianity then assumes
    a separate form as the History of Missions. The separate history
    of the ecclesiastical constitution, worship, and customs is
    known by the name of Christian Archæology, which is indeed,
    in respect of title and contents, an undefined conglomeration
    of heterogeneous elements restricted in a purely arbitrary way
    to the early ages. The treatment of this department therefore
    requires that we should undertake the scientific task of
    distinguishing these heterogeneous elements, and arranging them
    apart for separate consideration; thus following the course of
    their development down to the present day, as the history of the
    constitution, of the worship, and of the culture of the church.
    The history of the development of doctrine falls into four
    divisions:

    a. The History of Doctrines in the form of a regular historical
       sketch of the doctrinal development of the church.

    b. Symbolics, which gives a systematic representation of the
       relatively final and concluded doctrine of the church as
       determined in the public ecclesiastical confessions or
       symbols for the church universal and for particular sects:
       these again being compared together in Comparative Symbolics.

    c. Patristics, which deals with the subjective development of
       doctrine as carried out by the most distinguished teachers
       of the church, who are usually designated church Fathers,
       and confined to the first six or eight centuries.

    d. And, finally, the History of Theology in general, or the
       History of the particular Theological Sciences, which treats
       of the scientific conception and treatment of theology
       and its separate branches according to its historical
       development; while the History of Theological Literature,
       which when restricted to the age of the Fathers is called
       Patrology, has to describe and estimate the whole literary
       activity of the church according to the persons, motives,
       and tendencies that are present in it.

  As the conclusion and result of church history at particular
  periods, we have the science of Ecclesiastical Statistics, which
  describes the condition of the church in respect of all its
  interests as it stands at some particular moment, “like a slice
  cut cross-wise out of its history.” The most important works in
  these departments are the following:

    a. =History of Missions.=--
        Brown, “Hist. of Propag. of Christ. among Heathen since
            Reformation.” 3rd Ed., 3 vols., Edin., 1854.
        Warneck, “Outlines of Hist. of Prot. Miss.” Edin., 1884.
        Smith, “Short Hist. of Christ. Miss.” Edin., 1884.

    b. =History of the Papacy.=--
        Ranke, “History of Papacy in 16th and 17th Cent.” 2 vols.,
            Lond., 1855.
        Platina (Lib. of Vatican), “Lives of Popes.” (1481). Trans.
            by Rycaut, Lond., 1685.
        Bower, “Hist. of Popes.” 7 vols., Lond., 1750.
        Bryce, “Holy Rom. Empire.” Lond., 1866.
        Creighton, “Hist. of Papacy during the Reformation.”
            Vols. I.-IV., from A.D. 1378-1518, Lond., 1882-1886.
        Janus, “Pope and the Council.” Lond., 1869.
        Pennington, “Epochs of the Papacy.” Lond., 1882.

    c. =History of Monasticism.=--
        Hospinianus [Hospinian], “De Monachis.” Etc., Tigur., 1609.
        Maitland, “The Dark Ages.” Lond., 1844.

    d. =History of Councils.=--
        Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vols. I.-III., to A.D. 451,
            Edin., 1871-1883. (Original German work brought down
            to the Council of Trent exclusive.)

    e. =Church law.=--
        Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccl. Documents illust.
            Eccl. Hist. of Gr. Brit. and Ireland.” 3 vols.,
            Lond., 1869 ff.
        Phillimore, “Eccl. Law.” Lond., 1873.

    f. =Archæology.=--
        By Cath. Didron, “Christ. Iconography; or, Hist. of Christ.
            Art in M. A.” Lond., 1886.
        By Prot. Bingham, “Antiq. of Christ. Church.” 9 vols.,
            Lond., 1845.
        “Dictionary of Christ. Antiquities.” Ed. by Smith &
            Cheetham, 2 vols., Lond., 1875 ff.

    g. =History of Doctrines.=--
        Neander, “Hist. of Christ. Doct.” 2 vols., Lond.
        Hagenbach, “Hist. of Christ. Doctrines.” 3 vols.,
            Edin., 1880 f.
        Shedd, “Hist. of Christ. Doc.” 2 vols., Edin., 1869.

    h. =Symbolics and Polemics.=--
        Winer, “Confessions of Christendom.” Edin., 1873.
        Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” 3 vols., Edin., 1877 ff.
        Möhler, “Symbolism: an Expos. of the Doct. Differences
            between Catholics and Protestants.” 2 vols., Lond.,
            1843.

    i. =Patrology and History of Theolog. Literature.=--
        Dupin, “New History of Ecclesiastical Writers.”
            Lond., 1696.
        Cave, “Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit.” 2 vols., Lond., 1668.
        Fabricii, “Biblioth. Græca.” 14 vols., Hamb., 1705;
            “Biblioth. Mediæ et infinæ Latin.” 6 vols.,
            Hamb., 1734.
        Teuffel, “Hist. of Rom. Lit.” 2 vols., Lond., 1873.

    k. =History of the Theological Sciences.=--
        Buddæus, “Isagoge Hist. Theol. ad Theol. Univ.” Lps., 1727.
        Räbiger, “Encyclopædia of Theology.” 2 vols., Edin., 1884.
        Dorner, “Hist. of Prot. Theol.” 2 vols., Edin., 1871.

        =History of Exegesis.=--
        Davidson, “Sacred Hermeneutics; including Hist. of Biblical
            Interpretation from earliest Fathers to Reformation.”
            Edin., 1843.
        Farrar, “Hist. of Interpretation.” Lond., 1886.

        =History of Morals.=--
        Wuttke’s “Christian Ethics.” Vol. I., “Hist. of Ethics.”
            Edin., 1873.

    l. =Biographies.=--
        “Acta Sanctorum.” 63 vols. fol., Ant., 1643 ff.
        Mabillon, “Acta Ss. ord. S. Bened.” 9 vols. fol.,
            Par., 1666 ff.
        Flaccius [Flacius], “Catalog. Testium Veritatis.” 1555.
        Piper, “Lives of Leaders of Church Universal.” 2 vols.,
            Edin.
        Smith and Wace, “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” etc., 4 vols.,
            Lond., 1877 ff.


       § 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS.

  In the history of the world’s culture three historical stages
of universal development succeed each other: the Oriental, the
Franco-German, and the Teutono-Romanic. The kingdom of God had to enter
each of these and have in each a distinctive character, so that as
comprehensive a development as possible might be secured. The history
of the preparation for Christianity in the history of the Israelitish
theocracy moves along the lines of Oriental culture. The history of
the beginnings of Christianity embraces the history of the founding of
the church by Christ and His Apostles. These two together constitute
Biblical history, which, as an independent branch of study receiving
separate treatment, need be here treated merely in a brief, introductory
manner. This holds true also of the history of pagan culture alongside
of and subsequent to the founding of the church. Church history,
strictly so-called, the development of the already founded church,
begins therefore, according to our conception, with the Post-Apostolic
Age, and from that point pursues its course in three principal divisions.
The ancient church completes its task by thoroughly assimilating
the elements contributed by the Græco-Roman forms of civilization.
In the Teutono-Romanic Church of the middle ages the appropriation
and amalgamation of ancient classical modes of thought with modern
tendencies awakened by its immediate surroundings were carried out and
completed. On the other hand, the development of church history since
the Reformation has its impulse given it by that Teutono-Christian
culture which had maturity and an independent form secured to it by the
Reformation. This distribution in accordance with the various forms of
civilization seems to us so essential, that we propose to borrow from
it our principle for the arrangement of our church history.

  The chronological distribution of the material may be represented in
the following outline:

    I. =History of the Preparation for Christianity=: Preparation
       for Redemption during the Hebraic-Oriental stage of
       civilization, and the construction alongside of it in the
       universalism of classical culture of forms that prepared the
       way for the coming salvation.

   II. =History of the Beginnings of Christianity=: a sketch of the
       redemption by Christ and the founding of the Church through
       the preaching of it by the Apostles.

  III. =History of the Development of Christianity=, on the basis
       of the sketch of the redemption given in the history of the
       Beginnings:

       A. =In the Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Period, under
          Ancient Classical Forms of Civilization.=
              _First Section_, A.D. 70 to A.D. 323,--down to
          the final victory of Christianity over the Græco-Roman
          paganism; the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages.
              _Second Section_, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 692,--down
          to the final close of œcumenical development of doctrine
          in A.D. 680, and the appearance of what proved a lasting
          estrangement between the Eastern and the Western Churches
          in A.D. 692, which was soon followed by the alliance of
          the Papacy with the Frankish instead of the Byzantine
          empire; the Œcumenico-Catholic Church, or the Church of
          the Roman-Byzantine Empire.
              _Third Section_, from A.D. 692 to A.D. 1453,--down
          to the overthrow of Constantinople. Languishing and decay
          of the old church life in the Byzantine Empire; complete
          breach and futile attempts at union between East and West.
          The Church of the Byzantine Empire.

       B. =In the Mediæval Period, under Teutono-Romanic Forms of
          Civilization.=
              _First Section_, 4-9th cent.--from the first
          beginnings of Teutonic church life down to the end of the
          Carlovingian Age, A.D. 911. The Teutonic Age.
              _Second Section_, 10-13th cent.--down to
          Boniface VIII., A.D. 1294; rise of mediæval
          institutions--the Papacy, Monasticism, Scholasticism;
          Germany in the foreground of the ecclesiastico-political
          movement.
              _Third Section_, the 14-15th cent.--down to the
          Reformation in A.D. 1517; deterioration and collapse of
          mediæval institutions; France in the foreground of the
          ecclesiastico-political movement.

       C. =In the Modern Period, under the European Forms of
          Civilization.=
              _First Section_, the 16th cent. Age of
          Evangelical-Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholic
          Counter-Reformation.
              _Second Section_, the 17th cent. Age of Orthodoxy
          on the Protestant side and continued endeavours after
          restoration on the side of Catholicism.
              _Third Section_, the 18th cent. Age of advancing
          Illuminism in both churches,--Deism, Naturalism,
          Rationalism.
              _Fourth Section_, the 19th cent. Age of re-awakened
          Christian and Ecclesiastical life. Unionism,
          Confessionalism, and Liberalism in conflict with
          one another on the Protestant side; the revival of
          Ultramontanism in conflict with the civil power on the
          Catholic side. In opposition to both churches, widespread
          pantheistic, materialistic, and communistic tendencies.


           § 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.[1]

  =The sources of Church history= are partly original, in the shape of
inscriptions and early documents; partly derivative, in the shape of
traditions and researches in regard to primitive documents that have
meanwhile been lost. Of greater importance to church history than the
so-called dumb sources, _e.g._ church buildings, furniture, pictures,
are the inscriptions coming down from the earliest times; but of the
very highest importance are the extant official documents, _e.g._
acts and decisions of Church Councils, decrees and edicts of the
Popes,--decretals, bulls, briefs,--the pastoral letters of bishops,
civil enactments and decrees regarding ecclesiastical matters, the rules
of Spiritual Orders, monastic rules, liturgies, confessional writings,
the epistles of influential ecclesiastical and civil officers, reports
by eye witnesses, sermons and doctrinal treatises by Church teachers,
etc. In regard to matters not determined by any extant original
documents, earlier or later fixed traditions and historical researches
must take the place of those lost documents.--=Sciences Auxiliary
to Church History= are such as are indispensable for the critical
estimating and sifting, as well as for the comprehensive understanding
of the sources of church history. To this class the following branches
belong: _Diplomatics_, which teaches how to estimate the genuineness,
completeness, and credibility of the documents in question; _Philology_,
which enables us to understand the languages of the sources; _Geography
and Chronology_, which make us acquainted with the scenes and periods
where and when the incidents related in the original documents were
enacted. Among auxiliary sciences in the wider sense, the history of the
_State_, of _Law_, of _Culture_, of _Literature_, of _Philosophy_, and
of _Universal Religion_, may also be included as indispensable owing to
their intimate connection with ecclesiastical development.

  § 4.1. =Literature of the Sources.=--

      a. =Inscriptions=:
         de Rossi, “Inscriptt. chr. urbis Rom.” Vols. I. II.,
             Rome, 1857.

      b. =Collections of Councils=:
         Harduin [Hardouin], “Conc. coll.” (to A.D. 1715),
             12 vols., Par., 1715.
         Mansi, “Conc. nova et ampl. coll.” 31 vols., Flor., 1759.

      c. =Papal Acts=:
         Jaffe, “Regesta pont. Rom.” (to A.D. 1198), 2 ed.,
             Brl., 1881.
         Potthast, “Regesta pont. Rom.” (A.D. 1198-1304), 2 Vols.,
             Brl., 1873.
         The Papal Decretals in “Corp. jur. Canonici.” ed.,
              Friedberg, Lips., 1879.
         “Bullarum, diplom. et privil. SS. rom. pont.” Taurenensis
             editio, 24 vols., 1857 ff.
         Nussi, “Conventiones de reb. eccl. inter s. sedem et civ.
             pot. initæ.” Mogunt., 1870.

      d. =Monastic Rules=:
         Holstenii, “Cod. regul. mon. et. can.” 6 vols., 1759.

      e. =Liturgies=:
         Daniel, “Cod. liturg. eccl. univ.” 4 vols., Leipz.,
             1847 ff.
         Hammond, “Ancient Liturgies.” Oxf., 1878.

      f. =Symbolics=:
         Kimmel, “Ll. Symb. eccl. Orient.” Jena., 1843.
         Danz, “Ll. Symb. eccl. Rom. Cath.” Weimar, 1835.
         Hase, “Ll. Symb. eccl. evang.” Ed. iii., Leipz., 1840.
         Niemeyer, “Coll. Conf. eccl. Ref.” Leipz., 1840.
         Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” 3 vols., Lond., 1882.

      g. =Martyrologies=:
         Ruinart, “Acta prim. Mart.” 3 vols., 1802.
         Assemanni [Assemani], “Acta SS. Mart. orient. et occid.”
             2 vols., Rome, 1748.

      h. =Greek and Latin Church Fathers and Teachers=:
         Migne, “Patrologiæ currus completus.” Ser. I., Eccl. Græc.,
             162 vols., Par., 1857 ff.; Ser. II., Eccl. Lat.,
             221 vols., Par., 1844 ff.
         Horoy, “Media ævi biblioth. patrist.” (from A.D. 1216 to
             1564), Paris, 1879.
         “Corpus Scriptorum eccl. lat.” Vindob., 1866 ff.
         Grabe, “Spicilegium SS. Pp. et Hærett.” Sæc. I.-III.,
             3 vols., Oxford, 1698.
         Routh, “Reliquiæ sac.” 4 vols., Oxford, 1814 ff.
         “Ante-Nicene Christian Library; a collection of all the
             works of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to
             the Council of Nicæa.” 24 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

      i. =Ancient Writers of the East=:
         Assemanus [Assemani], “Biblioth. orient.” 4 vols.,
             Rome, 1719.

      k. =Byzantine Writers=:
         Niebuhr, “Corp. scr. hist. Byz.” 48 vols., Bonn, 1828 ff.
         Sathas, “Biblioth. Græc. Med. ævi.” Vols. I.-VI., Athens,
             1872 ff.

  § 4.2. =Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences.=--

      a. =Diplomatics=:
         Mabillon, “De re diplomatic.” Ed. ii., Par., 1709.

      b. =Philology=:
         Du Fresne (du Cange), “Glossarium ad scriptt. med. et
             infim. Latin.” 6 vols., Par., 1733; New ed., Henschel
             and Favre, in course of publication.
         Du Fresne, “Glossarium, ad scriptt. med. et infim. Græc.”
             2 vols., Leyden, 1688.
         Suiceri, “Thesaurus ecclesiast. e patribus græcis.”
             Ed. ii., 2 vols., Amst., 1728.

      c. =Geography and Statistics=:
         Mich. le Quien, “Oriens christianus in quatuor
             patriarchatus digestus.” 3 vols., Par., 1704.

      d. =Chronology=:
         Nicolas, “The Chronology of History.” 2 ed., Lond., 1838.
         “L’art de verifier les dates, by d’Antine.” Etc., ed. by
             Courcelles, 19 vols., Par., 1821-1824.


                § 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY.

  The earliest writer of church history properly so called is Eusebius,
Bishop of Cæsarea, † 340. During the fifth century certain members
of the Greek Church continued his work. The Western Church did not
so soon engage upon undertakings of that sort, and was contented with
translations and reproductions of the materials that had come down from
the Greeks instead of entering upon original investigations. During the
middle ages, in consequence of the close connection subsisting between
Church and State, the Greek _Scriptores historiæ Byzantinæ_, as well as
the Latin national histories, biographies, annals, and chronicles, are
of the very utmost importance as sources of information regarding the
church history of their times. It was the Reformation, however, that
first awakened and inspired the spirit of true critical research and
scientific treatment of church history, for the appeal of the Reformers
to the pure practices and institutions of the early days of the church
demanded an authoritative historical exposition of the founding of the
church, and this obliged the Catholic church to engage upon the studies
necessary for this end. The Lutheran as well as the Catholic Church,
however, down to the middle of the 17th century, were satisfied with
the voluminous productions of the two great pioneers in Church history,
Flacius and Baronius. Afterwards, however, emulation in the study of
church history was excited, which was undoubtedly, during the 17th
century, most successfully prosecuted in the Catholic Church. In
consequence of the greater freedom which prevailed in the Gallican
Church, these studies flourished conspicuously in France, and were
pursued with exceptional success by the Oratorians and the Order
of St. Maur. The Reformed theologians, especially in France and the
Netherlands, did not remain far behind them in the contest. Throughout
the 18th century, again, the performances of the Lutheran Church came to
the front, while a laudable rivalry leads the Reformed to emulate their
excellencies. In the case of the Catholics, on the other hand, that
zeal and capacity which, during the 17th century, had won new laurels in
the field of honour, were now sadly crippled. But as rationalism spread
in the domain of doctrine, pragmatism spread in the domain of church
history, which set for itself as the highest ideal of historical writing
the art of deducing everything in history, even what is highest and
most profound in it, from the co-operation of fortune and passion,
arbitrariness and calculation. It was only in the 19th century, when a
return was made to the careful investigation of original authorities,
and it came to be regarded as the task of the historian, to give a
conception and exposition of the science as objective as possible, that
this erroneous tendency was arrested.

  § 5.1. =Down to the Reformation.=--The church history of
  =Eusebius=, which reaches down to A.D. 324, was to some extent
  continued by his _Vita Constantini_, down to A.D. 337 (§ 47, 2).
  The church history of =Philostorgius=, which reaches from
  A.D. 318-423, coming down to us only in fragments quoted by
  Photius, was an Arian party production of some importance.
  During the 5th century, however, the church history of Eusebius
  was continued down to A.D. 439 by the Catholic =Socrates=, an
  advocate at Constantinople, written in a simple and impartial
  style, yet not altogether uncritical, and with a certain measure
  of liberality; and down to A.D. 423, by =Sozomen=, also an
  advocate at Constantinople, who in large measure plagiarizes from
  Socrates, and is, in what is his own, uncritical, credulous, and
  fond of retailing anecdotes; and down to A.D. 428 by =Theodoret=,
  Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who produces much useful material in
  the shape of original authorities, confining himself, however,
  like both of his predecessors, almost exclusively to the affairs
  of the Eastern Church. In the 6th century, =Theodorus=, reader at
  Constantinople, made a collection of extracts from these works,
  continuing the history down to his own time in A.D. 527. Of this
  we have only fragments preserved by Nicephorus Callisti. The
  continuation by =Evagrius= of Antioch, reaching from A.D. 431-594,
  is characterized by carefulness, learning, and impartiality,
  along with zealous orthodoxy, and an uncritical belief in the
  marvellous. Collected editions of all these works have been
  published by Valesius (Par., 1659), and Reading (Cantab., 1720),
  in each case in 3 vols. folio.--In the Latin Church =Rufinus= of
  Aquileia translated the work of Eusebius and enlarged it before
  the continuations of the three Greek historians had appeared,
  carrying it down to his own time in A.D. 395 in an utterly
  uncritical fashion. =Sulpicius Severus=, a presbyter of Gaul,
  wrote about the same time his _Historia Sacra_, in two books,
  from the creation of the world down to A.D. 400. In the 6th
  century, =Cassiodorus= fused together into one treatise in
  12 books, by means of extracts, the works of the three Greek
  continuators of Eusebius, under the title _Hist. ecclesiastica
  tripartita_, which, combined with the history of Rufinus,
  remained down to the Reformation in common use as a text-book.
  A church history written in the 6th century in Syriac, by the
  monophysite bishop, =John of Ephesus=, morbidly fond of the
  miraculous, first became known to us in an abridged form of
  the third part embracing the history of his own time. (Ed.
  Cureton, Oxf., 1853. Transl. into Engl. by Payne Smith, Oxford,
  1859.)--Belonging to the Latin church of the middle ages, =Haymo=
  of Halberstadt deserves to be named as a writer of universal
  history, about A.D. 850, leaning mainly upon Rufinus and
  Cassiodorus. The same too may be said about the work entitled,
  _Libri XIII. historiæ ecclesiasticæ_ written by the Abbot
  =Odericus Vitalis= in Normandy, about A.D. 1150, which forms
  upon the whole the most creditable production of the middle
  ages. In the 24 books of the Church history of the Dominican and
  Papal librarian, =Tolomeo of Lucca=, composed about A.D. 1315,
  church history is conceived of as if it were simply a historical
  commentary on the ecclesiastical laws and canons then in force,
  as an attempt, that is, to incorporate in the history all the
  fictions and falsifications, which Pseudo-Isidore in the 9th
  century (§ 87, 2-4), Gratian in the 12th century, and Raimundus
  [Raimund] de Penneforti [Pennaforte] in the 13th century
  (§ 99, 5), had wrought into the Canon law. Toward the end of
  the 15th century, under the influence of humanism there was an
  awakening here and there to a sense of the need of a critical
  procedure in the domain of church history, which had been
  altogether wanting throughout the middle ages. In the Greek
  Church again, during the 14th century, =Nicephorus Callisti=
  of Constantinople, wrote a treatise on church history, reaching
  down to A.D. 610, devoid of taste and without any indication of
  critical power.

  § 5.2. =The 16th and 17th Centuries.=--About the middle of the
  16th century the Lutheran Church produced a voluminous work in
  church history, the so-called =Magdeburg Centuries=, composed
  by a committee of Lutheran theologians, at the head of which was
  =Matthias Flacius=, of Illyria in Magdeburg. This work consisted
  of 13 folio vols., each of which embraced a century. (_Eccles.
  Hist., integram eccl. ideam complectens, congesta per aliquot
  studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdb._ Bas., 1559-1574.) They
  rest throughout on careful studies of original authorities,
  produce many documents that were previously unknown, and, with
  an unsparingly bitter polemic against the Romish doctrinal
  degeneration, address themselves with special diligence to the
  historical development of dogma. In answer to them the Romish
  Oratorian, =Cæsar Baronius=, produced his _Annales ecclesiastici_,
  in 12 vols. folio, reaching down to A.D. 1198 (Rome, 1588-1607).
  This work moves entirely along Roman Catholic lines and is quite
  prejudiced and partial, and seeks in a thoroughly uncritical
  way, by every species of ingenuity, to justify Romish positions;
  yet, as communicating many hitherto unknown, and to others
  inaccessible documents, it must be regarded as an important
  production. It secured for its author the cardinal’s hat,
  and had wellnigh raised him to the chair of St. Peter. In the
  interests of a scholarly and truth-loving research, it was
  keenly criticised by the Franciscan Anthony Pagi (_Critica
  hist-chronol._ 4 vols., Antw., 1705), carried down in the 17th
  century from A.D. 1198-1565, in 9 vols. by Oderic. Raynaldi, in
  the 18th century from A.D. 1566-1571, in 3 vols. by de Laderchi,
  and in the 19th century down to A.D. 1585 in 3 vols. by August
  Theiner. A new edition was published by Mansi (43 vols., 1738
  ff.), with Raynaldi’s continuation and Pagi’s criticism.--During
  the 17th century the French Catholic scholars bore the palm
  as writers of Church history. The course was opened in general
  church history by the Dominican =Natalis Alexander=, a learned
  man, but writing a stiff scholastic style (_Selecta hist. eccl.
  capita et diss. hist. chron. et dogm._ 24 vols., Par., 1676 ff.).
  This first edition, on account of its Gallicanism was forbidden
  at Rome; a later one by Roncaglia of Lucca, with corrective notes,
  was allowed to pass. Sebast. le Nain de =Tillemont=, with the
  conscientiousness of his Jansenist faith, gave an account of
  early church history in a cleverly grouped series of carefully
  selected authorities (_Memoires pour servir à l’hist. eccl. des
  six premiers siècles, justifiés par les citations des auteurs
  originaux._ 16 vols., Par., 1693 ff.). =Bossuet= wrote, for
  the instruction of the Dauphin, what Hase has styled “an
  ecclesiastical history of the world with eloquent dialectic
  and with an insight into the ways of providence, as if the wise
  Bishop of Meaux had been in the secrets not only of the king’s
  but also of God’s councils” (_Discours sur l’hist. universelle
  depuis le commencement du monde jusqu’à l’empire de Charles M._
  Par., 1681). =Claude Fleury=, aiming at edification, proceeds in
  flowing and diffuse periods (_Histoire ecclst._ 20 vols., Par.,
  1691 ff.).--The history of the French Church (A.D. 1580) ascribed,
  probably erroneously, to Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin,
  marks the beginning of the writing of ecclesiastical history
  in the Reformed Church. During the 17th century it secured an
  eminence in the department of church history, especially on
  account of learned special researches (§ 160, 7), but also to
  some extent in the domain of general church history. =J. H.
  Hottinger= overloaded his _Hist. ecclst. N. T._ (9 vols., Fig.,
  1651 ff.) by dragging in the history of Judaism, and Paganism,
  and even of Mohammedanism, with much irrelevant matter of that
  sort. Superior to it were the works of =Friedr. Spanheim= (_Summa
  hist. eccl._ Leyd., 1689) =Jas. Basnage= (_Hist. de l’égl._
  2 vols., Rotd., 1699). Most important of all were the keen
  criticism of the Annals of Baronius by =Isaac Casaubon=
  (_Exercitt. Baronianæ._ Lond., 1614), and by =Sam. Basnage=
  (_Exercitt. hist. crit._ Traj., 1692; and _Annales polit. ecclst._
  3 vols., Rotd., 1706).

  § 5.3. =The 18th Century.=--After the publication of the
  Magdeburg _Opus palmare_ the study of church history fell
  into the background in the Lutheran Church. It was George
  Calixtus († A.D. 1658) and the syncretist controversies which
  he occasioned that again awakened an interest in such pursuits.
  =Gottfr. Arnold’s= colossal party-spirited treatise entitled
  “Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie” (2 vols. fol., Frkf.,
  1699), which scarcely recognised Christianity except in heresies
  and fanatical sects, gave a powerful impulse to the spirit of
  investigation and to the generous treatment of opponents. This
  bore fruit in the irenical and conciliatory attempts of =Weismann=
  of Tübingen (_Introd. in memorabilia ecclst._ 2 vols., Tüb.,
  1718). The shining star, however, in the firmament of church
  history during the 18th century was =J. Lor. v. Mosheim= in
  Helmstedt [Helmstadt] and Göttingen, distinguished alike for
  thorough investigation, with a divinatory power of insight, and
  by a brilliant execution and an artistic facility in the use
  of a noble Latin style (_Institutionum hist. ecclst. Libri IV._
  Helmst., 1755; transl. into English by Murdock, ed. by Reid,
  11th ed., Lond., 1880). =J. A. Cramer=, in Kiel, translated
  Bossuet’s _Einl. in die Gesch. d. Welt u. d. Relig._, with a
  continuation which gave a specially careful treatment of the
  theology of the middle ages (7 vols., Leipz., 1757 ff.). =J. Sal.
  Semler=, in Halle, shook, with a morbidly sceptical criticism,
  many traditional views in Church history that had previously been
  regarded as unassailable (_Hist. eccl. selecta capita._ 3 vols.,
  Halle, 1767 ff.; _Versuch e. fruchtb. Auszugs d. K. Gesch._
  3 vols., Halle, 1773 ff.). On the other hand, =Jon. Matt. Schröckh
  of Wittenberg= produced a gigantic work on church history, which
  is characterized by patient research, and gives, in so far as
  the means within his reach allowed, a far-sighted, temperate, and
  correct statement of facts (_Christl. K. G._ 45 vols., Leipz.,
  1772 ff., the last two vols. by Tzschirner). The Würtemburg
  [Württemberg] minister of state, Baron =von Spittler=, sketched
  a _Grundriss der K. Gesch._, in short and smartly expressed
  utterances, which in many cases were no better than caricatures
  (5th ed. by Planck, Gött., 1812). In his footsteps =Henke=
  of Helmstedt [Helmstadt], followed, who, while making full
  acknowledgment of the moral blessing which had been brought by
  true Christianity to mankind, nevertheless described the “_Allg.
  Gesch. der Kirche_” as if it were a bedlam gallery of religious
  and moral aberrations and strange developments (6 vols.,
  Brsweig., 1788 ff.; 5th ed. revised and continued by =Vater= in
  9 vols.).--In the Reformed Church, =Herm. Venema=, of Franeker,
  the Mosheim of this church, distinguished himself by the thorough
  documentary basis which he gave to his exposition, written in
  a conciliatory spirit (_Institutt. hist. eccl. V. et N. T._
  7 vols., Leyd., 1777 ff.). In the Catholic Church, =Royko= of
  Prague, favoured by the reforming tendencies of the Emperor
  Joseph II., was able with impunity to give expression to his
  anti-hierarchical views in an almost cynically outspoken statement
  (_Einl. in d. chr. Rel. u. K. G._ Prague, 1788).

  § 5.4. =The 19th Century.= In his _Handb. d. chr. K. G._, publ.
  in 1801 (in 2nd ed. contin. by Rettberg, 7 vols., Giessen, 1834),
  =Chr. Schmidt= of Giessen expressly maintained that the supreme
  and indeed the only conditions of a correct treatment of history
  consisted in the direct study of the original documents, and a
  truly objective exhibition of the results derived therefrom. By
  objectivity, however, he understood indifference and coolness
  of the subject in reference to the object, which must inevitably
  render the representation hard, colourless, and lifeless.
  =Gieseler= of Göttingen, † 1854, commended this mode of treatment
  by his excellent execution, and in his _Lehrbuch_ (5 vols., Bonn,
  1824-1857; Engl. transl. “Compendium of Church History.” 5 vols.,
  Edinb., 1846-1856), a master-piece of the first rank, which
  supports, explains and amplifies the author’s own admirably
  compressed exposition by skilfully chosen extracts from the
  documents, together with original and thoughtful criticism under
  the text. A temperate, objective, and documentary treatment of
  church history is also given in the _Handbuch_ of =Engelhardt=
  of Erlangen (5 vols., Erlang., 1832 ff.). Among the so-called
  _Compendia_ the most popular was the _Universalgeschichte d. K._
  by =Stäudlin=, of Göttingen (Hann., 1807; 5th ed. by Holzhausen,
  1833). It was superseded by the _Lehrbuch_ of =Hase=, of Jena
  (Leipz., 1834; 10th ed., 1877; Engl. transl. from 7th Germ. ed.,
  New York, 1855), which is a generally pregnant and artistically
  tasteful exposition with often excellent and striking features,
  subtle perception, and with ample references to documentary
  sources. The _Vorlesungen_ of =Schleiermacher=, † 1834, published
  after his death by Bonell (Brl., 1840), assume acquaintance
  with the usual materials, and present in a fragmentary manner
  the general outlines of the church’s course of development.
  =Niedner’s= _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., Brl., 1866), is distinguished by
  a philosophical spirit, independent treatment, impartial judgment,
  and wealth of contents with omission of customary matter, but
  marred by the scholastic stiffness and awkwardness of its style.
  =Gfrörer’s= († 1861) _Kirchengeschichte_ (7 vols. reaching down
  to A.D. 1000, Stuttg., 1840) treats early Christianity as purely
  a product of the culture of the age, and knows of no moving
  principles in the historical development of the Christian church
  but clerical self-seeking, political interests, machinations
  and intrigues. Nevertheless the book, especially in the portion
  treating of the middle ages, affords a fresh and lively account
  of researches among original documents and of new results,
  although even here the author does not altogether restrain his
  undue fondness for over subtle combinations. After his entrance
  into the Catholic Church his labours in the domain of church
  history were limited to a voluminous history of Gregory VII.,
  which may be regarded as a continuation of his church history,
  the earlier work having only reached down to that point. =Baur=
  of Tübingen began the publication of monographical treatises on
  particular periods, reaching down to the Reformation (3 vols.,
  2nd ed., Tüb., 1860 ff.), a continuation to the end of the 18th
  cent. (published by his son F. Baur, 1863), and also a further
  volume treating of the 19th cent. (publ. by his son-in-law Zeller,
  2nd ed., 1877). These works of this unwearied investigator show
  thorough mastery of the immense mass of material, with subtle
  criticism and in many cases the first establishment of new views.
  =Böhringer’s= massive production (_Die Kirche Christi und ihre
  Zeugen, oder Kirchengeschichte in Biographien_. 24 vols., Zur.,
  1842; 2nd ed., Zur., 1873), upon the basis of an independent
  study of the several ages down to the Reformation, characterizes
  by means of detailed portraiture the personalities prominent
  during these periods. In the second edition, thoroughly recast
  with the assistance of his two sons, there is evidence of a more
  strictly critical research and a judicial frame of mind, so that
  the predominantly panegyrical character of the first edition is
  considerably modified. =Rothe’s= lectures, edited after his death,
  with additions from his literary remains, by Weingarten (2 vols.,
  Hdlb., 1875) are quite fragmentary because the usual historical
  matter was often supplied from Gieseler, Neander, or Hase. The
  work is of great value in the departments of the Constitution
  and the Life of the Church, but in other respects does not at
  all satisfy the expectations which one might entertain respecting
  productions bearing such an honoured name; thoroughly solid and
  scholarly, however, are the unfortunately only sparse and short
  notes of the learned editor.

  § 5.5. Almost contemporaneously with Gieseler, =Aug. Neander=
  of Berlin, † 1850, began the publication of his _Allg. Gesch. d.
  chr. Kirche_ in xi. divisions down to A.D. 1416 (Ham., 1824-1852.
  Engl. Transl. 9 vols., Edin., 1847-1855), by which ground
  was broken in another direction. Powerfully influenced by the
  religious movement, which since the wars of independence had
  inspired the noblest spirits of Germany, and sympathizing with
  Schleiermacher’s theology of feeling, he vindicated the rights of
  subjective piety in the scientific treatment of church history,
  and sought to make it fruitful for edification as a commentary
  of vast proportions on the parable of the leaven. With special
  delight he traces the developments of the inner life, shows what
  is Christian in even misconceived and ecclesiastically condemned
  manifestations, and feels for the most part repelled from
  objective ecclesiasticism, as from an ossification of the
  Christian life and the crystallization of dogma. In the same way
  he undervalues the significance of the political co-efficients,
  and has little appreciation of esthetic and artistic influences.
  The exposition goes out too often into wearisome details and
  grows somewhat monotonous, but is on every side lighted up by
  first hand acquaintance with the original sources. His scholar,
  =Hagenbach= of Basel, † 1874, put together in a collected form
  his lectures delivered before a cultured public upon several
  periods of church history, so as to furnish a treatise dealing
  with the whole field (7 vols., Leipz., 1868). These lectures are
  distinguished by an exposition luminous, interesting, sometimes
  rather broad, but always inspired by a warm Christian spirit and
  by circumspect judgment, inclining towards a mild confessional
  latitudinarianism. What, even on the confessional and
  ecclesiastical side, had been to some extent passed over by
  Neander, in consequence of his tendency to that inwardness that
  characterizes subjective and pectoral piety, has been enlarged
  upon by =Guericke= of Halle, † 1878, another of Neander’s
  scholars, in his _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Leipz., 1833; 9th ed.,
  3 vols., 1866; Eng. transl. “Manual of Ch. Hist.” Edinb., 1857),
  by the contribution of his own enthusiastic estimate of the
  Lutheran Church in a strong but clumsy statement; beyond this,
  however, the one-sidedness of Neander’s standpoint is not
  overcome, and although, alongside of Neander’s exposition, the
  materials and estimates of other standpoints are diligently used,
  and often the very words incorporated, the general result is not
  modified in any essential respect. Written with equal vigour,
  and bearing the impress of a freer ecclesiastical spirit, the
  _Handbuch_ of =Bruno Lindner= (3 vols., Leipzig, 1848 ff.)
  pursues with special diligence the course of the historical
  development of doctrine, and also emphasizes the influence
  of political factors. This same end is attempted in detailed
  treatment with ample production of authoritative documents in
  the _Handbuch_ of the author of the present treatise (vol. I.
  in three divisions, in a 2nd ed.; vol. II. 1, down to the end
  of the Carlovingian Era. Mitau, 1858 ff.). =Milman= (1791-1868)
  an English church historian of the first rank (“Hist. of Chr.
  to Abolit. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.” 3 vols., London, 1840; “History
  of Latin Christianity to the Pontificate of Nicholas V.” 3 vols.,
  London, 1854), shows himself, especially in the latter work,
  learned, liberal and eloquent, eminently successful in sketching
  character and presenting vivid pictures of the general culture
  and social conditions of the several periods with which he deals.
  The _Vorlesungen_ of =R. Hasse [Hase]=, published after his death
  by Köhler (2nd ed., Leipz., 1872), form an unassuming treatise,
  which scarcely present any trace of the influence of Hegel’s
  teaching upon their author. =Köllner= of Giessen writes an
  _Ordnung und Uebersicht der Materien der chr. Kirchengeschichte_,
  Giess., 1864, a diligent, well-arranged, and well packed, but
  somewhat dry and formless work. =H. Schmid= of Erlangen has
  enlarged his compendious _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., 1856), into a
  _Handbuch_ of two bulky volumes (Erlang., 1880); and =O. Zöckler=
  of Greifswald has contributed to the _Handbuch d. theolog.
  Wissenschaften_ (Erlang., 1884; 2nd ed., 1885) edited by him an
  excellent chronological summary of church history. =Ebrard’s=
  _Handbuch_ (4 vols., Erlang., 1865 ff.) endeavours to give
  adequate expression to this genuine spirit of the Reformed
  conception of historical writing by bringing church history and
  the history of doctrines into organic connection. The attempt is
  there made, however, as Hase has expressed it, with a paradoxical
  rather than an orthodox tendency. The spirit and mind of the
  Reformed Church are presented to us in a more temperate, mild
  and impartial form, inspired by the pectoralism of Neander, in
  the _Handbuch_ of =J. J. Herzog= of Erlangen, † 1882 (3 vols.,
  Erlang., 1876), which assumes the name of _Abriss_ or Compendium.
  This work set for itself the somewhat too ambitious aim
  of supplying the place of the productions of Gieseler and
  Neander,--which, as too diffuse, have unfortunately repelled many
  readers--by a new treatise which should set forth the important
  advances in the treatment of church history since their time,
  and give a more concise sketch of universal church history.
  The _Histoire du Christianisme_ of Prof. =Chastel= of Geneva,
  (5 vols., Par., 1881 ff.) in its earlier volumes occupies the
  standpoint of Neander, and we often miss the careful estimation of
  the more important results of later research. In regard to modern
  church history, notwithstanding every effort after objectivity
  and impartiality, theological sympathies are quite apparent. On
  the other hand, in the comprehensive _History of the Christian
  Church_ by =Philip Schaff= (in 8 vols., Edinb., 1885, reaching
  down to Gregory VIII., A.D. 1073), the rich results of research
  subsequent to the time of Neander are fully and circumspectly
  wrought up in harmony with the general principles of Neander’s
  view of history. Herzog’s _ Realencyclopædie für protest. Theol.
  u. Kirche_, especially in its 2nd ed. by Herzog and Plitt, and
  after the death of both, by Hauck (18 vols., Leipz., 1877 ff.),
  has won peculiar distinction in the department of church history
  from the contributions of new and powerful writers. Lichtenberger,
  formerly Prof. of Theol. in Strassburg, now in Paris, in his
  _Encyclopédie des sciences relig. _ has produced a French work
  worthy of a place alongside that of Herzog. _The Dictionary of
  Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines during
  the first eight centuries_, edited with admirable circumspection
  and care by Dr. Wm. Smith and Prof. Wace, combines with a
  completeness and richness of contents never reached before,
  a thoroughgoing examination of the original sources. (4 vols.,
  Lond., 1877 ff.) =Weingarten’s= Chronological Tables for Church
  History (_Zeittafeln z. K.G._ 2nd ed., Brl., 1874) are most
  useful to students as the latest and best helps of that kind.

  § 5.6. In the Catholic Church of Germany too a great activity has
  been displayed in the realm of church history. First of all in
  general Church history we have the diffuse work of the convert
  =von Stolberg= (_Gesch. d. Rel. Jesu_, 15 vols., down to A.D. 430,
  Hamb., 1806 ff., continued by von Kerz, vols. 16-45, and by
  Brischar, vols. 46-52, Mainz, 1825-1859), spreading out into
  hortatory and uncritical details. The elegant work of =Katerkamp=
  (_K.G._, 5 vols., down to 1153, Münst., 1819 ff.) followed it,
  inspired by a like mild spirit, but conceived in a more strictly
  scientific way. Liberal, so far as that could be without breaking
  with the hierarchy, is the _Handbuch der K.G._ (3 vols., Bonn,
  1826 ff.; 6th ed. by Ennen, 2 vols., 1862), by =I. Ign. Ritter=.
  The ample and detailed _Gesch. d. Chr. Rel. u. d. K._ (8 vols.,
  down to 1073, Ravensb., 1824 ff.) of =Locherer= reminds one of
  Schröckh’s work in other respects than that of its voluminousness.
  A decidedly ultramontane conception of church history, with
  frequent flashes of sharp wit, first appears in =Hortig’s=
  _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Landsh., 1826). =Döllinger= in 1828 publ. as
  a 3rd vol. of this work a _Handbuch d. Neuern K.G._, which, with
  a similar tendency, assumed a more earnest tone. This theologian
  afterwards undertook a thoroughly new and independent work of a
  wider range, which still remains incomplete (_Gesch. d. chr. K._,
  I. 1, 2, partially down to A.D. 630, Landsh., 1833-1835). This
  work with ostensible liberality exposed the notorious fables
  of Romish historical literature; but, on the other hand, with
  brilliant ingenuity, endeavoured carefully to preserve intact
  everything which on ultramontane principles and views might seem
  capable of even partial justification. His _Lehrbuch_ (I. II. 1.,
  Rgsb., 1836 ff.), reaching down only to the Reformation, treats
  the matter in a similar way, and confines itself to a simple
  statement of acknowledged facts. In the meantime =J. A. Möhler=,
  by his earlier monographical works, and still more decidedly
  by his far-reaching influence as a Professor at Tübingen, gave
  rise to an expectation of the opening up of a new epoch in the
  treatment of Catholic church history. He represented himself
  as in spiritual sympathy with the forms and means of Protestant
  science, although in decided opposition and conflict with its
  contents, maintaining his faithful adhesion to all elements
  essential to Roman Catholicism. This master, however, was
  prevented by his early death, † 1838, from issuing his complete
  history. This was done almost thirty years after his death by
  Gams, who published the work from his posthumous papers (_K. G._,
  3 vols., Rgsb., 1867 ff.), with much ultramontane amendment. It
  shows all the defects of such patchwork, with here and there,
  but relatively, very few fruitful cases. Traces of his influence
  still appear in the spirit which pervades the _Lehrbücher_
  proceeding from his school, by Alzog († 1878) and Kraus. The
  _Universalgeschichte d. K._, by =J. Alzog= (Mainz, 1841; 9th ed.,
  2 vols., 1872; transl. into Engl., 3 vols., Lond., 1877), was,
  in its earlier editions, closely associated with the lectures of
  his teacher, not ashamed even to draw from Hase’s fresh-sparkling
  fountains something at times for his own yet rather parched
  meadows, but in his later editions he became ever more
  independent, more thorough in his investigation, more fresh and
  lively in his exposition, making at the same time a praiseworthy
  endeavour at moderation and impartiality of judgment, although
  his adhesion to the Catholic standpoint grows more and more
  strict till it reaches its culmination in the acceptance of the
  dogma of Papal Infallibility. The 10th ed. of his work appeared
  in 1882 under the supervision of Kraus, who contributed much to
  its correction and completion. The _Lehrbuch_ of =F. Xav. Kraus=
  of Freiburg (2nd ed., Trier, 1882) is without doubt among all
  the Roman Catholic handbooks of the present the most solid from
  a scientific point of view, and while diplomatically reserved
  and carefully balanced in its expression of opinions, one of
  the most liberal, and it is distinguished by a clever as well as
  instructive mode of treatment. On the other hand, the Würzburgian
  theologian, =J. Hergenröther= (since 1879 Cardinal and Keeper of
  the Papal Archives at Rome), who represents the normal attitude
  of implicit trust in the Vatican, has published a _Handbuch_
  (2 vols. in 4 parts, Freib., 1876 ff.; 2nd ed., 1879, with a
  supplement: Sources, Literat., and Foundations). In this work
  he draws upon the rich stores of his acknowledged scholarship,
  which, however, often strangely forsakes him in treating of the
  history of Protestant theology. It is a skilful and instructive
  exposition, and may very fitly be represented as “a history of
  the church, yea, of the whole world, viewed through correctly set
  Romish spectacles.” Far beneath him in scientific importance, but
  in obstinate ultramontanism far above him, stands the _Lehrbuch_
  of =H. Bruck [Brück]= (2nd ed., Mainz, 1877). A far more solid
  production is presented in the _Dissertatt. selectæ in hist.
  ecclst._ of Prof. =B. Jungmann= of Louvain, which treat in
  chronological succession of parties and controversies prominent
  in church history, especially of the historical development of
  doctrine, in a thorough manner and with reference to original
  documents, not without a prepossession in favour of Vaticanism
  (vols. i.-iii., Ratisb., 1880-1883, reaching down to the end
  of the 9th cent.). The _Kirchenlexikon_ of Wetzer and Wette
  (12 vols., Freib., 1847 ff.) gained a prominent place on account
  of the articles on church history contributed by the most eminent
  Catholic scholars, conceived for the most part in the scientific
  spirit of Möhler. The very copious and of its kind admirably
  executed 2nd ed. by Kaulen (Freib., 1880 ff.), under the
  auspices of Card. Hergenröther, is conceived in a far more
  decidedly Papistic-Vatican spirit, which often does not
  shrink from maintaining and vindicating even the most glaring
  productions of mediæval superstition, illusion and credulity,
  as grounded in indubitable historical facts. Much more
  important is the historical research in the _Hist. Jahrbuch
  der Görres-Gesellschaft_, edited from 1880 by G. Hüffer, and
  from 1883 by B. Gramich, which presents itself as “a means of
  reconciliation for those historians with whom Christ is the
  middle point of history and the Catholic Church the God-ordained
  institution for the education of the human race.”--In the French
  Church the following are the most important productions: the
  _Hist. de l’égl._ of =Berault-Bercastel= (24 vols., Par., 1778
  ff.), which have had many French continuators and also a German
  translator (24 vols., Vienna, 1784 ff.); the _Hist. ecclst.
  depuis la création_, etc., of =Baron Henrion=, ed. by Migne
  (25 vols., Par., 1852 ff.); and the very diffuse compilation,
  wholly devoted to the glorification of the Papacy and its
  institutions, _Hist. universelle de l’égl. Cath._ of the Louvain
  French Abbé Rohrbacher (29 vols., Par., 1842 ff.; of which an
  English transl. is in course of publication). Finally, the
  scientifically careful exposition of the Old Catholic =J. Rieks=,
  _Gesch. d. chr. K. u. d. Papstthums_, Lahr., 1882, though in some
  respects onesided, may be mentioned as deserving of notice for its
  general impartiality and love of the truth.




              HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.

               The pre-Christian World preparing the way
                        of the Christian Church.


               § 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY.

  The middle point of the epochs and developments of the human race is
the incarnation of God in Christ. With it begins, upon it rests, the
fulness of the time (Gal. iv. 4), and toward it the whole pre-Christian
history is directed as anticipatory or progressive. This preparation has
its beginning in the very cradle of humanity, and is soon parted in the
two directions of Heathenism and Judaism. In the former case we have the
development of merely human powers and capacities; in the latter case
this development is carried on by continuous divine revelation. Both
courses of development, distinguished not only by the means, but also by
the task undertaken and the end aimed at, run alongside of one another,
until in the fulness of the time they are united in Christianity and
contribute thereto the fruits and results of what was essential and
characteristic in their several separate developments.


                            § 7. HEATHENISM.

  The primitive race of man, surrounded by rich and luxuriant forms
of nature, put this abundance of primeval power in the place of the
personal and supramundane God. Surrounded by such an inexhaustible
fulness of life and pleasures, man came to look upon nature as more
worthy of sacrifice and reverence than a personal God removed far off
into supramundane heights. Thus arose heathenism as to its general
features: a self-absorption into the depths of the life of nature,
a deification of nature, a worshipping of nature (Rom. i. 21 ff.),
therefore, the religion of nature, in accordance with which, too,
its moral character is determined. Most conspicuously by means of its
intellectual culture has heathenism given preliminary aid to the church
for the performing of her intellectual task. And even the pagan empire,
with its striving after universal dominion, as well as the active
commercial intercourse in the old heathen world, contributed in
preparing the way of the church.

  § 7.1. =The Religious Character of Heathenism.=--The hidden
  powers of the life of nature and the soul, not intellectually
  apprehended in the form of abstract knowledge, but laid hold of
  in immediate practice, and developed in speculation and mysticism,
  in natural magic and soothsaying, and applied to all the
  relations of human life, seemed revelations of the eternal spirit
  of nature, and, mostly by means of the intervention of prominent
  personalities and under the influence of various geographical
  and ethnographical peculiarities, produced manifold systems of
  the religion of nature. Common to all, and deeply rooted in the
  nature of heathenism, is the distinction between the _esoteric_
  religion of the priests, and the _exoteric_ religion of the
  people. The former is essentially a speculative ideal pantheism;
  the latter is for the most part a mythical and ceremonial
  polytheism. The religious development of heathenism has
  nevertheless been by no means stripped of all elements of truth.
  Apart from casual remnants of the primitive divine revelation,
  which, variously contorted on their transmission through heathen
  channels, may lie at the foundation or be inwrought into its
  religious systems, the hothouse-like development of the religion
  of nature has anticipated many a religious truth which, in the
  way of divine revelation, could only slowly and at a late period
  come to maturity, but has perverted and distorted it to such a
  degree that it was little better than a caricature. To this class
  belong, for example, the pantheistic theories of the Trinity and
  the Incarnation, the dualistic acknowledgment of the reality of
  evil, etc. To this also especially belongs the offering of human
  victims which has been practised in all religions of nature
  without exception,--a terrible and to some extent prophetic cry
  of agony from God-forsaken men, which is first toned down on
  Golgotha into hymns of joy and thanksgiving. Witness is given to
  the power and energy, with which the religions of nature in the
  time of their bloom took possession of and ruled over the minds
  and emotions of men, by the otherwise unexampled sacrifices
  and self-inflictions, such as hecatombs, offerings of children,
  mutilation, prostitution, etc., to which its votaries submitted,
  and not less the almost irresistible charm which it exercised
  again and again upon the people of Israel during the whole course
  of their earlier history. It also follows from this that the
  religion of heathenism does not consist in naked lies and pure
  illusions. There are elements of truth in the lies, which gave
  this power to the religion of nature. There are anticipations
  of redemption, though these were demoniacally perverted, which
  imparted to it this charm. There are mysterious phenomena of
  natural magic and soothsaying which seemed to establish their
  divine character. But the worship of nature had the fate of all
  unnatural, precocious development. The truth was soon swallowed
  up by the lies, the power of development and life, of which more
  than could possibly be given was demanded, was soon consumed and
  used up. The blossoms fell before the fruit had set. Mysteries
  and oracles, magic and soothsaying, became empty forms, or organs
  of intentional fraud and common roguery. And so it came to pass
  that one harauspex could not look upon another without laughing.
  Unbelief mocked everything, superstition assumed its most absurd
  and utterly senseless forms, and religions of an irrational
  mongrel type sought in vain to quicken again a nerveless and
  soulless heathenism.

  § 7.2. =The Moral Character of Heathenism.=--Religious character
  and moral character go always hand in hand. Thus, too, the moral
  life among heathen peoples was earnest, powerful, and true,
  or lax, defective, and perverse, in the same proportion as was
  the religious life of that same period. The moral faults of
  heathenism flow from its religious faults. It was a religion of
  the present, to whose gods therefore were also unhesitatingly
  ascribed all the imperfections of the present. In this way
  religion lost all its power for raising men out of the mire and
  dust surrounding them. The partly immoral myths sanctioned or
  excused by the example of the gods the grossest immoralities. As
  the type and pattern of reproductive power in the deified life
  of nature, the gratification of lust was often made the central
  and main point in divine service. The idea of pure humanity was
  wholly wanting in heathenism. It could only reach the conception
  of nationality, and its virtues were only the virtues of citizens.
  In the East despotism crushed, and in the West fierce national
  antipathies stifled the acknowledgment of, universal human rights
  and the common rank of men, so that the foreigner and the slave
  were not admitted to have any claims. As the worth of man was
  measured only by his political position, the significance of
  woman was wholly overlooked and repudiated. Her position was at
  most only that of the maid of the man, and was degraded to the
  lowest depths in the East by reason of the prevalent polygamy.
  Notwithstanding all these great and far-reaching moral faults,
  heathenism, in the days of its bloom and power, at least in those
  departments of the moral life, such as politics and municipal
  matters, in which pantheism and polytheism did not exert
  their relaxing influence, had still preserved much high moral
  earnestness and an astonishing energy. But when the religion of
  their fathers, reduced to emptiness and powerlessness, ceased to
  be the soul and bearer of those departments of life, all moral
  power was also withdrawn from them. The moral deterioration
  reached its culminating point in the dissolute age of the Roman
  Emperors. In this indescribable state of moral degeneration, the
  church found heathenism, when it began its spiritual regeneration
  of the world.

  § 7.3. =The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism.=--The
  intellectual culture of heathenism has won in regard to the
  church a twofold significance. On the one hand it affords a
  pattern, and on the other it presents a warning beacon. Pagan
  science and art, in so far as they possess a generally culturing
  influence and present to the Christian church a special type
  for imitation, are but the ultimate results of the intellectual
  activity which manifested itself among the Greeks and Romans
  in philosophy, poetry and historical writing, which have in two
  directions, as to form and as to contents, become the model for
  the Christian church, preparing and breaking up its way. On the
  one side they produced forms for the exercise of the intellectual
  life, which by their exactness and clearness, by their variety
  and many-sidedness, afforded to the new intellectual contents of
  Christianity a means for its formal exposition and expression.
  But, on the other side, they also produced, from profound
  consideration of and research into nature and spirit, history
  and life, ideas and reflections which variously formed an
  anticipation of the ideas of redemption and prepared the soil
  for their reception. The influence, however, on the other hand,
  which oriental forms of culture had upon the development and
  construction of the history of redemption, had already exhausted
  itself upon Judaism. What the symbolism of orientalism had
  contributed to Judaism, namely the form in which the divine
  contents communicated by Old Testament prophesy should be
  presented and unfolded, the dialectic of classical heathenism was
  to Christianity, in which the symbolic covering of Judaism was to
  be torn off and the thought of divine redemption to be manifested
  and to be laid hold of in its purely intellectual form. The
  influence of heathenism upon the advancing church in the other
  direction as affording a picture of what was to be avoided, was
  represented not less by Eastern culture than by the classical
  culture of the Greeks and Romans. Here it was exclusively the
  contents, and indeed the ungodly anti-Christian contents, the
  specifically heathen substance of the pagan philosophy, theosophy,
  and mysteriosophy, which by means of tolerated forms of culture
  sought to penetrate and completely paganize Christianity. To
  heathenism, highly cultured but pluming itself in the arrogance
  of its sublime wisdom, Christianity, by whose suggestive
  profundity it had been at first attracted, appeared altogether
  too simple, unphilosophical, unspeculative, to satisfy the
  supposed requirements of the culture of the age. There was needed,
  it was thought, fructification and enriching by the collective
  wisdom of the East and the West before religion could in truth
  present itself as absolute and perfect.

  § 7.4. =The Hellenic Philosophy.=--What is true of Greek-Roman
  culture generally on its material and formal sides, that it
  powerfully influenced Christianity now budding into flower,
  is preeminently true of the Greek Philosophy. Regarded as
  a prefiguration of Christianity, Greek philosophy presents
  a negative side in so far as it led to the dissolution of
  heathenism, and a positive side in so far as it, by furnishing
  form and contents, contributed to the construction of
  Christianity. From its very origin Hellenic philosophy
  contributed to the negative process by undermining the people’s
  faith in heathenism, preparing for the overthrow of idolatry, and
  leading heathenism to take a despondent view of its own future.
  It is with =Socrates=, who died in B.C. 399, that the positive
  prefiguring of Christianity on the part of Greek philosophy comes
  first decidedly into view. His humble confession of ignorance,
  his founding of the claim to wisdom on the Γνῶθι σεαυτόν,
  the tracing of his deepest thoughts and yearnings back to
  divine suggestions (his Δαιμόνιον), his grave resignation to
  circumstances, and his joyful hope in a more blessed future,
  may certainly be regarded as faint anticipations and prophetic
  adumbrations of the phenomena of Christian faith and life.
  =Plato=, who died B.C. 348, with independent speculative and
  poetic power, wrought the scattered hints of his teacher’s wisdom
  into an organically articulated theory of the universe, which
  in its anticipatory profundity approached more nearly to the
  Christian theory of the universe than any other outside the range
  of revelation. His philosophy leads men to an appreciation of his
  God-related nature, takes him past the visible and sensible to
  the eternal prototypes of all beauty, truth and goodness, from
  which he has fallen away, and awakens in him a profound longing
  after his lost possessions. In regard to matter =Aristotle=, who
  died B.C. 322, does not stand so closely related to Christianity
  as Plato, but in regard to form, he has much more decidedly
  influenced the logical thinking and systematizing of later
  Christian sciences. In these two, however, are reached the
  highest elevation of the philosophical thinking of the Greeks,
  viewed in itself as well as in its positive and constructive
  influence upon the church. As philosophy down to that time,
  consciously or unconsciously, had wrought for the dissolution
  of the religion of the people, it now proceeded to work its own
  overthrow, and brought into ever deeper, fuller and clearer
  consciousness the despairing estimate of the world regarding
  itself. This is shown most significantly in the three schools
  of philosophy which were most widely spread at the entrance of
  the church into the Græco-Roman world, Epicureanism, Stoicism,
  and Scepticism. =Epicurus=, who died B.C. 271, in his philosophy
  seeks the highest good in pleasure, recognises in the world only
  a play of fortune, regards the soul as mortal, and supposes that
  the gods in their blissful retirement no longer take any thought
  about the world. =Stoicism=, founded by Zeno, who died in B.C.
  260, over against the Epicurean deism set up a hylozoistic
  pantheism, made the development of the world dependent upon the
  unalterable necessity of fate, which brings about a universal
  conflagration, out of which again a new world springs to follow
  a similar course. To look on pleasure with contempt, to scorn
  pain, and in case of necessity to end a fruitless life by
  suicide--these constitute the core of all wisdom. When he has
  reached such a height in the mastery of self and of the world the
  wise man is his own god, finding in himself all that he needs.
  Finally, in conflict with Stoicism arose the =Scepticism= of the
  _New Academy_, at the head of which were Arcesilaus who died B.C.
  240 and Carneades who died B.C. 128. This school renounced all
  knowledge of truth as something really unattainable, and in the
  moderation (ἐποχή) of every opinion placed the sum of theoretic
  wisdom, while it regarded the sum of all practical wisdom to
  consist in the evidence of every passionate or exciting effort.

  § 7.5. =The Heathen State.=--In the grand endeavour of heathenism
  to redeem itself by its own resources and according to its own
  pleasure, the attempt was finally made by the concentration of
  all forces into one colossal might. To gather into one point all
  the mental and bodily powers of the whole human race, and through
  them also all powers of nature and the products of all zones
  and lands, and to put them under one will, and then in this
  will to recognise the personal and visible representation of the
  godhead--to this was heathenism driven by an inner necessity.
  Hence arose a struggle, and in consequence of the pertinacity
  with which it was carried on, one kingdom after another was
  overthrown, until the climax was reached in the Roman empire.
  Yet even this empire was broken and dissolved when opposed by the
  spiritual power of the kingdom of God. Like all the endeavours
  of heathenism, this struggle for =absolute sovereignty= had a
  twofold aspect; there are thereby made prominent men’s own ways
  and God’s ways, the undivine aims of men, and the blessed results
  which God’s government of the world could secure for them. We
  have here to do first of all simply with the Roman universal
  empire, but the powers that rose in succession after it are only
  rejuvenations and powerful continuations of the endeavour of the
  earlier power, and so that is true of every state which is true
  of the Roman. Its significance as a preparer of the way for the
  church is just this, that in consequence of the articulation of
  the world into one great state organisation, the various stages
  and elements of culture found among the several civilized races
  hitherto isolated, contributed now to one universal civilization,
  and a rapid circulation of the new life-blood driven by the
  church through the veins of the nations was made possible and
  easy. With special power and universal success had the exploits
  of Alexander the Great in this direction made a beginning, which
  reached perfection under the Roman empire. The ever advancing
  prevalence of one language, the Greek, which at the time of the
  beginning of the church was spoken and understood in all quarters
  of the Roman empire, which seemed, like a temporary suspension
  of the doom of the confusion of languages which accompanied the
  rise of heathenism (Gen. xi.), to celebrate its return to the
  divine favour, belongs also pre-eminently to those preparatory
  influences. And as the heathen state sought after the
  concentration of all might, =Industry= and =Trade=, moved by
  the same principle, sought after the concentration of wealth and
  profit. But as worldly enterprise for its own ends made paths for
  universal commerce over wastes and seas, and visited for purposes
  of trade the remotest countries and climes, it served unwittingly
  and unintentionally the higher purposes of divine grace by
  opening a way for the spread of the message of the gospel.


                             § 8. JUDAISM.

  In a land which, like the people themselves, combined the character
of insular exclusiveness with that of a central position in the ancient
world, Israel, on account of the part which it was called to play in
universal history, had to be the receiver and communicator of God’s
revelations of His salvation, had to live quiet and apart, taking
little to do with the world’s business; having, on the other hand, the
assurance from God’s promise that disasters threatened by heathenish
love of conquest and oppression would be averted. This position and
this task were, indeed, only too often forgotten. Only too often did
the Israelites mix themselves up in worldly affairs, with which they
had no concern. Only too often by their departure from their God did
they make themselves like the heathen nations in religion, worship,
and conversation, so that for correction and punishment they had
often to be put under a heavy yoke. Yet the remnant of the holy seed
(Isa. iv. 3; vi. 13) which was never wholly wanting even in times of
general apostasy, as well as the long-suffering and faithfulness of
their God, ensured the complete realisation of Israel’s vocation, even
though the unspiritual mass of the people finally rejected the offered
redemption.

  § 8.1. =Judaism under special Training of God through the Law and
  Prophecy.=--Abraham was chosen as a single individual (Isa. li. 2),
  and, as the creator of something new, God called forth from an
  unfruitful womb the seed of promise. As saviour and redeemer
  from existing misery He delivered the people of promise from the
  oppression of Egyptian slavery. In the Holy Land the family must
  work out its own development, but in order that the family might
  be able unrestrainedly to expand into a great nation, it was
  necessary that it should first go down into Egypt. Moses led the
  people thus disciplined out of the foreign land, and gave them
  a theocratic constitution, law, and worship as means for the
  accomplishment of their calling, as a model and a schoolmaster
  leading on to future perfection (Gal. iii. 24; Heb. x. 1). The
  going out of Egypt was the birth of the nation, the giving of
  the law at Sinai was its consecration as a holy nation. Joshua
  set forth the last condition for an independent people, the
  possession of a country commensurate with the task of the nation,
  a land of their own that would awaken patriotic feelings. Now the
  theocracy under the form of a purely popular institution under
  the fostering care of the priesthood could and should have borne
  fruit, but the period of the Judges proves that those two factors
  of development were not sufficient, and so now two new agencies
  make their appearance; the Prophetic order as a distinct and
  regular office, constituted for the purpose of being a mouth
  to God and a conscience to the state, and the Kingly order for
  the protecting of the theocracy against hurt from without and
  for the establishment of peace within her borders. By David’s
  successes the theocracy attained unto a high degree of political
  significance, and by Solomon’s building of the temple the typical
  form of worship reached the highest point of its development.
  In spite, however, of prophecy and royalty, the people, ever
  withdrawing themselves more and more from their true vocation,
  were not able outwardly and inwardly to maintain the high level.
  The division of the kingdom, internal feuds and conflicts,
  their untheocratic entanglement in the affairs of the world, the
  growing tendency to fall away from the worship of Jehovah and
  to engage in the worship of high places, and calves, and nature,
  called down incessantly the divine judgments, in consequence of
  which they fell a prey to the heathen. Yet this discipline was
  not in vain. Cyrus decreed their return and their independent
  organization, and even prophecy was granted for a time to the
  restored community for its establishment and consolidation. Under
  these political developments has prophecy, in addition to its
  immediate concern with its own times in respect of teaching,
  discipline, and exhortation, given to the promise of future
  salvation its fullest expression, bringing a bright ray of
  comfort and hope to light up the darkness of a gloomy present.
  The fading memories of the happy times of the brilliant victories
  of David and the glorious peaceful reign of Solomon formed the
  bases of the delineations of the future Messianic kingdom, while
  the disasters, the suffering and the humiliation of the people
  during the period of their decay gave an impulse to Messianic
  longings for a Messiah suffering for the sins of the people
  and taking on Himself all their misery. And now, after it
  had effected its main purpose, prophecy was silenced, to be
  reawakened only in a complete and final form when the fulness
  of time had come.

  § 8.2. =Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy.=--The time had
  now come when the chosen people, emancipated from the immediate
  discipline of divine revelation, but furnished with the results
  and experiences of a rich course of instruction, and accompanied
  by the law as a schoolmaster and by the light of the prophetic
  word, should themselves work out the purpose of their calling.
  The war of extermination which Antiochus Epiphanes in his heathen
  fanaticism waged against Judaism, was happily and victoriously
  repelled, and once more the nation won its political independence
  under the Maccabees. At last, however, owing to the increasing
  corruption of the ruling Maccabean family, they were ensnared by
  the craft of the Roman empire. The Syrian religious persecution
  and the subsequent oppression of the Romans roused the national
  spirit and the attachment to the religion of their fathers to the
  most extreme exclusiveness, fanatical hatred, and proud scorn of
  everything foreign, and converted the Messianic hope into a mere
  political and frantically carnal expectation. True piety more
  and more disappeared in a punctilious legalism and ceremonialism,
  in a conceited self-righteousness and boastful confidence in
  their own good works. Priests and scribes were eagerly bent
  on fostering this tendency and increasing the unsusceptibility
  of the masses for the spirituality of the redemption that was
  drawing nigh, by multiplying and exaggerating external rules
  and by perverse interpretation of scripture. But in spite of all
  these perverting and far-reaching tendencies, there was yet in
  quiet obscurity a sacred plantation of the true Israel (John i. 47;
  Luke i. 6; ii. 25, 38, etc.), as a garden of God for the first
  reception of salvation in Christ.

  § 8.3. =The Synagogues.=--The institution of the =Synagogues=
  was of the greatest importance for the spread and development of
  post-exilian Judaism. They had their origin in the consciousness
  that, besides the continuance of the symbolical worship of the
  temple, a ministry of the word for edification by means of the
  revelation of God in the law and the prophets was, after the
  withdrawal of prophecy, all the more a pressing need and duty.
  But they also afforded a nursery for the endeavour to widen and
  contract the law of Moses by Rabbinical rules, for the tendency
  to external legalism and hypocrisy, for the national arrogance
  and the carnal Messianic expectations, which from them passed
  over into the life of the people. On the other hand, the
  synagogues, especially outside of Palestine, among the dispersion,
  won a far-reaching significance for the church by reason of
  their missionary tendency. For here where every Sabbath the holy
  scripture of the Old Testament was read in the Greek translation
  of the Septuagint and expounded, a convenient opportunity was
  given to heathens longing for salvation to gain acquaintance with
  the revelations and promises of God in the Old Covenant, and here
  there was already a place for the first ministers of the gospel,
  from which they could deliver their message to an assembled
  multitude of people from among the Jews and Gentiles. (Schürer,
  “Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.” Div. ii.,
  vol. 2., “The School and Synagogue.” pp. 44-89, Edin., 1885.)

  § 8.4. =Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.=--The strict,
  traditionally legalistic, carnally particularistic tendency
  of Post-Exilian Judaism had its representatives and supporters
  in the sect of the =Pharisees= (פְרוּשִׁים, ἀφωρισμένοι), so called
  because their main endeavour was to maintain the strictest
  separation from everything heathenish, foreign, and ceremonially
  unclean. By their ostentatious display of zeal for the law, their
  contempt for everything not Jewish, their democratic principles
  and their arrogant patriotism, they won most completely the
  favour of the people; they shared the evil fortunes of the
  Maccabean princes, and became the bitterest enemies of the
  Herodians, and entertained a burning fanatical hatred to the
  Romans. They held sway in the synagogues to such an extent
  that the names Scribes and Pharisees were regarded as almost
  synonymous, and even in the Sanhedrim they secured many seats.
  In the times of Jesus the schools of Hillel and Shammai contended
  with one another, the former pleading for somewhat lax views,
  especially in reference to divorce and the obligation of oaths,
  while the latter insisted upon the most rigorous interpretation
  of the law. Both, however, were agreed in the recognition of oral
  tradition, the παραδόσεις τῶν πατέρων, as a binding authority and
  an essential supplement to the law of Moses. In direct opposition
  to them stand the =Sadducees=, out of sympathy with the
  aspirations of the people, and abandoning wholly the sacred
  traditions, and joining themselves in league with the Herodians
  and Romans. The name originally designated them as descendants of
  the old temple aristocracy represented by the family of the high
  priest Zadok, and, in consequence of the similarity in sound
  between צַדּוּקיִם and צַדּיִקיִם, gave expression to their claim to be
  regarded as essentially and truly righteous because of their
  outward adherence to the Mosaic law. Proceeding on the principle
  that virtue as a free act of man has in it its own worth and
  reward, just as vice has in it its own punishment, they rejected
  the doctrine of a future judgment, denied the doctrine of a
  resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits, and the
  doctrine of the divine foreknowledge.[2] The =Essenes=, not
  mentioned in the Bible, but named by Philo, Josephus, and the
  elder Pliny, form a third sect. Their name was probably derived
  from חֲסֵא, pious. The original germ of their society is found
  in distinct colonies on the banks of the Dead Sea, which kept
  apart from the other Jews, and recognised even among themselves
  four different grades of initiation, each order being strictly
  separated from the others. A member was received only after
  a three years’ novitiate, and undertook to keep secret the
  mysteries of the order. Community of goods in the several
  communities and clans, meals in common accompanied by religious
  ceremonies, frequent prayers in the early morning with the face
  directed to the rising sun, oft repeated washings and cleansings,
  diligent application to agriculture and other peaceful
  occupations, abstaining from the use of flesh and wine, from
  trade and every warlike pursuit, from slavery and taking of
  oaths, perhaps also abstinence from marriage in the higher orders,
  were the main conditions of membership in their association.
  The Sabbath was observed with great strictness, but sacrifices
  of blood were abolished, and all anointing with oil was regarded
  as polluting. They still, however, maintained connection with
  Judaism by sending gifts to the temple. So far the order may
  fairly be regarded, as it is by Ritschl, as a spiritualizing
  exaggeration of the Mosaic idea of the priestly character that
  had independently grown up on Jewish soil, and indeed especially
  as an attempt to realize the calling set forth in Exod. xix. 5, 6,
  and repudiated in Exod. xx. 19, 20, unto all Israelites to be a
  spiritual priesthood. But when, on the other hand, the Essenes,
  according to Josephus, considered the body as a prison in which
  the soul falling from its ethereal existence is to be confined
  until freed from its fetters by death it returns again to heaven,
  this can scarcely be explained as originating from any other than
  a heathen source, especially from the widely spread influences
  of Neo-Pythagoreanism (§ 24). Lucius (1881) derives the name
  and seeks their origin from the Asidæans, Chasidim, or Pious,
  in 1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 13; and 2 Macc. xiv. 6. Very striking
  too is Hilgenfeld’s carefully weighed and ably sustained theory
  (_Ketzergesch._, pp. 87-149), that their descent is to be traced
  from the Kenite Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.; Judg. i. 16), and their
  name from the city Gerasa, west of the Dead Sea, called in
  Josephus also Essa, where the Rechabites, abandoning their tent
  life, formed a settlement. In the time of Josephus the Essenes
  numbered about four thousand. In consequence of the Jewish war,
  which brought distress upon them, as well as upon the Christians,
  they were led into friendly relations with Christianity; but even
  when adopting the Christian doctrines, they still carried with
  them many of their earlier tenets (§ 28, 2, 3).[3]


                           § 9. SAMARITANISM.

  The Samaritans, who came into existence at the time of the overthrow
of the kingdom of Israel, from the blending of Israelitish and
heathenish elements, desired fellowship with the Jewish colony that
returned from the Babylonish captivity, but were repelled on account
of their manifold compromises with pagan practice. And although an
expelled Jew named Manasseh purified their religion as far as possible
of heathenish elements, and gave them a temple and order of worship on
Mount Gerizim, this only increased the hatred of the Jews against them.
Holding fast to the Judaism taught them by Manasseh, the Samaritans
never adopted the refinements and perversions of later Judaism. Their
Messianic expectations remained purer, their particularism less severe.
While thus rendered capable of forming a more impartial estimate of
Christianity, they were also inclined upon the whole, because of the
hatred and contempt which they had to endure from Pharisaic Judaism,
to look with favour upon Christianity despised and persecuted as they
themselves had been (John iv. 41; Acts viii. 5 ff.). On the other hand,
the syncretic-heathen element, which still flourished in Samaritanism,
showed its opposition to Christianity by positive reactionary attempts
(§ 25, 2).[4]


           § 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM.

  Alexander the Great’s conquest of the world brought into connection
with one another the most diverse elements of culture in antiquity.
Least of all could Judaism outside of Palestine, the _diaspora_, living
amid the influences of heathen or Hellenic culture and ways of viewing
things, withdraw itself from the syncretic current of the age. The Jews
of Eastern Asia maintained a closer connection and spiritual affinity
with the exclusive Palestinian Rabbinism, and the heathen element,
which here penetrated into their religious conceptions, became, chiefly
through the Talmud, the common property of post-Christian Judaism. But
heathenism also, contemptible as Judaism appeared to it, was susceptible
to Jewish influences, impressed by the deeper religious contents of
Judaism, and though only sporadic, instances of such influence were by
no means rare.

  § 10.1. =Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism.=--This reached
  its greatest strength in Egypt, the special centre and source of
  the syncretic tendencies of the age. Forming for itself by means
  of the adoption of Greek culture and especially of the Platonic
  philosophy a more universal basis of culture, Jewish Hellenism
  flourished in Alexandria. After Aristobulus, who wrote Ἐξηγήσεις
  τῆς Μωυσέως, about B.C. 170, now only found in a fragment
  of doubtful authority, and the author of the Book of Wisdom,
  the chief representative of this tendency was the Alexandrian
  Jew Philo, a contemporary of Christ. His Platonism enriched
  by elements drawn from Old Testament revelation and from
  the doctrines of the Essenes has on many points carried its
  speculation to the very borders of Christianity, and has formed
  a scaffolding for the Christian philosophy of the Church Fathers.
  He taught that all nations have received a share of divine truth,
  but that the actual founder and father of all true philosophy
  was Moses, whose legislation and teaching formed the source of
  information for even the Greek Philosophy and Mysteriosophy.
  But it is only by means of allegorical interpretation that such
  depths can be discovered. God is τὸ ὄν, matter τὸ μὴ ὄν. An
  intermediate world, corresponding to the Platonic world of ideas,
  is the κόσμος νοητός, consisting of innumerable spirits and
  powers, angels and souls of men, but bound together into a unity
  in and issuing from the Word of God, who as the λόγος ἐνδιαθετός
  was embraced in God from eternity, coming forth from God as the
  λόγος προφορικός for the creation of the world (thought and word).
  The visible world, on account of the physical impotence of matter,
  is an imperfect representation of the κόσμος νοητός, etc. On the
  ground of the writing _De vita contemplativa_ attributed to Philo,
  the =Therapeutæ=, or worshippers of God, mentioned therein, had
  been regarded as a contemplative ascetic sect related to the
  Essenes, affected by an Alexandrian philosophical spirit, living
  a sort of monastic life in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, until
  Lucius (Strassb., 1879) withdrew them from the domain of history
  to that of Utopian romance conceived in support of a special
  theory. This scholar has proved that the writing referred to
  cannot possibly be assigned to Philo, but must have been composed
  about the end of the third century in the interest of Christian
  monasticism, for which it presented an idealizing apology. This,
  however, has been contested by Weingarten, in Herzog, x. 761, on
  good grounds, and the origin of the book has been assigned to a
  period soon after Philo, when Hellenistic Judaism was subjected
  to a great variety of religious and philosophical influences.[5]

  § 10.2. =Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism.=--The heathen
  state showed itself generally tolerant toward Judaism. Alexander
  the Great and his successors, the Ptolemies, to some extent
  also the Seleucidæ, allowed the Jews the free exercise of
  their religion and various privileges, while the Romans allowed
  Judaism to rank as a _religio licita_. Nevertheless the Jews were
  universally despised and hated. Tacitus calls them _despectissima
  pars servientium, teterrima gens_; and even the better class of
  writers, such as Manetho, Justin, Tacitus, gave currency to the
  most absurd stories and malicious calumnies against them. In
  opposition to these the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus took
  pains to overcome the prejudices of Greeks and Romans against
  his nation, by presenting to them its history and institutions
  in the most favourable light. But on the other side, the Greek
  translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, as well
  as the multitude of Jewish synagogues, which during the Roman
  period were scattered over the whole world, afforded to every
  heathen interested therein the opportunity of discovering by
  personal examination and inquiry the characteristic principles
  of Judaism. When, therefore, we consider the utterly corrupt
  condition of heathenism, we cannot wonder that Judaism, in spite
  of all the contempt that was thrown upon it, would attract,
  by reason of its hoary antiquity and the sublime simplicity of
  its creed, the significance of its worship, and its Messianic
  promises, many of the better aspiring heathens, who were no
  longer satisfied with their sorely degraded forms of religion.
  And though indeed only a few enrolled themselves as “_Proselytes
  of Righteousness_,” entering the Jewish community by submitting
  to the rite of circumcision, the number of the “_Proselytes of
  the Gate_” who without observing the whole of the ceremonial law
  undertook to abandon their idols and to worship Jehovah, in all
  ranks of society, mostly women, was very considerable, and it
  was just among them that Christianity found the most hearty and
  friendly acceptance.


                       § 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME.

  The fulness of the olden time had come when the dawn of a new era
burst forth over the mountains of Judea. All that Judaism and heathenism
had been able to do in preparing the way for this new era had now been
done. Heathenism was itself conscious of its impotence and unfitness
for satisfying the religious needs of the human spirit, and wherever it
had not fallen into dreary unbelief or wild superstition, it struggled
and agonized, aspiring after something better. In this way negatively
a path was prepared for the church. In science and art, as well as in
general intellectual culture, heathenism had produced something great
and imperishable; and ineffectual as these in themselves had proved to
restore again to man the peace which he had lost and now sought after,
they might become effectually helpful for such purposes when made
subservient to the true salvation. And so far heathenism was a positive
helper to the church. The impression that a crisis in the world’s
history was near at hand was universal among Jews and Gentiles. The
profound realization of the need was a presage of the time of fulfilment.
All true Israelites waited for the promised Messiah, and even in
heathenism the ancient hope of the return of the Golden Age was again
brought to the front, and had, from the sacred scriptures and synagogues
of the Jews, obtained a new holding ground and a definite direction.
The heathen state, too, made its own contribution toward preparing the
way of the church. One sceptre and one language united the whole world,
a universal peace prevailed, and the most widely extended commercial
intercourse gave opportunity for the easy and rapid spread of saving
truth.




                     THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.

         The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles.


           § 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.

  The propriety in a treatise on general church history of separating
the Times of Jesus and the Times of the Apostles, closely connected
therewith, from the History of the Development of the Church, and
giving to them a distinct place under the title of the History of the
Beginnings, rests on the fact that in those times we have the germs and
principles of all that follows. The unique capacity of the Apostles,
resulting from special enlightenment and endowment, makes that which
they have done of vital importance for all subsequent development. In
our estimation of each later form of the church’s existence we must
go back to the doctrine and practice of Christ and His Apostles as the
standard, not as to a finally completed form that has exhausted all
possibilities of development, and made all further advance and growth
impossible or useless, but rather as to the authentic fresh germs and
beginnings of the church, so that not only what in later development is
found to have existed in the same form in the beginning is recognised as
genuinely Christian, but also that which is seen to be a development and
growth of that primitive form.




                         I. THE LIFE OF JESUS.


             § 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

  “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. iv. 4, 5). In
accordance with prophetic announcements, He was born in Bethlehem as the
Son of David, and, after John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of
the Old Covenant, had prepared His way by the preaching of repentance
and the baptism of repentance, He began in the thirtieth year of His age
His fulfilment by life and teaching of the law and the prophets. With
twelve chosen disciples He travelled up and down through the land of the
Jews, preaching the kingdom of God, helping and healing, and by miracles
and signs confirming His divine mission and doctrine. The Pharisees
contradicted and persecuted Him, the Sadducees disregarded Him, and
the people vacillated between acclamations and execrations. After
three years’ activity, amid the hosannas of the multitude, He made His
royal entry into the city of His kingly ancestors. But the same crowd,
disappointed in their political and carnal Messianic expectations, a
few days later raised the cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him! Thus then He
suffered according to the gracious good pleasure of the Father the death
of the cross for the sins of the world. The Prince of life, however,
could not be holden of death. He burst the gates of Hades, as well as
the barriers of the grave, and rose again the third day. For forty days
He lingered here below, promised His disciples the gift of His Holy
Spirit, and commissioned them to preach the gospel to all nations. Then
upon His ascension He assumed the divine form of which He had emptied
Himself during His incarnation, and sits now at the right hand of power
as the Head of His church and the Lord of all that is named in heaven
and on earth, until visibly and in glory, according to the promise, He
returns again at the restitution of all things.

  § 13.1. In regard to the =year of the birth= and the =year of the
  death= of the Redeemer no absolutely certain result can now be
  attained. The usual Christian chronology constructed by Dionysius
  Exiguus in the sixth century, first employed by the Venerable
  Bede, and brought into official use by Charlemagne, assumes the
  year 754 A.U.C. as the date of Christ’s birth, which is evidently
  wrong, since, in A.D. 750 or 751, Herod the Great was already
  dead. Zumpt takes the seventh, others the third, fourth, or fifth
  year before our era. The length of Christ’s public ministry was
  fixed by many Church Fathers, in accordance with Isaiah lxi. 1, 2,
  and Luke iv. 19, at one year, and it was consequently assumed
  that Christ was crucified when thirty years of age (Luke iii. 21).
  The synoptists indeed speak only of one passover, the last,
  during Christ’s ministry; but John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1) speaks
  of three, and also besides (v. 1) of a ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

  § 13.2. Among the non-biblical =witnesses to Christ= the earliest
  is probably a Syrian Epistle of =Mara= to his son Serapion,
  written, according to Cureton (“_Spicileg. Syriacum_.” Lond.,
  1855), about A.D. 73. The father, highly cultured in Greek wisdom
  but dissatisfied with it, writes from exile words of comfort
  and exhortation to his son, in which he places Christ alongside
  of Socrates and Pythagoras, and honours him as the wise King,
  by whose death the Jews had brought upon themselves the swift
  overthrow of their kingdom, who would, however, although slain,
  live for ever in the new land which He has given. To this period
  also belongs the witness of the Jewish historian =Josephus=,
  which in its probably genuine portions praises Jesus as a worker
  of miracles and teacher of wisdom, and testifies to His death on
  the cross under Pilate, as well as the founding of the church in
  His name. Distinctly and wholly spurious is the =Correspondence
  of Christ with Abgar=, Prince of Edessa, who entreats Christ
  to come to Edessa to heal him and is comforted of the Lord by
  the sending of one of His disciples after His ascension. This
  document was first communicated by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, i. 13)
  from the Archives of Edessa in a literal translation from the
  Syriac, and is also to be found in the Syrian book _Doctrina
  Addæi_ (§ 32, 6). Of a similar kind are the apocryphal =Acta
  Pilati=, as well the heathen form which has perished (§ 22, 7),
  as the Christian form which is still extant (§ 32, 4). An
  =Epistle of Lentulus,= pretending to be from a Roman resident
  in Palestine on terms of intimacy with Pilate, containing a
  description of the appearance of Christ, is quoted, and even then
  as a forgery, by Laurentius Valla in his writing on the _Donation
  of Constantine_. Since in many particulars it agrees with the
  description of the person of Christ given in the Church History
  by Nicephorus Callisti (§ 5, 1), in accordance with the type then
  prevailing among Byzantine painters, it may fairly be regarded
  as an apocryphal Latin retouching of that description originating
  in the fifteenth century. At Edessa a picture of Christ was known
  to exist in the fourth century (according to the _Doctr. Addæi_),
  which must have been brought thither by the messengers of Abgar,
  who had picked it up in Jerusalem. During the fourth century
  mention is made of a statue of Christ, first of all by Eusebius,
  who himself had seen it. This was said to have been set up in
  Paneas by the woman cured of the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20).
  It represents a woman entreating help, kneeling before the lofty
  figure of a man who stretches out his hand to her, while at his
  feet a healing herb springs up. In all probability, however,
  it was simply a votive figure dedicated to the god of healing,
  Æsculapius. The legend that has been current since the fifth
  century of the sweat-marked handkerchief of =Veronica=--this name
  being derived either from _vera icon_, the true likeness, or from
  Bernice or Beronice, the name given in apocryphal legends to the
  woman with the issue of blood,--on which the face of the Redeemer
  which had been wiped by it was imprinted, probably arose through
  the transferring to other incidents the legendary story of Edessa.
  On the occurrence of similar transferences see § 57, 5.




                         II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
                              A.D. 30-70.


            § 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL.

  After the Apostolate had been again by means of the lot raised to the
significant number of twelve, amid miraculous manifestations, the Holy
Spirit was poured out on the waiting disciples as they were assembled
together on the day of Pentecost, ten days after the Ascension of the
Lord. It was the birthday of the church, and its first members were
won by the preaching of Peter to the wondering multitude. By means of
the ministry of the Apostles, who at first restricted themselves to
Jerusalem, the church grew daily. A keen persecution, however, on the
part of the Jews, beginning with the execution of the deacon Stephen,
scattered them apart, so that the knowledge of the gospel was carried
throughout all Palestine, and down into Phœnicia and Syria. Philip
preached with peculiarly happy results in Samaria. Peter soon began a
course of visitation through the land of Jews, and at Cæsarea received
into the church by baptism the first Gentile family, that of Cornelius,
having been prepared for this beforehand by a vision. At the same time
there arose independently at Antioch in Syria a Christian congregation,
composed of Jews and Gentiles, through the great eagerness of the
Gentiles for salvation. The Levite Barnabas, a man of strong faith, was
sent down from Jerusalem, took upon himself the care of this church, and
strengthened his own ministry by securing Paul, the converted Pharisee,
as his colleague. This great man, some years before, by the appearing of
Christ to him on the way to Damascus, had been changed from a fanatical
persecutor into a zealous friend and promoter of the interests of the
church. Thus it came about that the Apostolic mission broke up into
two different sections, one of which was purely Jewish and had for its
centre and starting point the mother church at Jerusalem, while the
other, issuing from Antioch, addressed itself to a mixed audience, and
preeminently to the Gentiles.

  It is difficult to determine with chronological exactness
  either the =beginning= (§ 13, 1) or the =close of the Apostolic
  Age=. Still we cannot be far wrong in taking A.D. 30 as the
  beginning and A.D. 70 as the close of that period. The last
  perfectly certain and uncontested date of the Apostolic Age is
  the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in A.D. 64, or perhaps A.D. 67,
  see § 15, 1. We have it on good evidence that James the elder
  died about A.D. 44, and James the Just about A.D. 63 (§ 16, 3),
  that Peter suffered martyrdom contemporaneously with Paul
  (§ 16, 1), that about the same time or not long after the most of
  the other Apostles had been in all probability already taken home,
  at least in regard to their life and work after the days of Paul,
  we have not the slightest information that can lay any claim
  to be regarded as historical. The Apostle John forms the only
  exception to this statement. According to important witnesses
  from the middle and end of the second century (§ 16, 2), he
  entered upon his special field of labour in Asia Minor after
  the death of Paul, and continued to live and labour there, with
  the temporary interruption of an exile in Patmos, down to the
  time of Trajan, A.D. 98-117. But the insufficient data which
  we possess regarding the nature, character, extent, success,
  and consequences of his Apostolic activity there are partly,
  if not in themselves altogether incredible, interesting only
  as anecdotes, and partly wholly fabulous, and therefore little
  fitted to justify us, simply on their account, in assigning the
  end of the first or the beginning of the second century as the
  close of the Apostolic Age. We are thus brought back again to
  the year of Paul’s death as indicating approximately the close of
  that period. But seeing that the precise year of this occurrence
  is matter of discussion, the adoption of the round number 70 may
  be recommended, all the more as with this year, in which the last
  remnant of Jewish national independence was lost, the opposition
  between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which had prevailed
  throughout the Apostolic Age, makes its appearance under a new
  phase (§ 28).


                § 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

  Set apart to the work by the church by prayer and laying on of hands,
Paul and Barnabas started from Antioch on their =first= missionary
journey to Asia Minor, A.D. 48-50. Notwithstanding much opposition
and actual persecution on the part of the enraged Jews, he founded
mixed churches, composed principally of Gentile Christians, comprising
congregations at Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. When
Paul undertook his =second= missionary journey, A.D. 52-55, Barnabas
separated himself from him because of his refusal to accept the company
of his nephew John Mark, who had deserted them during their first
journey, and along with Mark embarked upon an independent mission,
beginning with his native country Cyprus; of the success of this mission
nothing is known. Paul, on the other hand, accompanied by Silas and
Luke, with whom at a later period Timothy also was associated, passed
through Asia Minor, and would thereafter have returned to Antioch had
not a vision by night at Troas led him to take ship for Europe. There he
founded churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth,
and then returned through Asia Minor to Syria. Without any lengthened
interval he entered upon his =third= missionary journey, A.D. 55-58,
accompanied by Luke, Titus, and Timothy. The centre of his ministerial
activity during this period was Ephesus, where he founded a church with
a large membership. His success was extraordinary, so that the very
existence of heathenism in Asia Minor was seriously imperilled. Driven
away by the uprising of a heathen mob, he travelled through Macedonia,
pressed on to Illyricum, visited the churches of Greece, and then went
to Jerusalem, for the performance of a vow. Here his life, threatened
by the excited Jews, was saved by his being put in prison by the Roman
captain, and then sent down to Cæsarea, A.D. 58. An appeal to Cæsar, to
which as a Roman citizen he was entitled, resulted in his being sent to
Rome, where he, beginning with the spring of A.D. 61, lived and preached
for several years, enduring a mild form of imprisonment. The further
course of his life and ministry remains singularly uncertain. Of the
later labours and fortunes of Paul’s fellow-workers we know absolutely
nothing.

  It may be accepted as a well authenticated and incontestable
  fact that =Paul= suffered =martyrdom= at Rome under Nero. This
  is established by the testimony of Clement of Rome--μαρτυρήσας
  ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κοσμοῦ,--and is further
  explained and confirmed by Dionysius of Corinth, quoted in
  Eusebius, and by Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius of Rome (§ 16, 1). On
  the other hand it is disputed whether it may have happened during
  the imprisonment spoken about in the Acts of the Apostles, or
  during a subsequent imprisonment. According to the tradition of
  the church given currency to by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, ii. 22),
  which even in our own time has been maintained by many capable
  scholars, Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment
  shortly before the outburst of Nero’s persecution of the
  Christians in A.D. 64 (§ 22, 1), and made a fourth missionary
  journey which was brought to a close by his being a second
  time arrested and subsequently beheaded at Rome in A.D. 67. The
  proofs, however, that are offered in support of this assertion
  are of a very doubtful character. Paul certainly in A.D. 58
  had the intention (Rom. xv. 24, 28) after a short visit to Rome
  to proceed to Spain; and when from his prison in Rome he wrote
  to Philemon (v. 22) and to the Philippians (i. 25; ii. 24), he
  believed that his cherished hope of yet regaining his liberty
  would be realised; but there is no further mention of a journey
  into Spain, for apparently other altogether different plans of
  travel are in his mind. And indeed circumstances may easily be
  conceived as arising to blast such hopes and produce in him that
  spirit of hopeless resignation, which he gives expression to
  in 2 Tim. iv. 6 ff. But the words of Clement of Rome, chap. 5:
  δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
  ἐλθών, etc., are too indefinite and rhetorical to be taken as
  a certain testimony on behalf of a Spanish missionary journey.
  The incomplete reference in the Muratorian Fragment (§ 36, 8)
  to a _profectio Pauli ab Urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis_ may
  be thought to afford more direct testimony, but probably it is
  nothing more than a reminiscence of Rom. xv. 24, 28. Much more
  important, nay almost conclusive, in the opposite direction, is
  the entire absence, not only from all the patristic, but also
  from all the apocryphal, literature of the second and third
  centuries, of any allusion to a fourth missionary journey or a
  second imprisonment of the Apostle. The assertion of Eusebius
  introduced by a vague λόγος ἔχει can scarcely be regarded as
  outweighing this objection. Consequently the majority of modern
  investigators have decided in favour of the theory of one
  imprisonment. But then the important question arises as to
  whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, claiming to be Pauline,
  with the journeys referred to or presupposed in them, and the
  residences of the Apostle and his two assistants, can find
  a place in the framework of the narrative in the Acts of the
  Apostles, and if so, what that place may be. In answering this
  question those investigators take diverse views. Of those who
  cannot surrender their conviction that the Pastoral Epistles
  are genuine, some assign them to the Apostle’s residence of
  almost three years in Ephesus, others to the imprisonment in
  Cæsarea which lasted two years and a half, and others to the
  Roman imprisonment of almost three years. Others again, looking
  upon such expedients as inadmissible, deny the authenticity of
  the Pastoral Epistles, these having appeared to them worthy of
  suspicion on other grounds.


             § 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE
                          OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

  Only in reference to the most distinguished of the Apostles have any
trustworthy accounts reached us. James the brother of John, at an early
period, in A.D. 44, suffered a martyr’s death at Jerusalem. Peter was
obliged by this persecution to quit Jerusalem for a time. Inclination
and his special calling marked him out as the Apostle of the Jews
(Gal. ii. 7-9). His ministry outside of Palestine was exercised,
according to 1 Pet. i. 1, in the countries round about the Black Sea,
and, according to chap. v. 13, extended to Babylon. The legend that,
contemporaneously with the beheading of Paul, he suffered death by
crucifixion under Nero at Rome (John xxi. 18, 19), is doubtful; and
it is also questionable whether he ever went to Rome, while the story
of his having down to the time of his death been Bishop of Rome for
twenty-five years is wholly fabulous. John, according to the tradition
of the church, took up Asia Minor as his special field of labour after
it had been deprived of its first Apostle by the martyr death of Paul,
fixing his residence at Ephesus. At the head of the mother church of
Jerusalem stood James the Just, the brother of the Lord. He seems never
to have left Jerusalem, and was stoned by the Jews between A.D. 63-69.
Regarding the rest of the Apostles and their fellow-workers we have only
legendary traditions of an extremely untrustworthy description, and even
these have come down to us in very imperfect and corrupt forms.

  § 16.1. =The Roman Episcopate of Peter.=--The tradition that
  Peter, after having for some years held the office of bishop
  at Antioch, became first Bishop of Rome, holding the office for
  twenty-five years (A.D. 42-67), and suffered martyrdom at the
  same time with Paul, had its origin in the series of heretical
  apocryphal writings, out of which sprang, both the romance of the
  Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (§ 28, 3), and the Ebionite
  Acts of Peter; but it attained its complete form only at the end
  of the fourth century, after it had been transplanted into the
  soil of the church tradition through the _Acta Petri et Pauli_
  (§ 32, 6). What chiefly secured currency and development to this
  tradition was the endeavour, ever growing in strength in Rome,
  to vindicate on behalf of the Roman Episcopate as the legitimate
  successor and heir to all the prerogatives alleged to have been
  conferred on Peter in Matt. xvi. 18, a title to primacy over all
  the churches (§ 34, 8; 46, 3 ff.). But that Peter had not really
  been in Rome as a preacher of the gospel previous to the year
  A.D. 61, when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner, is evident from the
  absence of any reference to the fact in the Epistle to the Romans,
  written in A.D. 58, as well as in the concluding chapter of the
  Acts of the Apostles. According to the Acts, Peter in A.D. 44
  lay in prison at Jerusalem, and according to Gal. ii., he was
  still there in A.D. 51. Besides, according to the unanimous
  verdict of tradition, as expressed by Irenæus, Eusebius, Rufinus,
  and the Apostolic Constitutions, not Peter, but Linus, was the
  first Bishop of Rome, and it is only in regard to the order of
  his successors, Anacletus and Clement, that any real uncertainty
  or discrepancy occurs. This, indeed, by no means prevents us
  from admitting an appearance of Peter at Rome resulting in his
  martyrdom. But the testimonies in favour thereof are not of such
  a kind as to render its historical reality unquestionable. That
  Babylon is mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 13 as the place where this
  Epistle was composed, can scarcely be used as a serious argument,
  since the supposition that Babylon is a symbolical designation
  of Rome as the centre of anti-Christian heathenism, though quite
  conceivable and widely current in the early church, is not by any
  means demonstrable. Toward the end of the first century, Clement
  of Rome relates the martyrdom of Peter as well as of Paul, but
  he does not even say that it took place at Rome. On the other
  hand, clear and unmistakable statements are found in Dionysius
  of Corinth, about A.D. 170, then in Caius of Rome, in Irenæus
  and Tertullian, to the effect that Peter and Paul exercised
  their ministry together and suffered martyrdom together at Rome.
  These statements, however, are interwoven with obviously false
  and fabulous dates to such a degree that their credibility is
  rendered extremely doubtful. Nevertheless they prove this much,
  that already about the end of the second century, the story
  of the two Apostles suffering martyrdom together at Rome was
  believed, and that some, of whom Caius tells us, professed to
  know their graves and to have their bones in their possession.

  § 16.2. =The Apostle John.=--Soon after the death of Paul, the
  Apostle John settled in Ephesus, and there, with the temporary
  break caused by his exile to Patmos (Rev. i. 9), he continued
  to preside over the church of Asia Minor down to his death in
  the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). This rests upon the church
  tradition which, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus., _Hist.
  Eccl._, v. 24) and Irenæus, a scholar of Polycarp’s (Eus., iv. 14),
  was first set forth during the Easter controversies (§ 37, 2)
  in the middle of the second century by Polycarp of Smyrna, and
  has been accepted as unquestionable through all ages down to our
  own. According to Irenæus (Eus., iii. 18), his exile occurred
  under Domitian; the Syrian translation of the Apocalypse, which
  was made in the sixth century, assigned it to the time of Nero.
  But seeing that, except in Rev. i. 11, neither in the New
  Testament scriptures, nor in the extant writings and fragments
  of the Church Fathers of the second century before Irenæus, is
  a residence of the Apostle John at Ephesus asserted or assumed,
  whereas Papias (§ 30, 6), according to Georgius Hamartolus, a
  chronicler of the 9th cent., who had read the now lost work of
  Papias, expressly declares that the Apostle John was slain “by
  Jews” (comp. Matt. xx. 23), which points to Palestine rather
  than to Asia Minor, modern critics have denied the credibility
  of that ecclesiastical tradition, and have attributed its origin
  to a confusion between the Apostle John and a certain John the
  Presbyter, with whom we first meet in the Papias-Fragment quoted
  in Eusebius as μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου. Others again, while regarding
  the residence of the Apostle at Ephesus as well established, have
  sought, on account of differences in style standpoint and general
  mode of thought in the Johannine Apocalypse on the one hand, and
  the Johannine Gospel and Epistles on the other hand, to assign
  them to two distinct μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου of the same name, and
  by assigning the Apocalypse to the Presbyter and the Gospel and
  Epistles to the Apostle, they would in this way account for the
  residence at Ephesus. This is the course generally taken by the
  Mediation theologians of Schleiermacher’s school. The advanced
  liberal critics of the school of Baur assign the Apocalypse to
  the Apostle and the Gospel and Epistles to the Presbyter, or else
  instead of the Apostle assume a third John otherwise unknown.
  Conservative orthodox theology again maintains the unity of
  authorship of all the Johannean writings, explains the diversity
  of character discernible in the different works by a change on
  the part of the Apostle from the early Judæo-Christian standpoint
  (Gal. ii. 9), which is still maintained in the Apocalypse, to
  the ideal universalistic standpoint assumed in the Gospel and
  the Epistles, and is inclined to identify the Presbyter of Papias
  with the Apostle. Even in Tertullian we meet with the tradition
  that under Nero the Apostle had been thrown into a vat of boiling
  oil, and in Augustine we are told how he emptied a poisoned cup
  without suffering harm. It is a charming story at least that
  Clement of Alexandria tells of the faithful pastoral care which
  the aged Apostle took in a youth who had fallen so far as to
  become a bandit chief. Of such a kind, too, is the story told of
  the Apostle by Jerome, how in the extreme weakness of old age he
  had to be carried into the assemblies of the congregation, and
  with feeble accents could only whisper, Little children, love one
  another. According to Irenæus, when by accident he met with the
  heretic Cerinthus (§ 27, 1) in the bath, he immediately rushed
  out to avoid any contact with him.

  § 16.3. =James, the brother of the Lord.=--The name of James was
  borne by two of the twelve disciples of Jesus: James, the son of
  Zebedee and brother of John, who was put to death by the command
  of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) about A.D. 44, and James,
  son of Alphæus, about whom we have no further information. A
  third James, designated in Gal. i. 19 the brother of the Lord,
  who according to Hegesippus (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 23) on
  account of his scrupulous fulfilment of the law received the
  title of the Just, is met with in Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18,
  and is recognised by Paul (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9-12) as the President
  of the church in Jerusalem. According to Hegesippus (§ 31, 7),
  he was from his childhood a Nazirite, and shortly before the
  destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews at the Passover having desired
  of him a testimony against Christ, and he having instead given
  a powerful testimony on His behalf, he was hurled down from a
  pinnacle of the temple, stoned, and at last, while praying for
  his enemies, slain by the blows of a fuller’s club. According
  to Josephus, however, Ananus, the high priest, after the recall
  of the Proconsul Festus and before the arrival of his successor
  Albinus, along with other men hostile to James, hastily condemned
  him and had him stoned, about A.D. 63. In regard to the person of
  this last-named James three different theories have been proposed.

    a. In the ancient church, the brothers of Jesus, of whom besides
       James other three, Joses, Simon, and Judas, are named, were
       regarded undoubtedly as step-brothers of Jesus, sons of
       Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25), and even Tertullian argues
       from the existence of brothers of the Redeemer according to
       the flesh against the Docetism of the Gnostics.

    b. Soon, however, it came to be felt that the idea that Joseph
       had conjugal intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus
       was in conflict with the ascetic tendency now rising into
       favour, and so to help themselves out of this embarrassment,
       it was assumed that the brothers of Jesus were sons of
       Joseph by a former wife.

    c. The want of biblical foundation for this view was the
       occasion of its being abandoned in favour of a theory,
       first hinted at by Jerome, according to which the expression
       brothers of Jesus is to be taken in a wider sense as meaning
       cousins, and in this way James the brother of the Lord was
       identified with James the son of Alphæus, one of the twelve
       disciples, and the four or five Jameses named in the New
       Testament were reduced to two, James the son of Zebedee
       and James son of Alphæus. It was specially urged from
       John xix. 25 that James the son of Alphæus was the sister’s
       son of Jesus’ mother. This was done by a purely arbitrary
       identification of the name Clopas or Cleophas with the
       Alphæus of the Synoptists, the rendering of the words Μαρία
       τοῦ Κλωπᾶ by the wife of Clopas, and also the assumption,
       which is scarcely conceivable, that the sister of the mother
       of Jesus was also called Mary. We should therefore in this
       passage regard the sister of the mother of Jesus and Mary
       wife of Clopas as two distinct persons. In that case the
       wife of Alphæus may have been called Mary and have had two
       sons who, like two of the four brothers of Jesus, were named
       James and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10);
       but even then, in the James here mentioned, we should meet
       with another James otherwise unknown, different from the
       James son of Alphæus in the list of the Apostles, whose name
       occurs in Luke xv. 16 and Acts i. 13 in the phrase Judas of
       James, where the genitive undoubtedly means brother of James
       son of Alphæus. And though in Gal. i. 19, James the brother
       of the Lord seems to be called an Apostle, when this is
       compared with Acts xiv. 14, it affords no proof that he
       belonged to the number of the twelve.

  But the fact that the brothers of Jesus are all and always
  expressly distinguished from His twelve Apostles, and form a
  group outwardly and inwardly apart from them (Matt. xii. 46;
  Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12), tells decidedly against
  that idea. In John vii. 3, 5, they are, at a time when James
  son of Alphæus and Judas brother of James were already in the
  Apostolate, described as unbelieving, and only subsequently to
  the departure of the Lord, who after His resurrection appeared
  to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), do we meet them, though even then
  distinguished from the twelve, standing in the closest fellowship
  with the Christian believing community (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5).
  Besides, in accordance with Matt. xxviii. 19, none of the twelve
  could assume the permanent presidency of the mother church, and
  Hegesippus not only knows of πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι, and so surely of
  more than two, but makes James enter upon his office in Jerusalem
  first μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων.

  § 16.4. =The Later Legends of the Apostles.=--The tradition that
  after the Lord’s ascension His disciples, their number having
  been again made up to twelve (Acts i. 13), in fulfilment of
  their Lord’s command (Matt. xxviii. 18), had a special region
  for missionary labour assigned by lot to each, and also the other
  tradition, according to which, before their final departure from
  Jerusalem, after a stay there for seven or twelve years, they
  drew up by common agreement rules for worship, discipline and
  constitution suited to the requirements of universal Christendom,
  took shape about the middle of the second century, and gave
  occasion to the origin of many apocryphal histories of the
  Apostles (§ 32, 5, 6), as well as apocryphal books of church
  order (§ 43, 4, 5). Whether any portion at all, and if so, how
  much, of the various contradictory statements of the apocryphal
  histories and legends of the Apostles about their mission
  fields and several fortunes can be regarded as genuine tradition
  descending from the Apostolic Age, must be left undecided. In any
  case, the legendary drapery and embellishment of casual genuine
  reminiscences are in the highest degree fantastic and fabulous.
  Ancient at least, according to Eusebius, are the traditions
  of Thomas having preached in Parthia, Andrew in Scythia, and
  Bartholomew in India; while in later traditions Thomas figures
  as the Apostle of India (§ 32, 5). The statement by Eusebius,
  supported from many ancient authorities, that the Apostle Philip
  exercised his ministry from Hierapolis in Phrygia to Asia Minor,
  originated perhaps from the confounding of the Apostle with the
  Evangelist of the same name (Acts xxi. 8, 9). A history of the
  Apostle Barnabas, attributed to John Mark, but in reality dating
  only from the fifth century, attaching itself to Acts xv. 39,
  tells how he conducted his mission and suffered martyrdom in his
  native country of Cyprus; while another set of legends, probably
  belonging to the same period, makes him the founder of the church
  of Milan. John Mark, sister’s son of Barnabas, who appears in
  Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and Philem. 24, as the fellow-labourer
  of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Pet. v. 13 as companion of Peter at
  Babylon, and, according to Papias, wrote his gospel at Rome as
  the amanuensis of Peter, is honoured, according to another very
  widely received tradition, quoted by Eusebius from a Chronicle
  belonging to the end of the second century, from which also
  Julius Africanus drew information, as the founder and first
  bishop of the church of Alexandria, etc., etc.


            § 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.[6]

  Bound under Christ its one head into an articulated whole, the church
ought by the co-operation of all its members conditioned and determined
by position, talent, and calling, to build itself up and grow (1 Cor.
xii. 12 ff.; Eph. i. 22 f.). Development will thus be secured to natural
talent and the spiritual calling through the bestowment of special gifts
of grace or charismata. The first form of Christian church fellowship,
in the Jewish as well as the Gentile Christian churches, was of a
thoroughly free character; modelled upon, and attached to, forms of
organization already existing and legitimized, or, at least, tolerated
by the state, but all the while inspired and leavened by a free
Christian spirit. Compelled by the necessity which is felt in all social
federations for the recognised ranking of superiority, inferiority, and
equality, in which his own proper sphere and task would be assigned to
each member, and encroachment and disorderliness prevented, a collegial
church council was soon formed by a free compact, the members of which,
all possessed of equal rights, were called πρεσβύτεροι in consideration
of their personal character, and ἐπίσκοποι in consideration of their
official duties. Upon them devolved especially attention and care in
regard to all outward things that might affect the common interests
of the church, management of the property which had to be realised
and spent on the religious services, and of the means required for the
support of the poor, as well as the administration of justice and of
discipline. But alongside of these were other more independent offices,
the holders of which did not go forth like the members of the eldership
as the choice of the churches, but rather had the spiritual edification
of the church assigned them as their life work by a special divine
call and a charismatic endowment of the gift of teaching. To this class
belong, besides Apostles and helpers of the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors,
and Teachers.

  § 17.1. =The Charismata= of the Apostolic Age are presented to us
  in 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. as signs (φανερώσεις, v. 7) of the presence
  of the Spirit of God working in the church, which, attaching
  themselves to natural endowment and implying a free personal
  surrender to their influence, and manifesting themselves in
  various degrees of intensity from the natural to the supernatural,
  qualified certain members of the church with the powers necessary
  and desirable for the upbuilding and extension of the Christian
  community. In verses 8-11, the Charismata are arranged in three
  classes by means of the twice-repeated ἑτέρω.

    1. Gifts of Teaching, embracing the λόγος σοφίας and the λόγος
       γνώσεως.

    2. Completeness of Faith, or πίστις with the possession of
       supernatural powers for healing the sick, working miracles,
       and prophesying, and alongside of the latter, for sifting
       and proving it, διάκρισις πνευμάτων.

    3. Ecstatic speaking with tongues, γένη γλωσσῶν, γλώσσαις
       λαλεῖν, alongside of which is placed the interpretation of
       tongues necessary for the understanding thereof ἑρμενεία
       γλωσσῶν.

  In addition to these three are mentioned, in verse 28, ἀντιλήψεις,
  care of the poor, the sick and strangers, and κυβερνήσεις, church
  government. The essential distinction between speaking with
  tongues and prophesying consists, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 1-18,
  in this, that whereas the latter is represented as an inspiration
  by the Spirit of God, acting upon the consciousness, the νοῦς of
  the prophet, and therefore requiring no further explanation to
  render it applicable for the edification of the congregation,
  the former is represented as an ecstatic utterance, wholly
  uncontrolled by the νοῦς of the human instrument, yet employing
  the human organs of speech, γλῶσσαι, which leaves the assembled
  congregation out of view and addresses itself directly to God,
  so that in ver. 13-15 it is called a προσεύχεσθαι, being made
  intelligible to the audience only by means of the charismatic
  interpretation of men immediately acted upon for the purpose by
  the Spirit of God. In Rom. xii. 6-8, although there the charisms
  are enumerated in even greater details, so as to include even
  the showing of mercy with cheerfulness, the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν is
  wanting. It would thus seem that this sort of spiritual display,
  if not exclusively (Acts ii. 4; x. 46; xix. 6; Mark xvi. 17), yet
  with peculiar fondness, which was by no means commended by the
  Apostle, was fostered in the church of Corinth. The thoroughly
  unique speaking with tongues which took place on the first
  Pentecost (Acts ii. 6, 11) is certainly not to be understood
  as implying that the Apostles had been either temporarily
  or permanently qualified to speak in the several languages
  and dialects of those present from all the countries of the
  dispersion. It probably means simply that the power was conferred
  upon the speakers of speaking with tongues and that at the same
  time an analogous endowment of the interpretation of tongues
  was conferred upon those who heard (Comp., Acts ii. 12, 15, with
  1 Cor. xiv. 22 f. ).

  § 17.2. =The Constitution of the Mother Church at
  Jerusalem.=--The notion which gained currency through Vitringa’s
  learned work “_De synagoga vetere_,” publ. 1696, that the
  constitution of the Apostolic church was moulded upon the pattern
  of the synagogues, is now no longer seriously entertained. Not
  only in regard to the Pauline churches wholly or chiefly composed
  of Gentile Christians, but also in regard to the Palestinian
  churches of purely Jewish Christians, no evidence in support
  of such a theory can be found. There is no sort of analogy
  between any office bearers in the church and the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι
  who were essentially characteristic of all the synagogues
  both in Palestine and among the dispersion (Mark v. 22;
  Luke viii. 41, 49; Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8, 17), nor do we find
  anything to correspond to the ὑπήρεται or inferior officers of
  the synagogue (Luke iv. 20). On the other hand, the office bearers
  of the Christian churches, who, consisting, according to Acts vi.,
  of deacons, and also afterwards, according to Acts xi. 30, of
  πρεσβύτεροι, or elders of the church at Jerusalem, occupied a
  place alongside of the Apostles in the government of the church,
  are without any analogy in the synagogues. The Jewish πρεσβύτεροι
  τοῦ λαοῦ mentioned in Matt. xxi. 23; xxvi. 3; Acts iv. 5; xxii. 5,
  etc., did not exercise a ministry of teaching and edification in
  the numerous synagogues of Jerusalem, but a legislatory, judicial
  and civil authority over the whole Jewish commonwealth as members
  of the Sanhedrim, of chief priest, scribes and elders. Between
  even these, however, and the elders of the Christian church a
  far-reaching difference exists. The Jewish elders are indeed
  representatives of the people, and have as such a seat and vote
  in the supreme council, but no voice is allowed to the people
  themselves. In the council of the Christian church, on the other
  hand, with reference to all important questions, the membership
  of all believers is called together for consultation and
  deliverance (Acts vi. 2-6; xv. 4, 22). A complaint on the part
  of the Hellenistic members of the church that their poor were
  being neglected led to the election of seven men who should care
  for the poor, not by the Apostles, but by the church. This is
  commonly but erroneously regarded as the first institution of
  the deaconship. To those then chosen, for whom the Acts (xxi. 8)
  has no other designation than that of “the seven,” the διακονεῖν
  τραπέζαις is certainly assigned: but they were not and were not
  called Deacons in the official sense any more than the Apostles,
  who still continued, according to v. 4, to exercise the διακονία
  τοῦ λόγου. When the bitter persecution that followed the stoning
  of Stephen had scattered the church abroad over the neighbouring
  countries, they also departed at the same time from Jerusalem
  (Acts viii. 1), and Philip, who was now the most notable of their
  number, officiated henceforth only as an evangelist, that is, as
  an itinerant preacher of the gospel, in the region about his own
  house in Cæsarea (Acts viii. 5; xxi. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim.
  iv. 5). Upon the reorganization of the church at Jerusalem, the
  Apostles beginning more clearly to appreciate their own special
  calling (Matt. xxviii. 19), gave themselves more and more to the
  preaching of the gospel even outside of Jerusalem, and thus the
  need became urgent of an authoritative court for the conducting
  of the affairs of the church even during their absence. In these
  circumstances it would seem, according to Acts xi. 30, that those
  who ministered to the poor, chosen probably from among the most
  honourable of the first believers (Acts ii. 41), passed over into
  a self-constituted college of presbyters. At the head of this
  college or board stood James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19;
  ii. 9; Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 15), and after his death,
  according to Hegesippus, a near relation of the Lord, Simeon,
  son of Clopas, as a descendant of David, was unanimously chosen
  as his successor. The episcopal title, however, just like that of
  Deacon, is first met with in the New Testament in the region of
  the Pauline missions, and in the terminology of the Palestinian
  churches we only hear of presbyters as officers of the church
  (Acts xv. 4, 6, 22; xxi. 18; James v. 14). In 1 Peter v. 2,
  however, although ἐπίσκοπος does not yet appear as an official
  title, the official duty of the ἐπισκοπεῖν is assigned to
  presbyters (see § 17, 6). It is Hegesippus, about A.D. 180, who
  first gives the title Bishop of Jerusalem to James, after the
  Clementines (§ 28, 3) had already ten years previously designated
  him ἐπισκόπων ἐπίσκοπος.

  § 17.3. =The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.= Founding upon
  the works of Mommsen and Foucart, first of all Heinrici and soon
  afterwards the English theologian Hatch[7] has wrought out the
  theory that the constitution of the churches that were wholly
  or mainly composed of Gentile Christians was modelled on those
  convenient, open or elastic rules of associations under which
  the various Hellenistic guilds prospered so well (θίασοι,
  ἔρανοι),--associations for the naturalization and fostering of
  foreign, often oriental, modes of worship. In the same way, too,
  the Christian church at Rome, for social and sacred purposes,
  made use of the forms of association employed in the Collegia or
  Sodalicia, which were found there in large numbers, especially
  of the funeral societies in which both of those purposes were
  combined (_collegia funeraticia_). In both these cases, then,
  the church, by attaching itself to modes of association already
  existing, acknowledged by the state, or tolerated as harmless,
  assumed a form of existence which protected it from the suspicion
  of the government, and at the same time afforded it space and
  time for independent construction in accordance with its own
  special character and spirit. As in those Hellenic associations
  all ranks, even those which in civil society were separated from
  one another by impassable barriers, found admission, and then,
  in the framing of statutes, the reception of fellow members, the
  exercise of discipline, possessed equal rights; as, further, the
  full knowledge of their mysteries and sharing in their exercise
  were open only to the initiated (μεμυημένοι), yet in the exercise
  of exoteric worship the doors were hospitably flung open even to
  the ἀμυήτοι; as upon certain days those belonging to the narrow
  circle joining together in partaking of a common feast; so too
  all this is found in the Corinthian church, naturally inspired
  by a Christian spirit and enriched with Christian contents. The
  church also has its religious common feast in its Agape, its
  mystery in the Eucharist, its initiation in baptism, by the
  administration of which the divine service is divided into two
  parts, one esoteric, to be engaged in only by the baptized,
  the other exoteric, a service that is open to those who are
  not Christians. All ranks (Gal. iii. 28) have the same claim
  to admission to baptism, all the baptized have equal rights in
  the congregation (see § 17, 7). It is evident, however, that
  the connection between the Christian churches and those heathen
  associations is not so to be conceived as if, because in the one
  case distinctions of rank were abolished, so also they were in
  the other; or that, because in the one case religious festivals
  were observed, this gave the first hint as to the observance of
  the Christian Agape; or that, because and in the manner in which
  there a mysterious service was celebrated from which all outside
  were strictly excluded, so also here was introduced an exclusive
  eucharistic service. These observances are rather to be regarded
  as having grown up independently out of the inmost being of
  Christianity; but the church having found certain institutions
  existing inspired by a wholly different spirit, yet outwardly
  analogous and sanctioned by the state, it appropriated, as far
  as practicable, their forms of social organization, in order to
  secure for itself the advantages of civil protection. That even
  on the part of the pagans, down into the last half of the second
  century, the Christian congregational fellowship was regarded as
  a special kind of the mystery-communities, is shown by Lucian’s
  satire, _De morte Peregrini_ (§ 23, 1), where the description
  of Christian communities, in which its hero for a time played
  a part, is full of technical terms which were current in
  those associations. “It is also,” says Weingarten, “expressly
  acknowledged in Tertullian’s _Apologeticus_, c. 38, 39, written
  about A.D. 198, that even down to the close of the second century,
  the Christian church was organized in accordance with the rules
  of the _Collegia funeraticia_, so that it might claim from the
  state the privileges of the _Factiones licitæ_. The arrangements
  for burial and the Christian institutions connected therewith are
  shown to have been carefully subsumed under forms that were
  admitted to be legal.”

  § 17.4. Confining ourselves meantime to the oldest and
  indisputably authentic epistles of the Apostle, we find that
  the autonomy of the church in respect of organization, government,
  discipline, and internal administration is made prominent as
  the very basis of the constitution. He never interferes in those
  matters, enjoining and prescribing by his own authority, but
  always, whether personally or in spirit, only as associated with
  their assemblies (1 Cor. v. 3), deliberating and deciding in
  common with them. Thus his Apostolic importance shows itself not
  in his assuming the attitude of a lord (2 Cor. i. 24), but that
  of a father (1 Cor. iv. 14 f.), who seeks to lead his children
  on to form for themselves independent and manly judgments (1 Cor.
  x. 15; xi. 13). Regular and fixed church officers do not seem to
  have existed in Corinth down to the time when the first Epistle
  was written, about A.D. 57. A diversity of functions (διαιρέσεις
  διακονιῶν, 1 Cor. xii. 4) is here, indeed, already found, but
  not yet definitely attached to distinct and regular offices
  (1 Cor. vi. 1-6). It is always yet a voluntary undertaking of such
  ministries on the one hand, and the recognition of peculiar piety
  and faithfulness, leading to willing submission on the other hand,
  out of which the idea of office took its rise, and from which
  it obtained its special character. This is especially true of
  a peculiar kind of ministry (Rom. xvi. 1, 2) which must soon
  have been developed as something indispensable to the Christian
  churches throughout the Hellenic and Roman regions. We mean
  the part played by the patron, which was so deeply grounded in
  the social life of classical antiquity. Freedmen, foreigners,
  proletarii, could not in themselves hold property and had no
  claim on the protection of the laws, but had to be associated
  as _Clientes_ with a _Patronus_ or _Patrona_ (προστάτης and
  προστάτις) who in difficult circumstances would afford them
  counsel, protection, support, and defence. As in the Greek and
  Roman associations for worship this relationship had long before
  taken root, and was one of the things that contributed most
  materially to their prosperity, so also in the Christian churches
  the need for recognising and giving effect to it became all the
  more urgent in proportion as the number of members increasing
  for whom such support was necessary (1 Cor. i. 26-29). Phœbe
  is warmly recommended in Rom. xvi. 1, 2, as such a Christian
  προστάτις, at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, among whose numerous
  clients the Apostle himself is mentioned. Many inscriptions in
  the Roman catacombs testify to the deep impress which this social
  scheme made upon the organization, especially of the Roman church,
  down to the end of the first century, and to the help which it
  gave in rendering that church permanent. All the more are we
  justified in connecting therewith the προϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ
  (Rom. xii. 8), and in giving this passage in connection with the
  preceding and succeeding context the meaning: whoever represents
  any one as patron let him do it with diligence.--The gradual
  development of stated or independent =congregational offices=,
  after privileges and duties were distinguished from one another,
  was thus brought about partly by the natural course of events,
  and partly by the endeavour to make the church organization
  correspond with the Greek and Roman religious associations
  countenanced by the state by the employment in it of the same
  or similar forms and names. In the older communities, especially
  those in capital cities, like Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, etc.,
  the heads of the families of the first believers attained an
  authoritative position altogether unique, as at Corinth those of
  the household of Stephanas, who, according to 1 Cor. xvi. 15, as
  the ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς.
  Such honour, too, was given to the most serviceable of the
  chosen patrons and others, who evidently possessed the gifts of
  κυβερνήσεις and ἀντιλήψεις, and those who first in an informal
  way had discharged official duties had amends made them even
  after death by a formal election. On the other hand, the
  churches that sprang up at a later period were probably provided
  immediately with such offices under the direction and with the
  consent of the Apostle or his apostolic assistants (1 Tim. v. 9;
  Tit. i. 5).

  § 17.5. =Congregational and Spiritual Offices.=--While then, down
  to A.D. 57 no ecclesiastical offices properly so called as yet
  existed at Corinth, and no injunctions are given by the Apostle
  for their definite introduction, it is told us in Acts xiv. 23
  that, so early as A.D. 50, when Paul was returning from his first
  missionary journey he ordained with prayer and fasting elders
  or presbyters in those churches of Asia Minor previously founded
  by him. Now it is indeed quite conceivable that in these cases
  he adhered more closely to the already existing presbyterial
  constitution of the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30),
  than he did subsequently in founding and giving a constitution
  to the churches of the European cities where perhaps the
  circumstances and requirements were entirely different. But
  be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Apostle on his
  departure from lately formed churches took care to leave them
  in an organized condition, and the author of the Acts has given
  expression to the fact proleptically in terms with which he was
  himself conversant and which were current in his time.--Among the
  Pauline epistles which are scarcely, if at all, objected to by
  modern criticism the first to give certain information regarding
  distinct and independent congregational offices, together
  with the names that had been then assigned to these offices,
  is the Epistle to the Philippians, written during the Roman
  imprisonment of the Apostle. In chap. i. 1, he sends his apostolic
  greeting and blessing πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις
  σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις.[8] The =Episcopate= and the
  =Diaconate= make their appearance here as the two categories
  of congregational offices, of both of which there are several
  representatives in each congregation. It is in the so-called
  Pastoral Epistles that for the first time we find applied in
  the Gentile Christian communities the title of =Presbyter= which
  had been the usual designation of the president in the mother
  church at Jerusalem. This title, just as in Acts xx. 17, 28, is
  undoubtedly regarded as identical with that of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος)
  and is used as an alternative (Tit. i. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 1; iv. 14;
  v. 17, 19). From the practical identity of the qualifications
  of bishops (1 Tim. iii. 1) or of deacons (_v._ 12 f.), it follows
  that their callings were essentially the same; and from the
  etymological signification of their names, it would seem
  that there was assigned to the bishops the duty of governing,
  administrating and superintending, to the deacons that of serving,
  assisting and carrying out details as subordinate auxiliaries. It
  is shown by Rom. xvi. 1, that even so early as A.D. 58, the need
  of a female order of helpers had been felt and was supplied. When
  this order had at a later period assumed the rank of a regular
  office, it became the rule that only widows above sixty years
  of age should be chosen (1 Tim. v. 9).--We are introduced to
  an altogether different order of ecclesiastical authorities in
  Eph. iv. 11, where we have named in the first rank =Apostles=,
  in the second =Prophets=, in the third =Evangelists=, and in the
  fourth =Pastors= and =Teachers=. What is here meant by Apostles
  and Prophets is quite evident (§ 34, 1). From 2 Tim. iv. 5 and
  Acts xxi. 8 (viii. 5), it follows that Evangelists are itinerant
  preachers of the gospel and assistants of the Apostles. It is
  more difficult to determine exactly the functions of Pastors and
  Teachers and their relation to the regular congregational offices.
  Their introduction in Eph. iv. 11, as together constituting a
  fourth class, as well as the absence of the term Pastor in the
  parallel passage, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29, presupposes such a close
  connection of the two orders, the one having the care of souls,
  the other the duties of preaching and catechizing, that we
  unhesitatingly assume that both were, if not always, at least
  generally, united in the same person. They have been usually
  identified with the bishops or presbyters. In Acts xx. 17, 28,
  and in 1 Pet. v. 2-4, presbyters are expressly called pastors.
  The order of the ἡγούμενοι in Heb. xiii. 7, οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν
  τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, has also been regarded as identical with that
  of bishops. In regard to the last named order a confusion already
  appears in Acts xv., where men, who in _v._ 22 are expressly
  distinguished from the elders (presbyters) and in _v._ 32 are
  ranked as prophets, are yet called ἡγούμενοι. We should also
  be led to conclude from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that those who had
  the qualifications of ἀντιλήψεις and κυβερνήσεις, functions
  certainly belonging to bishops or presbyters as administrative
  and diocesan officers, are yet personally distinguished from
  Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers. Now it is explicitly enjoined
  in Tit. i. 9 that in the choice of bishops special care should be
  taken to see that they have capacity for teaching. In 1 Tim. v. 17
  double honour is demanded for the καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι,
  if they also labour ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. This passage, however,
  shows teaching did not always and in all circumstances, or even
  _ex professo_ belong to the special functions of the president
  of the congregation; that it was rather in special circumstances,
  where perhaps these gifts were not at all or not in sufficient
  abundance elsewhere to be found, that these duties of teaching
  were undertaken in addition to their own proper official work of
  presidency (προϊστάναι). The dividing line between the two orders,
  bishops and deacons on the one hand, and pastors and teachers
  on the other, consists in the fundamentally different nature of
  their calling. The former were congregational offices, the latter,
  like those of Apostles and Prophets, were spiritual offices. The
  former were chosen by the congregation, the latter had, like the
  Apostles and Prophets, a divine call, though according to James
  iii. 1 not without the consenting will of the individual, and
  the charismatic capacity for teaching, although not in the
  same absolute measure. The former were attached to a particular
  congregation, the latter were, like the Apostles and Prophets,
  first of all itinerant teachers and had, like them, the task of
  building up the churches (Eph. iv. 12, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος
  τοῦ Χριστοῦ). But, while the Apostles and Prophets laid the
  foundation of this building on Christ, the chief corner stone,
  preachers and teachers had to continue building on the foundation
  thus laid (Eph. ii. 20). A place and importance are undoubtedly
  secured for these three spiritual offices, in so far as continued
  itinerant offices, by the example of the Lord in His preliminary
  sending forth of the twelve in Matt. x., and of the seventy
  disciples in Luke x.--Continuation, § 34, 1.

  § 17.6. =The question about the original position of the
  Episcopate and Presbyterate=, as well as their relation to one
  another, has received three different answers. According to
  the =Roman Catholic= theory, which is also that of the Anglican
  Episcopal Church, the clerical, hierarchical arrangement of the
  third century, which gave to each of the larger communities a
  bishop as its president with a number of presbyters and deacons
  subject to him, existed as a divine institution from the
  beginning. It is unequivocally testified by the New Testament,
  and, as appears from the First Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 42,
  44, 57), the fact had never been disputed down to the close of
  the first century, that bishops and presbyters are identical.
  The force of this objection, however, is sought to be obviated by
  the subterfuge that while all bishops were indeed presbyters, all
  presbyters were not bishops. The ineptitude of such an evasion
  is apparent. In Phil. i. 1 the Apostle, referring to this one
  particular church greeted not one but several bishops. According
  to Acts xx. 17, 28, all the presbyters of the one Ephesian
  community are made bishops by the Holy Ghost. Also, Tit. i. 5, 7
  unconditionally excludes such a distinction; and according to
  1 Pet. v. 2, all such presbyters should be ἐπισκοποῦντες.--In
  opposition to this theory, which received the sanction of the
  Council of Trent, the =Old Protestant= theologians maintained the
  original identity of the two names and offices. In support of
  this they could refer not only to the New Testament, but also to
  Clement of Rome and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (§ 34, 1),
  where, just as in Phil. i. 1, only bishops and deacons are named
  as congregational officers, and as appointed by the free choice
  of the congregation. They can also point to the consensus of the
  most respected church fathers and church teachers of later times.
  Chrysostom (Hom. ix. in _Ep. ad Tim._) says: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι
  τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ
  ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι. Jerome (_ad Tit._ i. 5) says: _Idem
  est presbyter qui et episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu
  studia in religione fierent ... communi presbyterorum concilio
  gubernantur ecclesiæ._ Augustine, and other church fathers of the
  fourth and fifth centuries, as well as Urban II. in A.D. 1091,
  Petrus [Peter] Lombardus and the Decree of Gratian, may all
  be referred to as supporting the same view. After such an
  identification of the person and office, the existence of the two
  names must be explained from their meaning as words, by assuming
  that the title ἐπίσκοπος, which arose among the Gentile-Christian
  churches, pointed more to the duty officially required, while
  the title πρεσβύτερος, which arose among the Jewish-Christian
  churches, pointed more to the honourable character of the person
  (1 Tim. v. 17, 19). The subsequent development of a monarchical
  episcopacy is quite conceivable as having taken place in the
  natural course of events (§ 34, 2).--A third theory is that
  proposed by =Hatch=, of Oxford, in A.D. 1881, warmly approved of
  and vigorously carried out by =Harnack=. According to this theory
  the two names in question answer to a twofold distinction that
  appears in the church courts: on the college of presbyters was
  devolved the government of the community, with administration
  of law and discipline; on the bishops and their assistants the
  superintendence and management of the community in the widest
  sense of the word, including its worship, and first of all and
  chiefly the brotherly care of the poor, the sick and strangers,
  together with the collecting, keeping, and dispensing of
  money needful for those ends. In the course of time the two
  organizations were combined into one, since the bishops, on
  account of their eminently important place and work, obtained
  in the presbytery not only a simple seat and vote, but by-and-by
  the presidency and the casting vote. In establishing this theory
  it is pointed out that in the government and management of
  federations of that time for social and religious purposes
  in country districts or in cities, in imitation of which the
  organization of the Christian communities was formed, this
  twofold distribution is also found, and that especially the
  administrators of the finances in these societies had not only
  the title of ἐπίσκοποι, but had also the president’s seat in
  their assemblies (γερουσία, βουλή), which, however, is not
  altogether conclusive, since it is demonstrable that this title
  was also borne by judicial and political officials. It is also
  pointed out on the other hand that, in accordance with the
  modified view presented in the Pastoral Epistles, the Acts,
  and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the consciousness of the
  original diversity of calling of the two offices were maintained
  throughout the whole of the second century, inasmuch as often a
  theoretical distinction between bishops and presbyters in the way
  specified was asserted. Now, in the first place, it can scarcely
  be matter of dispute as to whether the administration of property,
  with the care of the poor (ἀντιλήψεις) as the principal task,
  could actually have won a place so superior in respectability,
  influence and significance to that of congregational government
  (κυβερνήσεις), or whether the authority which embraced the
  functions of a judicial bench, a court of discipline, and a court
  of equity did not rather come to preponderate over that which was
  occupied in the administration of property and the care of the
  poor. But above all we shall have to examine the New Testament
  writings, as the relatively oldest witnesses to the matter of
  fact as well as to the usage of the language, and see what they
  have to say on the subject. This must be done even by those who
  would have the composition of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts
  removed out of the Apostolic Age. In these writings, however,
  there is nowhere a firm and sure foundation afforded to that
  theory. It has, indeed, been supposed that in Phil. i. 1 mention
  is made only of bishops and deacons because by them the present
  from the Philippians had been brought to the Apostle. But seeing
  that, in the case of there actually existing in Philippi at this
  time besides the bishops a college of presbyters, the omission
  of these from the greeting in this epistle, the chief purpose
  of which was to impart apostolic comfort and encouragement, and
  which only refers gratefully at the close, ch. iv. 10, to the
  contribution sent, would have been damaging to them, we must
  assume that the bishops with their assistants the deacons were
  the only office-bearers then existing in that community. Thus
  this passage tells as much against as in favour of the limiting
  of the episcopal office to economical administration. Often
  as mention is made in the New Testament of an ἐπισκοπεῖν and
  a διακονεῖν in and over the community, this never stands in
  specific and exclusive relation to administration of property and
  care of the poor. It is indeed assumed in Acts xi. 30 that care
  of the poor is a duty of the presbyter; so also the charismatic
  caring for the sick is required of presbyters in James v. 14;
  and in 1 Pet. v. 2 presbyters are described as ἐπισκοποῦντες;
  in 1 Pet. ii. 25 Christ is spoken of as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ψυχῶν;
  in Acts i. 20 the apostolic office is called ἐπισκοπή, while in
  Acts i. 25 and often, especially in the Pauline epistles, it is
  designated a διακονία.[9]--Continuation, § 34, 2.

  § 17.7. =Christian Worship.=--Even in Jerusalem, where the
  temple ordinances were still observed, the religious needs of
  the Christian community demanded that separate services of a
  distinctly Christian character should be organized. But just
  as the Jewish services of that day consisted of two parts--the
  ministry of the word for purposes of instruction and edification
  in the synagogues, and the symbolic service of a typical and
  sacramental character in the temple,--the Christian service was
  in like manner from the first divided into a homiletical-didactic
  part, and a eucharistic-sacramental part.--=The Homiletical and
  Didactic part=, on account of the presence of those who were
  not Christians, must have had, just like the synagogue service,
  alongside of its principal aim to instruct and edify the
  congregation, a definite and deliberately planned missionary
  tendency. The church in Jerusalem at the first held these
  _morning_ services in one of the halls of the temple, where the
  people were wont to assemble for prayer (Acts ii. 46; iii. 1, 11);
  but at a later period they were held in private houses. In the
  Gentile churches they seem from the first to have been held in
  private houses or in halls rented for the purpose. The service
  consisted in reading of portions of the Old Testament, and at a
  later period, portions of the Apostolic Epistles and Gospels, and
  in connection therewith, doctrinal and hortatory discourses, with
  prayer and singing of psalms. It is more than probable that the
  liberty of teaching, which had prevailed in the synagogues (Luke
  ii. 46; iv. 16; Acts xiii. 15), was also permitted in the similar
  assemblies of Jewish Christians (Acts viii. 4; xi. 19; James
  iii. 1); and it may be concluded from 1 Cor. xiv. 34 that this
  also was the practice in Gentile-Christian congregations. The
  apparent contradiction of women as such being forbidden to
  speak, while in 1 Cor. xi. 5 it seems to be allowed, can only be
  explained by supposing that in the passage referred to the woman
  spoken of as praying or prophesying is praying in an ecstasy,
  that is, speaking with tongues (1 Cor. xiv. 13-15), or uttering
  prophetic announcements, like the daughters of Philip (Acts
  xxi. 9), and that the permission applies only to such cases, the
  exceptional nature of which, as well as their temporary character,
  as charismatic and miraculous gifts, would prevent their being
  used as precedents for women engaging in regular public discourse
  (1 Thess. v. 19). In 1 Cor. xiv. 24 the ἰδιῶται (synonymous with
  the ἀμύητοι in the statutes of Hellenic religious associations)
  are mentioned as admitted along with the ἀπίστοι to the didactic
  services, and, according to _v._ 16, they had a place assigned
  to them separate from the congregation proper. We are thus led to
  see in them the uninitiated or not yet baptized believers, that
  is, the _catechumens_.--=The Sacramental part of the service=,
  the separation of which from the didactic part was rendered
  necessary on account alike of its nature and purpose, and is
  therefore found existing in the Pauline churches as well as
  in the church of Jerusalem, was scrupulously restricted in its
  observance, in Jewish and Gentile churches alike, to those who
  were in the full communion of the Christian church (Acts ii. 46;
  1 Cor. xi. 20-23). The celebration of the Lord’s Supper
  (δεῖπνον κυριακόν, 1 Cor. xi. 21), after the pattern of the
  meal of institution, consisting of a meal partaken of in common,
  accompanied with prayer and the singing of a hymn, which at a
  later period was named the Ἀγάπη, as the expression of brotherly
  love (Jude _v._ 12), was the centre and end of these _evening_
  services. The elements in the Lord’s Supper were consecrated to
  their sacramental purpose by a prayer of praise and thanksgiving
  (εὐχαριστία, 1 Cor. xi. 24; or εὐλογία, 1 Cor. x. 16), together
  with a recital of the words of institution which contained
  a proclamation of the death of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 26). This
  prayer was followed by the kiss of brotherhood.[10] In the
  service of song they used to all appearance besides the
  psalms some Christian hymns and doxologies (Eph. v. 19;
  Col. iii. 16).[11]--The homiletical as well as the eucharistic
  services were at first held daily; at a later period at least
  every Sunday.[12] For very soon, alongside of the Sabbath, and
  among Gentile Christians, instead of it, the first day of the
  week as the day of Christ’s resurrection began to be observed as
  a festival.[13] But there is as yet no trace of the observance of
  other festivals. It cannot be exactly proved that infant baptism
  was an Apostolic practice, but it is not improbable that it
  was so.[14] Baptism was administered by complete immersion
  (Acts viii. 38) in the name of Christ or of the Trinity
  (Matt. xxviii. 19). The charism of healing the sick was exercised
  by prayer and anointing with oil (Jas. v. 14). On the other
  hand, confession of sin even apart from the public service was
  recommended (Jas. v. 16). Charismatic communication of the Spirit
  and admission to office in the church[15] was accomplished by
  prayer and laying on of hands.[16]

  § 17.8. =Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.=--In
  accordance with the commandment of the Lord (John xiii. 34),
  brotherly love in opposition to the selfishness of the natural
  life, was the principle of the Christian life. The power of
  youthful love, fostered by the prevalent expectation of the
  speedy return of the Lord, endeavoured at first to find for
  itself a fitting expression in the mother church of Jerusalem by
  the voluntary determination to have their goods in common,--an
  endeavour which without prejudice of its spiritual importance
  soon proved to be impracticable. On the other hand the well-to-do
  Gentile churches proved their brotherly love by collections for
  those originally poor, and especially for the church at Jerusalem
  which had suffered the special misfortune of famine. The three
  inveterate moral plagues of the ancient world, contempt of
  foreign nationalities, degradation of woman, and slavery, were
  overcome, according to Gal. iii. 28, by gradual elevation of
  inward feeling without any violent struggle against existing laws
  and customs, and the consciousness of common membership in the
  one head in heaven hallowed all the relationships of the earthly
  life. Even in apostolic times the bright mirror of Christian
  purity was no doubt dimmed by spots of rust. Hypocrisy (Acts v.)
  and variance (Acts vi.) in single cases appeared very early in
  the mother church; but the former was punished by a fearfully
  severe judgment, the latter was overcome by love and sweet
  reasonableness. In the rich Gentile churches, such as those
  of Corinth and Thessalonica, a worldly spirit in the form of
  voluptuousness, selfishness, pride, etc., made its appearance,
  but was here also rooted out by apostolic exhortation and
  discipline. If any one caused public scandal by serious departure
  from true doctrine or Christian conduct, and in spite of pastoral
  counsel persisted in his error, he was by the judgment of the
  church cast out, but the penitent was received again after his
  sincerity had been proved (1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 5).


                § 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.[17]

  When Christianity began its career of world conquest in the preaching
of the Apostle Paul, the representatives of the intellectual culture
of the ancient world assumed toward it an attitude, either of utter
indifference, or of keen hostility, or of readiness to accept Christian
elements, while retaining along with these many of their old notions.
From this mixing of heterogeneous elements a fermentation arose which
was the fruitful mother of numerous heresies.

  § 18.1. =Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.=--The
  Lord had commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all
  nations (Matt. xxviii. 19), and so they could not doubt that the
  whole heathen world was called to receive the church’s heritage;
  but feeling themselves bound by utterances of the Old Testament
  regarding the eternal validity of the law of Moses, and having
  not yet penetrated the full significance of the saying of Christ
  (Mark v. 17), they thought that incorporation into Judaism by
  circumcision was still an indispensable condition of reception
  into the kingdom of Christ. The Hellenist Stephen represented a
  more liberal tendency (Acts vi. 14); and Philip, also a Hellenist,
  preached at least occasionally to the Samaritans, and the
  Apostles recognised his work by sending down Peter and John
  (Acts viii. 14). On the other hand, it needed an immediate
  divine revelation to convince Peter that a Gentile thirsting for
  salvation was just as such fit for the kingdom of God (Acts x.).
  And even this revelation remained without any decisive influence
  on actual missionary enterprise. They were Hellenistic Jews who
  finally took the bold step of devoting themselves without reserve
  to the conversion of the Gentiles at Antioch (Acts xi. 19). To
  foster the movement there the Apostles sent Barnabas, who entered
  into it with his whole soul, and in Paul associated with himself
  a yet more capable worker. After the notable success of their
  first missionary journey had vindicated their claim and calling
  as Apostles of the Gentiles, the arrival of Jewish zealots in
  the Antiochean church occasioned the sending of Paul and Barnabas
  to Jerusalem, about A.D. 51, in order finally to settle this
  important dispute. At a Council of the Apostles convened there
  Peter and James the Just delivered the decision that Gentile
  converts should only be required to observe certain legal
  restrictions, and these, as it would seem from the conditions
  laid down (Acts xv. 20), of a similar kind to those imposed
  upon proselytes of the gate. An arrangement come to at this
  time between the two Antiochean Apostles and Peter, James, and
  John, led to the recognition of the former as Apostles of the
  Gentiles and the latter as Apostles of the Jews (Gal. ii. 1-10).
  Nevertheless during a visit to Antioch Peter laid himself open
  to censure for practical inconsistency and weak connivance with
  the fanaticism of certain Jewish Christians, and had to have
  the truth respecting it very pointedly told him by Paul (Gal.
  ii. 11-14). The destruction of the temple and the consequent
  cessation of the entire Jewish worship led to the gradual
  disappearance of non-sectarian Jewish Christianity and its
  amalgamation with Gentile Christianity. The remnant of Jewish
  Christianity which still in the altered condition of things
  continued to cling to its principles and practice assumed ever
  more and more the character of a sect, and drifted into open
  heresy. (Comp. § 28).

  § 18.2. =The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.=--The need of fixing
  the apostolically accredited accounts of the life of the
  Redeemer by written documents, led to the origin of the Gospels.
  The continued connection of the missionary Apostles with the
  churches founded by them, or even their authority of general
  superintendence, called forth the apostolic doctrinal epistles.
  A beginning of the collection and general circulation of the New
  Testament writings was made at an early date by the communication
  of these being made by one church to another (Col. iv. 16). There
  was as yet no confession of faith as a standard of orthodoxy, but
  the way was prepared by adopting Matt. xxviii. 19 as a confession
  by candidates for baptism. Paul set up justification through
  faith alone (Gal. i. 8, 9), and John, the incarnation of God in
  Christ (1 John iv. 3), as indispensable elements in a Christian
  confession.

  § 18.3. =False Teachers.=--The first enemy from within its own
  borders which Christianity had to confront was the ordinary
  Pharisaic Judaism with its stereotyped traditional doctrine, its
  lifeless work-righteousness, its unreasonable national prejudices,
  and its perversely carnal Messianic expectations. Its shibboleth
  was the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic
  ceremonial law, the Sabbath, rules about meats, circumcision,
  as an indispensable condition of salvation. This tendency had
  its origin in the mother church of Jerusalem, but was there
  at a very early date condemned by the Apostolic Council. This
  party nevertheless pursued at all points the Apostle Paul with
  bitter enmity and vile calumnies. Traces of a manifestation of a
  Sadducean or sceptical spirit may perhaps already be found in the
  denial of the resurrection which in 1 Cor. xv. Paul opposes. On
  the other hand, at a very early period Greek philosophy got mixed
  up with Christianity. Apollos, a philosophically cultured Jew
  of Alexandria, had at first conceived of Christianity from the
  speculative side, and had in this form preached it with eloquence
  and success at Corinth. Paul did not contest the admissibility
  of this mode of treatment. He left it to the verdict of history
  (1 Cor. iii. 11-14), and warned against an over-estimation of
  human wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 1-10). Among many of the seekers after
  wisdom in Corinth, little as this was intended by Apollos, the
  simple positive preaching of Paul lost on this account the favour
  that it had enjoyed before. In this may be found perhaps the
  first beginnings of that fourfold party faction which arose
  in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. i.). The Judaists appealed to
  the authority of the Apostle Peter (οἱ τοῦ Κηφᾶ); the Gentile
  Christians were divided into the parties of Apollos and of Paul,
  or by the assumption of the proud name οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, sought to
  free themselves from the recognition of any Apostolic authority.
  Paul successfully opposes these divisions in his Epistle to
  the Corinthians. Apprehension of a threatened growth of gnostic
  teachers is first expressed in the Apostle Paul’s farewell
  addresses to the elders of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 29); and in the
  Epistle to the Colossians, as well as in the Pastoral Epistles,
  this ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις is expressly opposed as manifesting itself
  in the adoption of oriental theosophy, magic, and theurgy, in an
  arbitrary asceticism that forbade marriage and restricted the use
  of food, in an imaginary secret knowledge of the nature and order
  of the heavenly powers and spirits, and idealistic volatilizing
  of concrete Christian doctrines, such as that of the resurrection
  (2 Tim. ii. 18). In the First Epistle of John, again, that
  special form of Gnosis is pointed out which denied the
  incarnation of God in Christ by means of docetic conceptions; and
  in the Second Epistle of Peter, as well as in the Epistle of Jude,
  we have attention called to antinomian excrescences, unbridled
  immorality and wanton lust in the development of magical and
  theurgical views. It should not, however, be left unmentioned,
  that modern criticism has on many grounds contested the
  authenticity of the New Testament writings just named, and
  has assigned the first appearance of heretical gnosis to
  the beginning of the second century. The Nicolaitans of the
  Apocalypse (iii. 5, 14, 15, 20) appear to have been an antinomian
  sect of Gentile Christian origin, spread more or less through the
  churches of Asia Minor, perhaps without any gnostic background,
  which in direct and intentional opposition to the decision of the
  Apostolic Council (Acts xv. 29) took part in heathen sacrificial
  feasts (comp. 1 Cor. x.), and justified or at least apologized
  for fleshly impurity.




                            FIRST DIVISION.

          History of the Development of the Church during the
                Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Periods.


               § 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES
                           OF THOSE PERIODS.

  At the very beginning of the Apostolic Age the universalistic
spirit of Christianity had already broken through the particularistic
limitations of Judaism. When once the substantial truth of divine
salvation had cast off the Judaistic husk in which the kernel had
ripened, those elements of culture which had come to maturity in the
Roman-Greek world were appropriated as means for giving to Christian
ideas a fuller and clearer expression. The task now to be undertaken was
the development of Christianity on the lines of Græco-Roman culture, or
the expansion of the church’s apostolicity into catholicity. The ancient
church of the Roman and Byzantine world fulfilled this task, but in
doing so the sound evangelical catholic development encountered at every
point elements of a false, because an unevangelical, Catholicism. The
centre, then, of all the movements of Church History is to be found
in the Teutono-Roman-Slavic empire. The Roman church preserved and
increased her importance by attaching herself to this new empire, and
undertaking its spiritual formation and education. The Byzantine church,
on the other hand, falling into a state of inward stagnation, and
pressed from without by the forces of Islam, passes into decay as
a national church.

  The history of this first stage of the development of the church falls
into =three periods=. The first period reaches down to Constantine the
Great, who, in A.D. 323, secured to Christianity and the church a final
victory over Paganism. The second period brings us down to the close of
the universal catholic or œcumenical elaboration of doctrine attained by
the church under its old classical form of culture, that is, down to the
close of the Monothelite controversy (§ 52, 8), by the Sixth Œcumenical
Council at Constantinople in A.D. 680. But inasmuch as the _Concilium
quini-sextum_ in A.D. 692 undertook simply the completion of the work of
the two previous œcumenical synods with reference to church constitution
and worship, and as here the first grounds were laid for the great
partition of the church into Eastern and Western (§ 63, 2), we prefer
to make A.D. 692 the closing limit of the second period. The conclusion
of the third period, is found in the overthrow of Constantinople
by the Turks in A.D. 1453. The first two periods are most evidently
distinguished from one another in respect of the outward condition of
the church. Before the times of Constantine, it lives and develops its
strength amid the oppression and persecution of the pagan state; under
Constantine the state itself becomes Christian and the church enjoys all
the advantages, all the care and furtherance, that earthly protection
can afford. Along with all this worldly splendour, however, a worldly
disposition makes its way into the church, and in exchange for its
protection of the church the state assumes an autocratic lordship over
it. Even in the inner, and pre-eminently doctrinal, development of the
church the two periods of this age are essentially distinguished from
one another. While it was the church’s endeavour to adopt only the forms
of culture of ancient paganism, while rejecting its godless substance,
it too often happened that pagan ideas got mixed up with Christianity,
and it was threatened with a similar danger from the side of Judaism. It
was therefore the special task of the church during the first period to
resist the encroachment of anti-Christian Jewish and Pagan elements. In
the first period the perfecting of its own genuinely Christian doctrinal
content was still a purely subjective matter, resting only on the
personal authority of the particular church teachers. In the second
period, on the other hand, the church universal, as represented by
œcumenical synods with full power, proceeds to the laying down and
establishing of an objective-ecclesiastical, œcumenical-catholic system
of doctrine, constituting an all-sided development of the truth in
opposition to the one-sided development of subjective heretical teaching.
In doing so, however, the culture of the old Græco-Roman world exhausted
its powers. The measure of development which these were capable of
affording the church was now completed, and its future must be looked
for among the new nationalities of Teutonic, Romanic, and Slavic origin.
While the Byzantine empire, and with it the glory of the ancient church
of the East was pressed and threatened by Islam, a new empire arose
in the West in youthful vigour and became the organ of a new phase of
development in the history of the church; and while the church in the
West struggled after a new and higher point in her development, the
Eastern church sank ever deeper down under outward oppression and inward
weakness. The partition of the church into an Eastern and a Western
division, which became imminent at the close of the second period, and
was actually carried out during the third period, cut off the church of
the East from the influence of those new vital forces, political as well
as ecclesiastical, and which it might otherwise, perhaps, have shared
with the West. By the overthrow of the East-Roman empire the last
support of its splendour and even of its vital activity was taken away.
Here too ends the history of the church on the lines of purely antique
classical forms of culture. The remnants of the church of the East were
no longer capable of any living historical development under the
oppression of the Turkish rule.




                            FIRST SECTION.

              History of the Græco-Roman Church during the
              Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323).[18]


               § 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES
                          OF THIS PERIOD.[19]

  As the history of the beginnings of the church has been treated by
us under two divisions, so also the first period of the history of
its development may be similarly divided into the =Post-Apostolic Age=,
which reaches down to the middle of the second century, and the =Age
of the Old Catholic Church=, which ends with the establishment of the
church under and by Constantine, and at that point passes over into the
Age of the œcumenical Catholic or Byzantine-Roman Imperial Church.--As
the Post-Apostolic Age was occupied with an endeavour to appropriate
and possess in a fuller and more vigorous manner the saving truths
transmitted by the Apostles, and presents as the result of its struggles,
errors, and victories, the Old Catholic Church as a unity, firmly bound
from within, strictly free of all compulsion from without, so on the
basis thus gained, the Old Catholic Church goes forward to new conflicts,
failures, and successes, by means of which the foundations are laid for
the future perfecting of it through its establishment by the state into
the Œcumenical Catholic Imperial Church.[20]

  § 20.1. =The Post-Apostolic Age.=--The peril to which the church
  was exposed from the introduction of Judaistic and Pagan elements
  with her new converts was much more serious not only than the
  Jewish spirit of persecution, crushed as it was into impotence
  through the overthrow of Jewish national independence, but also
  than the persecution of anti-Christian paganism which at this
  time was only engaged upon sporadically. All the more threatening
  was this peril from the peculiar position of the church during
  this age. Since the removal of the personal guidance of the
  Apostles that control was wanting which only at a subsequent
  period was won again by the establishment of a New Testament
  canon and the laying down of a normative rule of faith, as well
  as by the formation of a hierarchical-episcopal constitution. In
  all the conflicts, then, that occupied this age, the first and
  main point was to guard the integrity and purity of traditional
  Apostolic Christianity against the anti-Christian Jewish and
  Pagan ideas which new converts endeavoured to import into it from
  their earlier religious life. Those Judaic ideas thus imported
  gave rise to Ebionism; those Pagan ideas gave rise to Gnosticism
  (§§ 26-28). And just as the Pauline Gentile Christianity, in so
  far as it was embraced under this period (§ 30, 2), secured the
  victory over the moderate and non-heretical Jewish Christianity,
  this latter became more and more assimilated to the former, and
  gradually passed over into it (§ 28, 1). Add to this the need,
  ever more pressingly felt, of a sifting of the not yet uniformly
  recognised early Christian literature that had passed into
  ecclesiastical use (§ 36, 7, 8) by means of the establishment
  of a New Testament =canon=; that is, the need of a collection of
  writings admitted to be of Apostolic origin to occupy henceforth
  the first rank as a standard and foundation for the purposes of
  teaching and worship, and to form a bulwark against the flood
  of heretical and non-heretical =Pseudepigraphs= that menaced the
  purity of doctrine (§ 32). Further, the no less pressing need for
  the construction of a universally valid =rule of faith= (§ 35, 2),
  as an intellectual bond of union and mark of recognition for
  all churches and believers scattered over the earth’s surface.
  Then again, in the victory that was being secured by Episcopacy
  over Presbyterianism, and in the introduction of a Synodal
  constitution for counsel and resolution, the first stage
  in the formation of a hierarchical organization was reached
  (§ 34). Finally, the last dissolving action of this age was the
  suppression of the fanatical prophetic and fanatical rigorist
  spirit, which, reaching its climax in =Montanism=, directed
  itself mainly against the tendency already appearing on many
  sides to tone down the unflinching severity of ecclesiastical
  discipline, to make modifications in constitution, life and
  conversation in accordance with the social customs of the world,
  and to settle down through disregard of the speedy return of
  the Lord, so confidently expected by the early Christians, into
  an easy satisfaction in the enjoyment of earthly possessions
  (§ 40, 5).

  § 20.2. =The Age of the Old Catholic Church.=--The designation
  of the universal Christian church as Catholic dates from the time
  of Irenæus, that is, from the beginning of this second part of
  our first period. This name characterizes the church as the one
  universally (καθ’ ὅλου) spread and recognised from the time of
  the Apostles, and so stigmatizes every opposition to the one
  church that alone stands on the sure foundation of holy scripture
  and pure apostolic tradition, as belonging to the manifold
  particularistic heretical and schismatical sects. The church
  of this particular age, however, has been designated the Old
  Catholic Church as distinguished from the œcumenical Catholic
  church of the following period, as well as from the Roman
  Catholic and Greek Catholic churches, into which afterwards the
  œcumenical Catholic church was divided.

  At the beginning of this age, the heretical as well as the
  non-heretical Ebionism may be regarded as virtually suppressed,
  although some scanty remnants of it might yet be found. The most
  brilliant period of Gnosticism, too, when the most serious danger
  from Paganism within the Christian pale in the form of Hellenic
  and Syro-Chaldaic Theosophy and Mysteriosophy threatened the
  church, was already past. But in Manichæism (§ 29) there appeared,
  during the second half of the third century, a new peril of a
  no less threatening kind, inspired by Parseeism and Buddhism,
  which, however, the church on the ground of the solid foundations
  already laid was able to resist with powerful weapons. On the
  other hand the Pagan element within the church asserted itself
  more and more decidedly (§ 39, 6) by means of the intrusion of
  magico-theurgical superstition into the catholic doctrine of
  the efficacy of the church sacraments and sacramental acts
  (§ 58). But now also, with Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside
  of Christianity as embodied in the Roman state, begins the
  war of extermination against the church that was ever more and
  more extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,
  however, was not able to subdue the church, but rather led, under
  and through Constantine the Great, to the Christianizing of the
  state and the establishment of the church. During the same time
  the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization of the church
  was more fully developed by the introduction of an order of
  Metropolitans, and then in the following period it reached its
  climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of Patriarchs (§ 46, 1),
  and in the institution of œcumenical Synods (§ 43, 2). By the
  condemnation and expulsion of Montanism, in which the inner
  development of the Post-Apostolic Age reached its special and
  distinctive conclusion, the endeavour to naturalize Christianity
  among the social customs of the worldly life was certainly
  legitimized by the church, and could now be unrestrictedly
  carried out in a wider and more comprehensive way. In the
  Trinitarian controversies, too, in which several prominent
  theologians engaged, the first step was taken in that
  œcumenical-ecclesiastical elaboration of doctrine which occupied
  and dominated the whole of the following period (§§ 49-52).

  § 20.3. =The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other=
  may unhesitatingly be set down at A.D. 170. The following are the
  most important data in regard thereto. The death about A.D. 165
  of Justin Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the
  Post-Apostolic Age, and forms also the transition to the Old
  Catholic Age; and Irenæus, flourishing somewhere about A.D. 170,
  who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides these
  we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian controversies
  about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of Montanism from the
  universal Catholic church was effected about the year 170 by means
  of the Synodal institution called into existence for that very
  purpose.




          I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND
                       JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH.[21]


                   § 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.

  Amid all the persecutions which the church during this period had to
suffer it spread with rapid strides throughout the whole Roman empire,
and even far beyond its limits. Edessa, the capital of the kingdom of
Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia, had, as early as A.D. 170, a Christian prince,
named =Abgar Bar Maanu=, whose coins were the first to bear the sign
of the cross. We find Christianity gaining a footing contemporaneously
in Persia, Media, Bactria, and Parthia. In the third century we find
traces of its presence in Armenia. Paul himself made his way into
Arabia (Gal. i. 17). In the third century Origen received an invitation
from a ἡγούμενος τῆς Ἀραβίας, who wished to receive information about
Christianity. At another time he accepted a call from that country in
order to settle an ecclesiastical dispute (§ 33, 6). From Alexandria,
where Mark had exercised his ministry, the Christian faith spread out
into other portions of Africa, into Cyrene and among the Coptic races,
neighbouring upon the Egyptians properly so-called. The church of
proconsular Africa, with Carthage for its capital, stood in close
connection with Rome. Mauretania and Numidia had, even in the third
century, so many churches, that Cyprian could bring together at Carthage
a Synod of eighty-seven bishops. In Gaul there were several flourishing
churches composed of colonies and teachers from Asia Minor, such as
the churches of Lyons, Vienne, etc. At a later period seven missionary
teachers of the Christian faith came out of Italy into Gaul, among whom
was Dionysius, known as St. Denis, the founder of the church at Paris.
The Roman colonies in the provinces of the Rhine and the Danube had
several flourishing congregations as early as the third century.

  The emptiness and corruption of paganism was the negative, the divine
power of the gospel was the positive, means of this wonderful extension.
This divine power was manifested in the zeal and self-denial of
Christian teachers and missionaries (§ 34, 1), in the life and
walk of Christians, in the brotherly love which they showed, in
the steadfastness and confidence of their faith, and above all in
the joyfulness with which they met the cruellest of deaths by martyrdom.
The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church, and it was not
an unheard-of circumstance that the executioners of those Christian
witnesses became their successors in the noble army of confessors.


              § 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE
                           ROMAN EMPIRE.[22]

  The Law of the Twelve Tables had already forbidden the exercise
of foreign modes of worship within the Roman empire (_Religiones
peregrinæ_, _Collegia illicita_), for religion was exclusively an affair
of the state and entered most intimately into all civil and municipal
relations, and on this account whatever endangered the national religion
was regarded as necessarily imperilling the state itself. Political
considerations, however, led to the granting to conquered nations
the free use of their own forms of worship. This concession did not
materially help Christianity after it had ceased, in the time of Nero,
to be regularly confounded by the Roman authorities with Judaism,
as had been the case in the time of Claudius, and Judaism, after
the destruction of Jerusalem, had been sharply distinguished from
it. It publicly proclaimed its intention to completely dislodge all
other religions, and the rapidity with which it spread showed how
energetically its intentions were carried out. The close fellowship
and brotherliness that prevailed among Christians, as well as their
exclusive, and during times of persecution even secret assemblies,
aroused the suspicion that they had political tendencies. Their
withdrawal from civil and military services on account of the pagan
ceremonies connected with them, especially their refusal to burn incense
before the statues of the emperor, also the steadfastness of their
faith, which was proof against all violence and persuasion alike, their
retiredness from the world, etc., were regarded as evidence of their
indifference or hostility to the general well-being of the state, as
invincible stiff-neckedness, as contumacy, sedition, and high treason.
The heathen populace saw in the Christians the sacrilegious enemies and
despisers of their gods; and the Christian religion, which was without
temples, altars and sacrifices, seemed to them pure Atheism. The most
horrible calumnies, that in their assemblies (_Agapæ_) the vilest
immoralities were practised (_Concubitus Œdipodei_), children slain
and human flesh eaten (_Epulæ Thyesteæ_, comp. § 36, 5), were readily
believed. All public misfortunes were thus attributed to the wrath
of the gods against the Christians, who treated them with contempt.
_Non pluit Deus, duc ad Christianos!_ The heathen priests also, the
temple servants and the image makers were always ready in their own
common interests to stir up the suspicions of the people. Under such
circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the fire of persecution
on the part of the heathen people and the heathen state continued to
rage for centuries.

  § 22.1. =Claudius, Nero and Domitian.=--Regarding the Emperor
  =Tiberius= (A.D. 14-37), we meet in Tertullian with the
  undoubtedly baseless tradition, that, impressed by the story
  told him by Pilate, he proposed to the Senate to introduce Christ
  among the gods, and on the rejection of this proposal, threatened
  the accusers of the Christians with punishment. The statement
  in Acts xviii. 2, that the Emperor =Claudius= (A.D. 41-54)
  expelled from Rome all Jews and with them many Christians also,
  is illustrated in a very circumstantial manner by Suetonius:
  _Claudius Judæos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma
  expulit_. The tumults, therefore, between the Jews and the
  Christians, occurring about the year 51 or 52, gave occasion to
  this decree. The first persecution of the Christians proceeding
  from a Roman ruler which was directed against the Christians as
  such, was carried out by the Emperor =Nero= (A.D. 54-68) in the
  year 64, in consequence of a nine days’ conflagration in Rome,
  the origin of which was commonly ascribed by the people to the
  Emperor himself. Nero, however, laid the blame upon the hated
  Christians, and perpetrated upon them the most ingeniously
  devised cruelties. Sewn up in skins of wild animals they were
  cast out to be devoured of dogs; others were crucified, or wrapt
  in tow and besmeared with pitch, they were fixed upon sharp
  spikes in the imperial gardens where the people gathered to
  behold gorgeous spectacles, and set on fire to lighten up
  the night (Tac., _Ann._, xv. 44). After the death of Nero the
  legend spread among the Christians, that he was not dead but had
  withdrawn beyond the Euphrates, soon to return as Antichrist.
  Nero’s persecution seems to have been limited to Rome, and to
  have ended with his death.--It was under =Domitian= (A.D. 81-96)
  that individual Christians were for the first time subjected
  to confiscation of goods and banishment for godlessness or the
  refusal to conform to the national religion. Probably also, the
  execution of his own cousin, the Consul Flavius Clemens [Clement],
  on account of his ἀθεότης and his ἐξοκέλλειν εἰς τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων
  ἔθη (Dio Cass., lxvii. 14), as well as the banishment of Clemens’
  [Clement’s] wife, Flavia Domitilla (A.D. 93), was really on
  account of their attachment to the Christian faith (§ 30, 3). The
  latter at least is proved by two inscriptions in the catacombs to
  have been undoubtedly a Christian. Domitian insisted upon having
  information as to the political significance of the kingdom of
  Christ, and brought from Palestine to Rome two relatives of Jesus,
  grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, but their hands horny
  with labour satisfied him that his suspicions had been unfounded.
  The philanthropic Emperor =Nerva= (A.D. 96-98) recalled the
  exiles and did not listen to those who clamoured bitterly against
  the Christians, but Christianity continued after as well as
  before a _Religo illicita_, or rather was now reckoned such,
  after it had been more distinctly separated from Judaism.[23]

  § 22.2. =Trajan and Hadrian.=--With =Trajan= (A.D. 98-117),
  whom historians rightly describe as a just, earnest, and mild
  ruler, the persecutions of the Christians enter upon a new
  stage. He renewed the old strict prohibition of secret societies,
  _hetæræ_, which could easily be made to apply to the Christians.
  In consequence of this law the younger Pliny, as Governor
  of Bithynia, punished with death those who were accused as
  Christians, if they would not abjure Christianity. But his
  doubts being awakened by the great number of every rank and age
  and of both sexes against whom accusations were brought, and in
  consequence of a careful examination, which showed the Christians
  to be morally pure and politically undeserving of suspicion and
  to be guilty only of stubborn attachment to their superstition,
  he asked definite instructions from the Emperor. Trajan approved
  of what he had done and what he proposed; the Christians were
  not to be sought after and anonymous accusations were not to
  be regarded, but those formally complained of and convicted, if
  they stubbornly refused to sacrifice to the gods and burn incense
  before the statues of the Emperor were to be punished with death
  (A.D. 112). This imperial rescript continued for a long time
  the legal standard for judicial procedure with reference to the
  Christians. The persecution under Trajan extended even to Syria
  and Palestine. In Jerusalem the aged bishop Simeon, the successor
  of James, accused as a Christian and a descendant of David, after
  being cruelly scourged, died a martyr’s death on the cross in
  A.D. 107. The martyrdom, too, of the Antiochean bishop, Ignatius,
  in all probability took place during the reign of Trajan (§ 30, 5).
  An edict of toleration supposed to have been issued at a later
  period by Trajan, a copy of which exists in Syriac and Armenian,
  is now proved to be apocryphal.--During the reign of =Hadrian=
  (A.D. 117-138), the people began to carry out in a tumultuous
  way the execution of the Christians on the occasion of the
  heathen festivals. On the representation of the proconsul of Asia,
  Serenius Granianus, Hadrian issued a rescript addressed to his
  successor, Minucius Fundanus, against such acts of violence, but
  executions still continued carried out according to the forms of
  law. The genuineness of the rescript, however, as given at the
  close of the first Apology of Justin Martyr, has been recently
  disputed by many. In Rome itself, between A.D. 135 and A.D. 137,
  bishop Telesphorus, with many other Christians, fell as victims
  of the persecution. The tradition of the fourth century, that
  Hadrian wished to build a temple to Christ, is utterly without
  historical foundation. His unfavourable disposition toward the
  Christians clearly appears from this, that he caused a temple of
  Venus to be built upon the spot where Christ was crucified, and a
  statue of Jupiter to be erected on the rock of the sepulchre, in
  order to pollute those places which Christians held most sacred.

  § 22.3. =Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.=--Under =Antoninus
  Pius= (A.D.138-161), the tumultuous charges of the people against
  the Christians, on account of visitations of pestilence in many
  places, were renewed, but the mildly disposed emperor sought to
  protect them as much as possible from violence. The rescript,
  however, _Ad Commune Asiæ_, which bears his name is very probably
  of Christian authorship.--The persecutions again took a new turn
  under =Marcus Aurelius= (A.D. 161-180) who was, both as a man and
  a ruler, one of the noblest figures of antiquity. In the pride
  of his stoical wisdom, however, despising utterly the enthusiasm
  of the Christians, he not only allowed free scope to the popular
  hatred, but also introduced the system of espionage, giving to
  informers the confiscated property of the Christians, and even
  permitting the use of torture, in order to compel them to recant,
  and thus gave occasion to unexampled triumphs of Christian
  heroism. At Rome, the noble Apologist Justin Martyr, denounced
  by his opponent the philosopher Crescens, after cruel and bloody
  scourging, died under the executioner’s axe about A.D. 165
  (§ 30, 9).--In regard to a very severe persecution endured by
  the church of Smyrna, we possess an original report of it sent
  from that church to one closely related to it, embellished
  with legendary details or interpolated, which Eusebius has
  incorporated in his Church History. The substance of it is a
  description of the glorious martyr death of their aged bishop
  Polycarp (§ 30, 6), who, because he refused to curse the Lord
  whom he had served for eighty-six years, was made to mount the
  funeral pile, and while rejoicing in the midst of the flames,
  received the crown of martyrdom. According to the story the
  flames gathered around him like a wind-filled sail, and when a
  soldier pierced him with his sword, suddenly a white dove flew
  up; moreover the glorified spirit also appeared to a member of
  the church in a vision, clothed in a white garment. Eusebius
  places the date of Polycarp’s death shortly before A.D. 166.
  But since it has been shown by Waddington, on the basis of
  an examination of recently discovered inscriptions, that the
  proconsul of Asia, Statius Quadratus, mentioned in the report
  of the church of Smyrna, did not hold that office in A.D. 166,
  but in A.D. 155-156, the most important authorities have come to
  regard either A.D. 155 or A.D. 156 as the date of his martyrdom.
  Still some whose opinions are worthy of respect refuse to
  accept this view, pointing out the absence of that chronological
  statement from the report in Eusebius and to its irreconcilability
  with the otherwise well-supported facts, that Polycarp was on
  a visit to Rome in A.D. 155 (§ 37, 2), and that the reckoning
  of the day of his death in the report as ὄντος σαββάτου μεγάλου
  would suit indeed the Easter of A.D. 155, as well as that of
  A.D. 166, but not that of A.D. 156. [24] The legend of the _Legio
  fulminatrix_, that in the war against the Marcomanni in A.D. 174
  the prayers of the Christian soldiers of this legion called forth
  rain and thunder, and thus saved the Emperor and his army from
  the danger of perishing by thirst, whereupon this modified law
  against the accusers of the Christians was issued, has, so far
  as the first part is concerned, its foundation in history, only
  that the heathen on the other hand ascribed the miracle to their
  prayer to _Jupiter Pluvius_. [25]--Regarding the persecution
  at Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177, we also possess a contemporary
  report from the Christian church of these places (§ 32, 8).
  Bishop Pothinus, in his ninetieth year, sank under the effects
  of tortures continued during many days in a loathsome prison.
  The young and tender slave-girl Blandina was scourged, her
  body scorched upon a red-hot iron chair, her limbs torn by wild
  beasts and at last her life taken; but under all her tortures she
  continued to repeat her joyful confession: “I am a Christian and
  nothing wicked is tolerated among us.” Under similar agonies the
  boy Ponticus, in his fifteenth year, showed similar heroism. The
  dead bodies of the martyrs were laid in heaps upon the streets,
  until at last they were burnt and their ashes strewn upon the
  Rhone. =Commodus= (A.D. 180-192), the son of Marcus Aurelius, who
  in every other respect was utterly disreputable, influenced by
  his mistress Marcia, showed himself inclined, by the exercise
  of his clemency, to remit the sentences of the Christians. The
  persecution at Scillita in North Africa, during the first year
  of the reign of Commodus, in which the martyr Speratus suffered,
  together with eleven companions, was carried out in accordance
  with the edict of Marcus Aurelius.

  § 22.4. =Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax.=--=Septimius
  Severus= (A.D. 193-211), whom a Christian slave, Proculus,
  had healed of a sickness by anointing with oil, was at first
  decidedly favourable to the Christians. Even in A.D. 197, after
  his triumphal entrance into Rome, he took them under his personal
  protection when the popular clamour, which such a celebration
  was fitted to excite, was raised against them. The judicial
  persecution, too, which some years later, A.D. 200, his deputy
  in North Africa carried on against the Christians on the basis
  of existing laws because they refused to sacrifice to the genius
  of the Emperor, he may not have been able to prevent. On the
  other hand, he did himself, in A.D. 202, issue an edict which
  forbade conversions to Judaism and Christianity. The storm of
  persecution thereby excited was directed therefore first of all
  and especially against the catechumens and the neophytes, but
  frequently also, overstepping the letter of the edict, it was
  turned against the older Christians. The persecution seems
  to have been limited to Egypt and North Africa. At Alexandria
  Leonidas, the father of Origen, was beheaded. The female slave,
  Potamiæna, celebrated as much for her moral purity as for her
  beauty, was accused by her master, whose evil passions she had
  refused to gratify, as a Christian, and was given over to the
  gladiators to be abused. She succeeded, however, in defending
  herself from pollution, and was then, along with her mother
  Marcella, slowly dipped into boiling pitch. The soldier,
  Basilides by name, who should have executed the sentence himself
  embraced Christianity, and was beheaded. The persecution raged
  with equal violence and cruelty in Carthage. A young woman of
  a noble family, Perpetua, in her twenty-second year, in spite
  of imprisonment and torture, and though the infant in her arms
  and her weeping pagan father appealed to her heart’s affections,
  continued true to her faith, and was thrown to be tossed on the
  horns of a wild cow, and to die from the dagger of a gladiator.
  The slave girl Felicitas who, in the same prison, became a mother,
  showed similar courage amid similar sufferings. Persecution
  smouldered on throughout the reign of Septimius, showing itself
  in separate sporadic outbursts, but was not renewed under his son
  and successor =Caracalla= (A.D. 211-217), who in other respects
  during his reign stained with manifold cruelties, did little to
  the honour of those Christian influences by which in his earliest
  youth he had been surrounded (“_lacte Christiano educatus_,”
  Tert.).--That Christianity should have a place given it among the
  senseless religions favoured by =Elagabalus= or =Heliogabalus=
  (A.D. 218-222), was an absurdity which nevertheless secured for
  it toleration and quiet. His second wife, Severina or Severa, to
  whom Hippolytus dedicated his treatise Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, was the
  first empress friendly to the Christians. =Alexander Severus=
  (A.D. 222-235), embracing a noble eclecticism, placed among his
  household gods the image of Christ, along with those of Abraham,
  Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana, and showed himself well
  disposed toward the Christians; while at the same time his mother,
  Julia Mammæa, encouraged and furthered the scholarly studies of
  Origen. The golden saying of Christ, Luke vi. 31, was inscribed
  upon the gateway of his palace. His murderer, =Maximinus Thrax=
  (A.D. 235-238), from very opposition to his predecessor, became
  at once the enemy of the Christians. Clearly perceiving the
  high importance of the clergy for the continued existence of the
  church, his persecuting edict was directed solely against them.
  The imperial position which he had usurped, however, was not
  sufficiently secure to allow him to carry out his intentions
  to extremities. Under =Gordianus= the Christians had rest, and
  =Philip the Arabian= (A.D. 244-249) favoured them so openly and
  decidedly, that it came to be thought that he himself had been a
  Christian.

  § 22.5. =Decius, Gallus and Valerianus [Valerian].=--Soon after
  the accession of =Decius= (A.D. 249-251), in the year 250, a new
  persecution broke out that lasted without interruption for ten
  years. This was the first general persecution and was directed at
  first against the recognised heads of the churches, but by-and-by
  was extended more widely to all ranks, and exceeded all previous
  persecutions by its extent, the deliberateness of its plan,
  the rigid determination with which it was conducted, and the
  cruelties of its execution. Decius was a prudent ruler, an
  earnest man of the old school, endued with an indomitable
  will. But it was just this that drove him to the conclusion
  that Christianity, as a godless system and one opposed to
  the interests of the state, must be summarily suppressed. All
  possible means, such as confiscation of goods, banishment, severe
  tortures, or death, were tried in order to induce the Christians
  to yield. Very many spoiled by the long peace that they had
  enjoyed gave way, but on the other hand crowds of Christians,
  impelled by a yearning after the crown of martyrdom, gave
  themselves up joyfully to the prison and the stake. Those who
  fell away, the _lapsi_, were classified as the _Thurificati_
  or _Sacrificati_, who to save their lives had burnt incense or
  sacrificed to the gods, and _Libellatici_, who without doing
  this had purchased a certificate from the magistrates that they
  had done so, and _Acta facientes_, who had issued documents
  giving false statements regarding their Christianity. Those were
  called _Confessores_ who publicly professed Christ and remained
  steadfast under persecution, but escaped with their lives; those
  were called _Martyrs_ who witnessing with their blood, suffered
  death for the faith they professed. The Roman church could
  boast of a whole series of bishops who fell victims to the storm
  of persecution: Fabianus [Fabian] in A.D. 250, and Cornelius
  in A.D. 253, probably also Lucius in A.D. 254, and Stephanus in
  A.D. 257. And as in Rome, so also in the provinces, whole troops
  of confessors and martyrs met a joyful death, not only from
  among the clergy, but also from among the general members of
  the church.--Then again, under =Gallus= (A.D. 251-253), the
  persecution continued, excited anew by plagues and famine,
  but was in many ways restricted by political embarrassment.
  =Valerianus= [Valerian] (A.D. 253-260), from being a favourer of
  the Christians, began from A.D. 257, under the influence of his
  favourite Macrianus, to show himself a determined persecutor. The
  Christian pastors were at first banished, and since this had not
  the desired effect, they were afterwards punished with death. At
  this time, too, the bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, who under Decius
  had for a short season withdrawn by flight into the wilderness,
  won for himself the martyr’s crown. So, likewise, in A.D. 258,
  suffered Sixtus II. of Rome. The Roman bishop was soon followed
  by his deacon Laurentius, a hero among Christian martyrs, who
  pointed the avaricious governor to the sick, the poor and the
  orphans of the congregation as the treasures of the church, and
  was then burnt alive on a fire of glowing coal. But Valerian’s
  son, =Gallienus= (A.D. 260-268), by an edict addressed to the
  bishops, abolished the special persecuting statutes issued by his
  father, without, however, as he is often erroneously said to have
  done, formally recognising Christianity as a _Religio licita_.
  The Christians after this enjoyed a forty years’ rest; for
  the commonly reported cruel persecution of Christians under
  =Claudius II.=, (A.D. 268-270) has been proved to be a pure
  fable of apocryphal Acts of the Martyrs; and also the persecution
  planned by =Aurelian= (A.D. 270-275), toward the close of his
  reign, was prevented by his assassination committed by a pagan
  officer.

  § 22.6. =Diocletian and Galerius.=--When =Diocletian=
  (A.D. 284-305) was proclaimed Emperor by the army in Chalcedon, he
  chose Nicomedia in Bithynia as his residence, and transferred the
  conduct of the war to the general Maximianus [Maximian] Herculius
  with the title of Cæsar, who, after the campaign had been closed
  successfully in A.D. 286, was raised to the rank of Augustus or
  joint-Emperor. New harassments from within and from without led
  the two Emperors in A.D. 286 to name two Cæsars, or sub-Emperors,
  who by their being adopted were assured of succession to imperial
  rank. Diocletian assumed the administration of the East, and
  gave up Illyricum as far as Pontus to his Cæsar and son-in-law
  Galerius. Maximian undertook the government of the West, and
  surrendered Gaul, Spain and Britain to his Cæsar, Constantius
  Chlorus. According to Martyrologies, there was a whole legion,
  called =Legio Thebaica=, that consisted of Christian soldiers.
  This legion was originally stationed in the East, but was sent
  into the war against the Gauls, because its members refused to
  take part in the persecution of their brethren. After suffering
  decimation twice over without any result, it is said that
  =Maximian= left this legion, consisting of 6,600 men, along
  with its commander St. Maurice, to be hewn down in the pass of
  Agaunum, now called St. Moritz, in the Canton Valais. According to
  Rettberg,[26] the historical germ of this consists in a tradition
  reported by Theodoret as originating during the fifth or sixth
  century, in a letter of Eucherius bishop of Lyons, about the
  martyrdom of St. Maurice, who as _Tribunus Militum_ was executed
  at Apamea along with seventy soldiers, by the orders of Maximian.
  =Diocletian=, as the elder and supreme Emperor, was an active,
  benevolent, clear-sighted statesman and ruler, but also a zealous
  adherent of the old religion as regenerated by Neo-platonic
  influences (§ 24, 2), and as such was inclined to hold
  Christianity responsible for many of the internal troubles
  of his kingdom. He was restrained from interfering with the
  Christians, however, by the policy of toleration which had
  prevailed since the time of Gallienus, as well as by his
  own benevolent disposition, and not least by the political
  consideration of the vast numbers of the Christian population.
  His own wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria had themselves
  embraced Christianity, as well as very many, and these the truest
  and most trustworthy, of the members of his household. Yet the
  incessant importunities and whispered suspicions of Galerius were
  not without success. In A.D. 298 he issued the decree, that all
  soldiers should take part in the sacrificial rites, and thus
  obliged all Christian soldiers to withdraw from the army. During
  a long sojourn in Nicomedia he finally prevailed upon the Emperor
  to order a second general persecution; yet even then Diocletian
  persisted, that in it no blood should be shed. This persecution
  opened in A.D. 303 with the imperial command to destroy the
  stately church of Nicomedia. Soon after an edict was issued
  forbidding all Christian assemblies, ordering the destruction of
  the churches, the burning of the sacred scriptures, and depriving
  Christians of their offices and of their civil rights. A
  Christian tore up the edict and was executed. Fire broke out
  in the imperial palace and Galerius blamed the Christians for
  the fire, and also charged them with a conspiracy against the
  life of the Emperor. A persecution then began to rage throughout
  the whole Roman empire, Gaul, Spain and Britain alone entirely
  escaping owing to the favour of Constantius Chlorus who governed
  these regions. All conceivable tortures and modes of death were
  practised, and new and more horrible devices were invented from
  day to day. Diocletian, who survived to A.D. 313, and Maximian,
  abdicated the imperial rank which they had jointly held in
  A.D. 305. Their places were filled by those who had been
  previously their Cæsars, and Galerius as now the chief Augustus
  proclaimed as Cæsars, =Severus= and =Maximinus Daza=, the most
  furious enemies of the Christians that could be found, so that the
  storm of persecution which had already begun in some measure to
  abate, was again revived in Italy by Severus and in the East by
  Maximinus. Then in order to bring all Christians into inevitable
  contact with idolatrous rites, Galerius in A.D. 308 had all
  victuals in the markets sprinkled with wine or water that
  had been offered to idols. Seized with a terrible illness,
  mortification beginning in his living body, he finally admitted
  the uselessness of all his efforts to root out Christianity, and
  shortly before his death, in common with his colleague, he issued
  in A.D. 311, a formal =edict of toleration=, which permitted to
  all Christians the free exercise of their religion and claimed in
  return their intercession for the emperor and the empire.--During
  this persecution of unexampled cruelty, lasting without
  intermission for eight years, many noble proofs were given of
  Christian heroism and of the joyousness that martyrdom inspired.
  The number of the _Lapsi_, though still considerable, was in
  proportion very much less than under the Decian persecution. How
  much truth, if any, there may have been in the later assertion of
  the Donatists (§ 63, 1), that even the Roman bishop, Marcellinus
  [Marcellus] (A.D. 296-304), and his presbyters, Melchiades,
  Marcellus and Sylvester, who were also his successors in the
  bishopric, had denied Christ and sacrificed to idols, cannot
  now be ascertained. Augustine denies the charge, but even
  the Felician Catalogue of the Popes reports that Marcellinus
  [Marcellus] during the persecution became a _Thurificatus_,
  adding, however, the extenuation, that he soon thereafter, seized
  with deep penitence, suffered martyrdom. The command to deliver
  up the sacred writings gave rise to a new order of apostates,
  the so-called _Traditores_. Many had recourse to a subterfuge by
  surrendering heretical writings instead of the sacred books and
  as such, but the earnest spirit of the age treated these as no
  better than _traditors_.[27]

  § 22.7. =Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius.=--After the
  death of Galerius his place was taken by the Dacian Licinius,
  who shared with Maximinus the government of the East, the former
  taking the European, the latter the Asiatic part along with
  Egypt. Constantius Chlorus had died in A.D. 306, and Galerius
  had given to the Cæsar Severus the empire of the West. But the
  army proclaimed Constantine, son of Constantius, as Emperor.
  He also established himself in Gaul, Spain and Britain. Then
  also Maxentius, son of the abdicated emperor Maximian, claimed
  the Western Empire, was proclaimed Augustus by the Prætorians,
  recognised by the Roman senate, and after the overthrow of
  Severus, ruled in Italy and Africa.--The pagan fanaticism of
  =Maximinus= prevailed against the toleration edict of Galerian.
  He heartily supported the attempted expulsion of Christians on
  the part of several prominent cities, and commended the measure
  on brazen tablets. He forbade the building of churches, punished
  many with fines and dishonour, inflicted in some cases bodily
  pains and even death, and gave official sanction to perpetrating
  upon them all sorts of scandalous enormities. The _Acta Pilati_,
  a pagan pseudepigraph filled with the grossest slanders about the
  passion of Christ, was widely circulated by him and introduced as
  a reading-book for the young in the public schools. =Constantine=,
  who had inherited from his father along with his Neo-platonic
  eclecticism his toleration of the Christians, secured to the
  professors of the Christian faith in his realm the most perfect
  quiet. =Maxentius=, too, at first let them alone; but the rivalry
  and enmity that was daily increasing between him and Constantine,
  the favourer of the Christians, drew him into close connection
  with the pagan party, and into sympathy with their persecuting
  spirit. In A.D. 312 Constantine led his army over the Alps.
  Maxentius opposed him with an army drawn up in three divisions;
  but Constantine pressed on victoriously, and shattered his
  opponent’s forces before the gates of Rome. Betaking himself to
  flight, Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber, and Constantine was
  then sole ruler over the entire Western Empire. At Milan he had a
  conference with Licinius, to whom he gave in marriage his sister
  Constantia. They jointly issued an edict in A.D. 313, which
  gave toleration to all forms of worship throughout the empire,
  expressly permitting conversion to Christianity, and ordering the
  restoration to the Christians of all the churches that had been
  taken from them. Soon thereafter a decisive battle was fought
  between Maximinus and Licinius. The former was defeated and took
  to flight. The friendly relations that had subsisted between
  =Constantine= and =Licinius= gave way gradually to estrangement
  and were at last succeeded by open hostility. Licinius by
  manifesting zeal as a persecutor identified himself with the
  pagan party, and Constantine threw in his lot with the Christians.
  In A.D. 323 a war broke out between these two, like a struggle
  for life and death between Paganism and Christianity. Licinius
  was overthrown and Constantine was master of the whole empire
  (§ 42, 2). Eusebius in his _Vita Constantini_ reports, on the
  basis probably of a sworn statement of the emperor, that during
  the expedition against Maxentius in A.D. 312, after praying for
  the aid of the higher powers, when the sun was going down, he saw
  in heaven a shining cross in the sun with a bright inscription:
  τούτῳ νίκα. During the night Christ appeared to him in a dream,
  and commanded him to take the cross as his standard in battle
  and with it to go into battle confident of victory. In his Church
  History, Eusebius makes no mention of this tradition of the
  vision. On the other hand there is here the fact, contested
  indeed by critics, that after the victory over Maxentius the
  emperor had erected his statue in the Roman Forum, with the
  cross in his hand, and bearing the inscription: “By this sign of
  salvation have I delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant.
  ” This only is certain, that the imperial standard, which had the
  unexplained name Labarum, bore the sign of the cross with the
  monogram of the name of Christ.


               § 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM.

  Pagan writers in their published works passed spiteful and
contemptuous judgments upon Christians and Christianity (Tacitus, Pliny,
Marcus Aurelius, and the physician Galen), or, like the rhetorician
Fronto, argued against them with violent invective; while popular wit
ran riot in representing Christianity by word and picture as the devout
worship of an ass. But even the talented satirist Lucian of Samosata was
satisfied with ridiculing the Christians as senseless fools. The first
and also the most important of all really pagan advocates was Celsus,
who in the second century, with brilliant subtlety and scathing sarcasm
sought to prove that the religion of the Christians was the very climax
of unreason. In respect of ability, keenness and bitterness of polemic
he is closely followed by the Neo-platonist Porphyry. Far beneath both
stands Hierocles, governor of Bithynia. Against such attacks the most
famous Christian teachers took the field as Apologists. They disproved
the calumnies and charges of the pagans, demanded fair play for the
Christians, vindicated Christianity by the demonstration of its inner
truth, the witness borne to it by the life and walk of Christians,
its establishment by miracles and prophecies, its agreement with the
utterances and longings of the most profound philosophers, whose wisdom
they traced mediately or immediately from the Old Testament, and on the
other hand, they sought to show the nothingness of the heathen gods, and
the religious as well as moral perversity of paganism.

  § 23.1. =Lucian’s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_= takes the form
  of an account given by Lucian to his friend Cronius of the Cynic
  Peregrinus Proteus’ burning of himself during the Olympic games
  of A.D. 165, of which he himself was a witness. Peregrinus is
  described as a low, contemptible man, a parricide and guilty
  of adultery, unnatural vice and drunkenness, who having fled
  from his home in Palestine joined the Christians, learnt their
  θαυμαστὴ σοφία, became their prophet (§ 34, 1), Thiasarch (§ 17, 3)
  and Synagogeus, and as such expounded their sacred writings,
  even himself composed and addressed to the most celebrated Greek
  cities many epistles containing new ordinances and laws. When
  cast into prison he was the subject of the most extravagant
  attentions on the part of the Christians. Their γραΐδια and χῆραι
  (deaconesses) nursed him most carefully, δεῖπνα ποικίλα and λόγοι
  ἱεροί (Agapæ) were celebrated in his prison, they loaded him with
  presents, etc. Nevertheless on leaving prison, on account of his
  having eaten a forbidden kind of meat (flesh offered to idols)
  he was expelled by them. He now cast himself into the arms of
  the Cynics, travelled as the apostle of their views through the
  whole world, and ended his life in his mad thirst for fame by
  voluntarily casting himself upon the funeral pile. Lucian tells
  with scornful sneer how the superstitious people supposed that
  there had been an earthquake and that an eagle flew up from
  his ashes crying out: The earth I have lost, to Olympus I fly.
  This fable was believed, and even yet it is said that sometimes
  Peregrinus will be seen in a white garment as a spirit.--It is
  undoubtedly recorded by Aulus Gellius that a Cynic Peregrinus
  lived at this time whom he describes as _vir gravis et constans_.
  This too is told by the Apologist Tatian, who in him mocks at the
  pretension on the part of heathen philosophers to emancipation
  from all wants. But neither of them knows anything about his
  Christianity or his death by fire. It is nevertheless conceivable
  that Peregrinus had for some time connection with Christianity;
  but without this assumption it seems likely that Lucian in a
  satire which, under the combined influence of personal and class
  antipathies, aimed first and chiefly at stigmatizing Cynicism
  in the person of Peregrinus, should place Christianity alongside
  of it as what seemed to him with its contempt of the world and
  self-denial to be a new, perhaps a nobler, but still nothing more
  than a species of Cynicism. Many features in the caricature which
  he gives of the life, doings and death of Peregrinus seem to have
  been derived by him from the life of the Apostle Paul as well as
  from the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and especially
  from that of Polycarp (§ 22, 3).[28]

  § 23.2. =Worshippers of an Ass= (Asinarii) was a term of
  reproach that was originally and from early times applied to the
  Jews. They now sought to have it transferred to the Christians.
  Tertullian tells of a picture publicly exhibited in Carthage
  which represented a man clothed in a toga, with the ears and hoof
  of an ass, holding a book in his hand, and had this inscription:
  _Deus Christianorum Onochoetes_. This name is variously read. If
  read as ὄνου χοητής it means _asini sacerdos_. Alongside of this
  we may place the picture, belonging probably to the third century,
  discovered in A.D. 1858 scratched on a wall among the ruins
  of a school for the imperial slaves, that were then excavated.
  It represents a man with an ass’s head hanging on a cross, and
  beneath it the caricature of a worshipper with the words written
  in a schoolboy’s hand; Alexamenos worships God (A. σεβετε θεον);
  evidently the derision of a Christian youth by a pagan companion.
  The scratching on another wall gives us probably the answer of
  the Christian: _Alexamenos fidelis_.

  § 23.3. =Polemic properly so-called.=--

    (a) The Λόγος ἀληθής of =Celsus= is in great part preserved in
        the answer of Origen (§ 31, 5). He identifies the author
        with that Celsus to whom Lucian dedicated the little work
        _Alexander or Pseudomantis_ in which he so extols the
        philosophy of Epicurus that it seems he must be regarded as
        an Epicurean. Since, however, the philosophical standpoint
        of our Celsus is that of a Platonist the assumption of the
        identity of the two has been regarded as untenable. But
        even our Celsus does not seem to have been a pure Platonist
        but an Eclectic, and as such might also show a certain
        measure of favour to the philosophy of Epicurus. Their
        age is at least the same. Lucian wrote that treatise soon
        after A.D. 180, and according to Keim, the Λόγος ἀληθής was
        probably composed about A.D. 178. Almost everything that
        modern opponents down to our own day have advanced against
        the gospel history and doctrine is found here wrought out
        with original force and subtlety, inspired with burning
        hatred and bitter irony, and highly spiced with invective,
        mockery, and wit. First of all the author introduces
        a Jew who repeats the slanders current among the Jews,
        representing Jesus as a vagabond impostor, His mother
        as an adulteress, His miracles and resurrection as lying
        fables; then enters a heathen philosopher who proves that
        both Judaism and Christianity are absurd; and finally, the
        conditions are set forth under which alone the Christians
        might claim indulgence: the abandonment of their exclusive
        attitude toward the national religion and the recognition
        of it by their taking part in the sacrifices appointed by
        the state.[29]

    (b) The Neo-platonist Porphyry, about A.D. 270, as reported by
        Jerome, in the XV. Book of his Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν points to a
        number of supposed contradictions in holy scripture, calls
        attention to the conflict between Paul and Peter (Gal. ii.),
        explains Daniel’s prophecies as _Vaticinia post eventum_,
        and censures the allegorical interpretation of the
        Christians. Although even among the Christians themselves
        Porphyry as a philosopher was highly esteemed, and
        notwithstanding contact at certain points between his
        ethical and religious view of the world and that of the
        Christians, perhaps just because of this, he is the worst
        and most dangerous of all their pagan assailants. Against
        his controversial writings, therefore, the edict of
        Theodosius II. ordering them to be burnt was directed
        in A.D. 448 (§ 42, 4), and owing to the zeal with which
        his works were destroyed the greater part of the treatises
        which quoted from it for purposes of controversy also
        perished with it--the writings of Methodius of Tyre
        (§ 31, 9), Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2), Philostorgius
        (§ 5, 1) and Apollinaris the younger (§ 47, 5). Of these
        according to Jerome those of the last named were the
        most important. In the recently discovered controversial
        treatise of Macarius Magnes (§ 47, 6) an unnamed pagan
        philosopher is combated whose attacks, chiefly directed
        against the Gospels, to all appearance verbally agree with
        the treatise of Porphyry, or rather, perhaps, with that of
        his plagiarist Hierocles.

    (c) =Hierocles= who as governor of Bithynia took an active
        part in the persecution of Galerius, wrote two books
        Λόγοι φιλαλήθεις against the Christians, about A.D. 305,
        which have also perished. Eusebius’ reply refers only
        to his repudiation of the equality assigned to Christ
        and Apollonius of Tyana (§ 24, 1). While the title of
        his treatise is borrowed from that of Celsus, he has also
        according to the testimony of Eusebius in great part copied
        the very words of both of his predecessors.


              § 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism.

  All its own more thoughtful adherents had long acknowledged that
paganism must undergo a thorough reform and reconstruction if it were to
continue any longer in existence. In the Augustan Age an effort was made
to bolster up Neopythagoreanism by means of theurgy and magic. The chief
representative of this movement was Apollonius of Tyana. In the second
century an attempt was made to revivify the secret rites of the ancient
mysteries, of Dea Syra, and Mithras. Yet all this was not enough. What
was needed was the setting up of a pagan system which would meet the
religious cravings of men in the same measure as Christianity with its
supernaturalism, monotheism and universalism had done, and would have
the absurdities and impurities that had disfigured the popular religion
stripped off. Such a regeneration of paganism was undertaken in the
beginning of the third century by Neoplatonism. But even this was no
more able than pagan polemics had been to check the victorious career
of Christianity.

  § 24.1. =Apollonius of Tyana= in Cappadocia, a contemporary of
  Christ and the Apostles, was a philosopher, ascetic and magician
  esteemed among the people as a worker of miracles. As an earnest
  adherent of the doctrine of Pythagoras, whom he also imitated
  in his dress and manner of life, claiming the possession of the
  gifts of prophecy and miracle working, he assumed the role of a
  moral and religious reformer of the pagan religion of his fathers.
  Accompanied by numerous scholars, teaching and working miracles,
  he travelled through the whole of the then known world until
  he reached the wonderland of India. He settled down at last in
  Ephesus where he died at an advanced age, having at least passed
  his ninety-sixth year. At the wish of the Empress Julia, wife
  of Septimius Severus, in the third century, Philostratus the
  elder composed in the form of a romance in eight books based upon
  written and oral sources, a biography of Apollonius, in which
  he is represented as a heathen counterpart of Christ, who is
  otherwise completely ignored, excelling Him in completeness of
  life, doctrine and miraculous powers.[30]

  § 24.2. In =Neo-platonism=, by the combination of all that was
  noblest and best in the exoteric and esoteric religion, in the
  philosophy, theosophy and theurgy of earlier and later times
  in East and West, we are presented with a universal religion
  in which faith and knowledge, philosophy and theology, theory
  and practice, were so perfectly united and reconciled, and all
  religious needs so fully met, that in comparison with its wealth
  and fulness, the gnosis as well as the faith, the worship and
  the mysteries of the Christians must have seemed one-sided,
  commonplace and incomplete. The first to introduce and commend
  this tendency, which was carried out in three successive schools
  of philosophy, the Alexandrian-Roman, the Syrian and the Athenian,
  was the Alexandrian =Ammonius Saccas=,--this surname being
  derived from his occupation as a porter. He lived and taught in
  Alexandria till about A.D. 250. He sought to combine in a higher
  unity the Platonic and the Aristotelian philosophies, giving
  to the former a normative authority, and he did not hesitate to
  enrich his system by the incorporation of Christian ideas. His
  knowledge of Christianity came from Clement of Alexandria and
  from Origen, whose teacher in philosophy he had been. Porphyry
  indeed affirms that he had previously been himself a Christian,
  but had at a later period of life returned to paganism.--The most
  distinguished of his scholars, and also the most talented and
  profound of all the Neo-platonists, was =Plotinus=, who was in
  A.D. 254 a teacher of philosophy at Rome, and died in A.D. 270.
  His philosophico-theological system in its characteristic features
  is a combination of the Platonic antithesis of the finite world
  of sense and the eternal world of ideas with the stoical doctrine
  of the world soul. The eternal ground of all being is the one
  supramundane, unintelligible and indescribable good (τὸ ἕν, τὸ
  ἀγαθόν), from which all stages of being are radiated forth; first;
  spirit or the world of ideas (νοῦς, κόσμος νοητός), the eternal
  type of all being; and then, from this the world soul (ψυχή);
  and from this, finally, the world of phenomena. The outermost
  fringe of this evolution, the forms of which the further they are
  removed from the original ground become more and more imperfect,
  is matter, just as the shadow is the outermost fringe of the
  light. It is conceived of as the finite, the fleeting, even as
  evil in itself. But imperfect as the world of sense is, it is
  nevertheless the vehicle of the ideal world and in many ways
  penetrated by the ideas, and the lighting up imparted by the
  ideas affords it its beauty. In consequence of those rays shining
  in from the realm of ideas, a whole vast hierarchy of divine
  forms has arisen, with countless dæmons good and bad, which give
  room for the incorporation of all the divine beings of the Greek
  and oriental mythologies. In this way myths that were partly
  immoral and partly fantastic can be rehabilitated as symbolical
  coverings of speculative ideas. The souls of men, too, originate
  from the eternal world soul. By their transition, however, into
  the world of sense they are hampered and fettered by corporeity.
  They themselves complete their redemption through emancipation
  from the bonds of sense by means of asceticism and the practice
  of virtue. In this way they secure a return into the ideal world
  and the vision of the highest good, sometimes as moments of
  ecstatic mystical union with that world, even during this earthly
  life, but an eternally unbroken continuance thereof is only
  attained unto after complete emancipation from all the bonds of
  matter.[31]--Plotinus’ most celebrated scholar, who also wrote
  his life, and collected and arranged his literary remains, was
  =Porphyry=. He also taught in Rome and died there in A.D. 304.
  His ἐκ τῶν λογίων φιλοσοφία, a collection of oracular utterances,
  was a positive supplement to his polemic against Christianity
  (§ 23, 3), and afforded to paganism a book of revelation, a
  heathen bible, as Philostratus had before sought to portray a
  heathen saviour. Of greater importance for the development of
  mediæval scholasticism was his Commentary on the logical works
  of Aristotle, published in several editions of the Aristotelian
  Organon.--His scholar =Iamblichus= of Chalcis in Cœle-Syria,
  who died A.D. 333, was the founder of the Syrian school. The
  development which he gave to the Neo-platonic doctrine consisted
  chiefly in the incorporation of a fantastic oriental mythology
  and theurgy. This also brought him the reputation of being a
  magician.--Finally, the Athenian school had in =Proclus=, who
  died in A.D. 485, its most distinguished representative. While
  on the one hand, he proceeded along the path opened by Iamblichus
  to develop vagaries about dæmons and theurgical fancies, on the
  other hand, he gave to his school an impulse in the direction of
  scholarly and encyclopædic culture.--The Neo-platonic speculation
  exercised no small influence on the development of Christian
  philosophy. The philosophizing church fathers, whose darling
  was Plato, got acquaintance with his philosophical views from
  its relatively pure reproduction met with in the works of the
  older Neo-platonists. The influence of their mystico-theosophic
  doctrine, especially as conveyed in the writings of the
  Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11), is particularly discernible in
  the Christian mysticism of the middle ages, and has been thence
  transmitted to modern times.[32]


                  § 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction.

  The Judaism of the Apostolic Age in its most characteristic form was
thoroughly hostile to Christianity. The Pharisees and the mass of the
people with their expectation of a political Messiah, took offence at a
Messiah crucified by the Gentiles (1 Cor. i. 13); their national pride
was wounded by the granting of equality to Samaritans and heathens,
while their legal righteousness and sham piety were exposed and censured
by the teachings of Christianity. On the other side, the Sadducees felt
no less called upon to fight to the death against Christianity with its
doctrine of the resurrection (Acts iv. 2; xxiii. 6). The same hostile
feeling generally prevailed among the dispersion. The Jewish community
at Berea (Acts xvii. 2) is praised as a pleasing exception to the
general rule. Finally, in A.D. 70 destruction fell upon the covenant
people and the holy city. The Christian church of Jerusalem, acting upon
a warning uttered by the Lord (Matt. xxiv. 16), found a place of refuge
in the mountain city of Pella, on the other side of Jordan. But when
the Pseudo-Messiah, Bar-Cochba (Son of a Star, Num. xxiv. 17), roused
all Palestine against the Roman rule, in A.D. 132, the Palestinian
Christians who refused to assist or recognise the false Messiah,
had again to endure a bloody persecution. Bar-Cochba was defeated in
A.D. 135. Hadrian now commanded that upon pain of death no Jew should
enter Ælia Capitolina, the Roman colony founded by him on the ruins
of Jerusalem. From that time they were deprived of all power and
opportunity for direct persecution of the Christians. All the greater
was their pleasure at the persecutions by the heathens and their zeal
in urging the pagans to extreme measures. In their seminaries they gave
currency to the most horrible lies and calumnies about Christ and the
Christians, which also issued thence among the heathens. On the other
hand, however, they intensified their own anti-Christian attitude
and sought protection against the advancing tide of Christianity
by strangling all spiritual movement under a mass of traditional
interpretations and judgments of men. The Schools of Tiberias and
Babylon were the nurseries of this movement, and the _Talmud_, the first
part of which, the _Mishna_, had its origin during this period, marks
the completion of this anti-Christian self-petrifaction of Judaism. The
disciples of John, too, assumed a hostile attitude toward Christianity,
and formed a distinct set under the name of Hemerobaptists.
Contemporaneously with the first successes of the Apostolic mission, a
current set in among the Samaritans calculated to checkmate Christianity
by the setting up of new religions. Dositheus, Simon Magus and Menander
here made their appearance with claims to the Messiahship, and were at a
later period designated heresiarchs by the church fathers, who believed
that in them they found the germs of the Gnostic heresy (§§ 26 ff.).

  § 25.1. =Disciples of John.=--Even after their master had been
  beheaded the disciples of John the Baptist maintained a separate
  society of their own, and reproached the disciples of Jesus
  because of their want of strict ascetic discipline (Matt. ix. 14,
  etc.). The disciples of John in the Acts (xviii. 25; xix. 1-7)
  were probably Hellenist Jews, who on their visits to the feasts
  had been pointed by John to Christ, announced by him as Messiah,
  without having any information as to the further developments of
  the Christian community. About the middle of the second century,
  however, the Clementine Homilies (§ 28, 3), in which John the
  Baptist is designated a ἡμεροβαπτίστης, speaks of gnosticizing
  disciples of John, who may be identical with the =Hemerobaptists=,
  that is, those who practise baptism daily, of Eusebius (_Hist.
  Eccl._, iv. 22). They originated probably from a coalition of
  Essenes (§ 8, 4) and disciples of the Baptist who when orphaned
  by the death of John persistently refused to join the disciples
  of Christ.--We hear no more of them till the Carmelite missionary
  John a Jesu in Persia came upon a sect erroneously called
  Christians of St. John or Nazoreans.[33] Authentic information
  about the doctrine, worship and constitution of this sect that
  still numbers some hundred families, was first obtained in the
  19th century by an examination of their very comprehensive sacred
  literature, written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to that of
  the Babylonian Talmud. The most important of those writings the
  so-called Great Book (_Sidra rabba_), also called _Ginza_, that
  is, thesaurus, has been faithfully reproduced by Petermann under
  the title _Thesaurus s. Liber magnus_, etc., 2 vols., Berl.,
  1867.--Among themselves the adherents of this sect were styled
  =Mandæans=, after one of their numerous divine beings or æons,
  _Manda de chaje_, meaning γνῶσις τῆς ζωῆς. In their extremely
  complicated religious system, resembling in many respects the
  Ophite Gnosis (§ 27, 6) and Manicheism (§ 29), this Æon takes the
  place of the heavenly mediator in the salvation of the earthly
  world. Among those without, however, they called themselves
  Subba, =Sabeans= from צבא or צבע to baptize. Although they
  cannot be identified right off with the Disciples of John and
  Hemerobaptists, a historical connection between them, carrying
  with it gnostic and oriental-heathen influences, is highly
  probable. The name Sabean itself suggests this, but still more
  the position they assign to John the Baptist as the only true
  prophet over against Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. As
  adherents of John the Baptist rejected by the Jews the old
  Disciples of John had an anti-Jewish character, and by their
  own rejection of Christ an anti-Christian character. By shifting
  their residence to Babylon, however, they became so dependent
  on the Syro-Chaldean mythology, theosophy and theurgy, that they
  sank completely into paganism, and so their opposition to Judaism
  and Christianity increased into fanatical hatred and horrid
  calumniation.[34]

  § 25.2. =The Samaritan Heresiarchs.=

    (a) =Dositheus= was according to Origen a contemporary of
        Jesus and the Apostles, and gave himself out as the
        prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18. He insisted upon a
        curiously strict observance of the Sabbath, and according
        to Epiphanius he perished miserably in a cave in consequence
        of an ostentatiously prolonged fast. Purely fabulous are
        the stories of the Pseudo-Clementine writings (§ 28, 3)
        which bring him into contact with John the Baptist as his
        scholar and successor, and with Simon Magus as his defeated
        rival. More credible is the account of an Arabic-Samaritan
        Chronicle,[35] according to which the sect of the
        Dostanians at the time of Simon Maccabæus traced their
        descent from a Samaritan tribe, while also the Catholic
        heresiologies (§ 26, 4) reckon the Dositheans among the
        pre-Christian sects. According to a statement of Eulogius
        of Alexandria recorded by Photius, the Dositheans and
        Samaritans in Egypt in A.D. 588 disputed as to the meaning
        of Deut. xviii. 18.

    (b) =Simon Magus=, born, according to Justin Martyr, at Gitta
        in Samaria, appeared in his native country as a soothsayer
        with such success that the infatuated people hailed him as
        the δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη. When Philip the
        Deacon preached the gospel in Samaria, Simon also received
        baptism from him, but was sternly denounced by Peter from
        whom he wished to buy the gift of communicating the Spirit
        (Acts viii). As to the identity of this man with Simon
        the Magician, according to Josephus hailing from Cyprus,
        who induced the Herodian Drusilla to quit her husband and
        become the wife of the Governor Felix (Acts xxiv. 24), it
        can scarcely claim to be more than a probability. A vast
        collection of fabulous legends soon grew up around the
        name of Simon Magus, not only from the Gentile-Christian
        and Catholic side, but also from the Jewish-Christian and
        heretical side; the latter to be still met with in the
        _Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions_, while in the
        _Acta Petri et Pauli_, we have the Catholic revision and
        reproduction of the no longer extant Ebionistic _Acts of
        Peter_ (§ 32, 6). These Judaizing heretics particularly
        amused themselves by making a very slightly veiled
        vile caricature of the great Apostle of the Gentiles by
        transferring to the name of the magician many distorted
        representations of occurrences in the life and works of the
        Apostle Paul. This representation, however, was recognised
        in the Acts above referred to and by the church fathers
        as originally descriptive of Simon Magus. On the basis of
        this legendary conglomerate Irenæus, after the example of
        Justin, describes him as _Magister ac progenitor omnium
        hæreticorum_. From a house of ill fame in Tyre he bought
        a slave girl Helena, to whom he assigned the role of the
        world creating Ἔννοια of God. The angels born of her for
        the purpose of creating the world had rebelled against her;
        she was enslaved, and was imprisoned, sometimes in this,
        sometimes in that, human body; at one time in the body of
        Helen of Troy, and at last in that of the Tyrian prostitute.
        In order to redeem her and with her the world enslaved by
        the rebel angels, the supreme God (ὁ ἐστώς) Himself came
        down and assumed the form of man, was born unbegotten of
        man, suffered in appearance in Judea, and reveals Himself
        to the Samaritans as Father, to the Jews as Son, and to the
        Gentiles as the Holy Spirit. The salvation of man consists
        simply in acknowledging Simon and his Helena as the supreme
        gods. By faith only, not by works, is man justified. The
        law originated with the evil angels and was devised by them
        merely to keep men in bondage under them. This last point
        is evidently transferred to the magician partly from the
        Apostle Paul, partly from Marcion (§ 27, 11), and is copied
        from Ebionite sources. The Simon myth is specially rich in
        legends about the magician’s residence in Rome, to which
        place he had betaken himself after being often defeated
        in disputation by the Apostle Peter, and where he was so
        successful that the Romans erected a column in his honour
        on an island in the Tiber, which Justin Martyr himself is
        said to have seen, bearing the inscription: _Simoni sancto
        Deo_. The discovery in A.D. 1574 of the column dedicated
        to the Sabine god of oaths, inscribed “_Semoni Sanco Deo
        Fidio_,” explains how such a legend may have arisen out
        of a misunderstanding. Although by a successful piece of
        jugglery--decapitation and rising again the third day,
        having substituted for himself a goat whom he had bewitched
        to assume his appearance, whose head was cut off--he won
        the special favour of Nero, he was thereafter in public
        disputation before the emperor unmasked by Peter. In order
        to rehabilitate himself he offered to prove his divine
        power by ascending up into heaven. For this purpose he
        mounted a high tower. Peter adjured the angel of Satan,
        which carried him through the air, and the magician
        fell with a crash to the ground. Probably there is here
        transferred to one magician what is told by Suetonius
        (_Nero_, xii.) and Juvenal (_Sat._ iii. 79 ff.) as
        happening to a soothsayer in Nero’s time who made an
        attempt to fly. The school of Baur (§ 182, 7), after Baur
        himself had discovered in the Simon Magus of the Clementine
        Homilies a caricature of the Apostle Paul, has come to
        question the existence of the magician altogether, and
        has attempted to account for the myth as originating from
        the hatred of the Jewish Christians to the Apostle of the
        Gentiles. Support for this view is sought from Acts viii.,
        the offering of money by the magician being regarded as a
        maliciously distorted account of the contribution conveyed
        by Paul to the church at Jerusalem.[36] Recently, however,
        Hilgenfeld, who previously maintained this view, has again
        recognised as well grounded the tradition of the Church
        Fathers, that Simon was the real author of the ψευδώνυμος
        γνῶσις, and has carried out this idea in his
        “Ketzergeschichte.”

    (c) =Menander= was, according to Justin Martyr, a disciple of
        Simon. Subsequently he undertook to play the part of the
        Saviour of the world. In doing so, however, he was always,
        as Irenæus remarks, modest enough not to give himself out
        as the supreme god, but only as the Messiah sent by Him.
        He taught, however, that any one who should receive his
        baptism would never become old or die.[37]




             II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH
                     ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE.


                    § 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL.[38]

  The Judaism and paganism imported into the church proved more
dangerous to it than the storm of persecution raging against it from
without. Ebionism (§ 28) was the result of the attempt to incorporate
into Christianity the narrow particularism of Judaism; Heretical Gnosis
or Gnosticism was the result of the attempt to blend with Christianity
the religious notions of pagan mythology, mysteriology, theosophy and
philosophy. These two tendencies, moreover, were combined in a Gnostic
Ebionism, in the direction of which Essenism may be regarded as a
transitional stage (§ 8, 4). In many respects Manichæism (§ 29), which
sprang up at a later period, is related to the Gnosticism of Gentile
Christianity, but also in character and tendency widely different from
it. The church had to employ all her powers to preserve herself from
this medley of religious fancies and to purify her fields from the
weeds that were being sown on every side. In regard to Ebionism and
its gnosticizing developments this was a comparatively easy task. The
Gnosticism of Gentile Christianity was much more difficult to deal with,
and although the church succeeded in overcoming the weed in her fields,
yet many of its seeds continued hidden for centuries, from which sprouts
grew up now and again quite unexpectedly (§§ 54, 71, 108). This struggle
has nevertheless led to the furtherance of the church in many ways,
awakening in it a sense of scientific requirements, stirring it up
to more vigorous battling for the truth, and endowing it with a more
generous and liberal spirit. It had learnt to put a Christian gnosis in
the place of the heretical, a right and wholesome use of speculation and
philosophy, of poetry and art, in place of their misuse, and thus
enabled Christianity to realise its universal destination.

  § 26.1. =Gnosticism= was deeply rooted in a powerful and
  characteristic intellectual tendency of the first century. A
  persistent conviction that the ancient world had exhausted itself
  and was no longer able to resist its threatened overthrow, now
  prevailed and drove the deepest thinkers to adopt the boldest and
  grandest Syncretism the world has ever beheld, in the blending of
  all the previously isolated and heterogeneous elements of culture
  as a final attempt at the rejuvenating of that which had become
  old (§ 25). Even within the borders of the church this Syncretism
  favoured by the prevailing spirit of the age influenced those of
  superior culture, to whom the church doctrine of that age did not
  seem to make enough of theosophical principles and speculative
  thought, while the worship of the church seemed dry and barren.
  Out of the fusing of cosmological myths and philosophemes of
  oriental and Greek paganism with Christian historical elements in
  the crucible of its own speculation, there arose numerous systems
  of a higher fantastic sort of religious philosophy, which were
  included under the common name of Gnosticism. The pagan element
  is upon the whole the prevailing one, inasmuch as in most Gnostic
  systems Christianity is not represented as the conclusion and
  completion of the development of salvation given in the Old
  Testament, but often merely as the continuation and climax of
  the pagan religion of nature and the pagan mystery worship.
  The attitude of this heretical gnosis toward holy scripture was
  various. By means of allegorical interpretation some endeavoured
  to prove their system from it; others preferred to depreciate the
  Apostles as falsifiers of the original purely gnostic doctrine
  of Christ, or to remodel the apostolic writings in accordance
  with their own views, or even to produce a bible of their own
  after the principles of their own schools in the form of gnostic
  pseudepigraphs. With them, however, for the most part the
  tradition of ancient wisdom as the communicated secret doctrine
  stood higher than holy scripture. Over against the heretical
  gnosis, an ecclesiastical gnosis was developed, especially in the
  Alexandrian school of theology (Clement and Origen, § 31, 4, 5),
  which, according to 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9; xiii. 2, was esteemed
  and striven after as, in contradistinction to faith, a higher
  stage in the development of the religious consciousness. The
  essential distinction between the two consisted in this, that
  the latter was determined, inspired and governed by the believing
  consciousness of the universal church, as gradually formulated in
  the church confession, whereas the former, completely emancipated
  therefrom, disported itself in the unrestricted arbitrariness of
  fantastic speculation.

  § 26.2. =The Problems of Gnostic Speculation= are: the origin
  of the world and of evil, as well as the task, means and end of
  the world’s development. In solving these problems the Gnostics
  borrowed mostly from paganism the theory of the world’s origin,
  and from Christianity the idea of redemption. At the basis
  of almost all Gnostic systems there lies the dualism of God
  and matter (ὕλη); only that matter is regarded sometimes in a
  Platonic sense as non-essential and non-substantial (=μὴ ὄν)
  and hence without hostile opposition to the godhead, sometimes
  more in the Parsee sense as inspired and dominated by an evil
  principle, and hence in violent opposition to the good God.
  In working out the theosophical and cosmological process it is
  mainly the idea of emanation (προβολή) that is called into play,
  whereby from the hidden God is derived a long series of divine
  essences (αἰῶνες), whose inherent divine power diminishes in
  proportion as they are removed to a distance from the original
  source of being. These æons then make their appearance as
  intermediaries in the creation, development and redemption of the
  world. The substratum out of which the world is created consists
  in a mixture of the elements of the world of light (πλήρωμα)
  with the elements of matter (κένωμα) by means of nature, chance
  or conflict. One of the least and weakest of the æons, who is
  usually designated Δημιουργός, after the example of Plato in
  the _Timæus_, is brought forward as the creator of the world.
  Creation is the first step toward redemption. But the Demiurge
  cannot or will not carry it out, and so finally there appears in
  the fulness of the times one of the highest æons as redeemer, in
  order to secure perfect emancipation to the imprisoned elements
  of light by the communication of the γνῶσις. Seeing that matter
  is derived from the evil, he appears in a seeming body or at
  baptism identifies himself with the psychical Messiah sent by
  the Demiurge. The death on the cross is either only an optical
  illusion, or the heavenly Christ, returning to the pleroma,
  quits the man Jesus, or gives His form to some other man
  (Simon of Cyrene, Matt. xxvii. 32) so that he is crucified
  instead of Him (Docetism). The souls of men, according as the
  pleromatic or hylic predominates in them, are in their nature,
  either _Pneumatic_, which alone are capable of the γνῶσις, or
  _Psychical_, which can only aspire to πίστις, or finally, _Hylic_
  (χοϊκοί, σαρκικοί), to which class the great majority belongs,
  which, subject to Satanic influences, serve only their lower
  desires. Redemption consists in the conquest and exclusion
  of matter, and is accomplished through knowledge (γνῶσις) and
  asceticism. It is therefore a chemical, rather than an ethical
  process. Seeing that the original seat of evil is in matter,
  sanctification is driven from the ethical domain into the
  physical, and consists in battling with matter and withholding
  from material enjoyments. The Gnostics were thus originally very
  strict in their moral discipline, but often they rushed to the
  other extreme, to libertinism and antinomianism, in consequence
  partly of the depreciation of the law of the Demiurge, partly
  of the tendency to rebound from one extreme to the other, and
  justified their conduct on the ground of παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί.

  § 26.3. =Distribution.=--_Gieseler_ groups the Gentile Christian
  Gnostics according to their native countries into Egyptian or
  Alexandrian, whose emanationist and dualistic theories were
  coloured by Platonism, and the Syrian, whose views were affected
  by Parseeism.--_Neander_ divides Gnostic systems into Judaistic
  and Anti-Jewish, subdividing the latter into such as incline to
  Paganism, and such as strive to apprehend Christianity in its
  purity and simplicity.--_Hase_ arranges them as Oriental, Greek
  and Christian.--_Baur_ classifies the Gnostic systems as those
  which endeavour to combine Judaism and paganism with Christianity,
  and those which oppose Christianity to these.--_Lipsius_ marks
  three stages in the development of Gnosticism: the blending
  of Asiatic myths with a Jewish and Christian basis which took
  place in Syria; the further addition to this of Greek philosophy
  either Stoicism or Platonism which was carried out in Egypt;
  and recurrence to the ethical principles of Christianity, the
  elevation of πίστις above γνῶσις.--_Hilgenfeld_ arranges his
  discussion of these systems in accordance with their place in
  the early heresiologies.--But none of these arrangements can
  be regarded as in every respect satisfactory, and indeed it
  may be impossible to lay down any principle of distribution of
  such a kind. There are so many fundamental elements and these
  of so diverse a character, that no one scheme of division
  may suffice for an adequate classification of all Gnostic
  systems. The difficulty was further enhanced by the contradiction,
  approximation, and confusion of systems, and by their
  construction and reconstruction, of which Rome as the capital
  of the world was the great centre.

  § 26.4. =Sources of Information.=--Abundant as the literary
  productions were which assumed the name or else without the name
  developed the principles of Gnosticism, comparatively little of
  this literature has been preserved. We are thus mainly dependent
  upon the representations of its catholic opponents, and to them
  also we owe the preservation of many authentic fragments. The
  first church teacher who _ex professo_ deals with Gnosticism is
  Justin Martyr (§ 30, 9), whose controversial treatise, however,
  as well as that of Hegesippus (§ 31, 7), has been lost. The most
  important of extant treatises of this kind are those of Irenæus
  in five books _Adv. hæreses_, and of Hippolytus Ἔλεγχος κατὰ
  πασῶν αἱρέσεων, the so-called _Philosophoumena_ (§ 31, 3). The
  Σύνταγμα κ. π. αἱρ. of Hippolytus is no longer extant in the
  original; a Latin translation of it apparently exists in the
  _Libellus adv. omnes hæreses_, which has been attributed to
  Tertullian. Together with the work of Irenæus, it formed a
  query for the later heresiologists, Epiphanius and Philaster
  (§ 47, 10, 14), who were apparently unacquainted with the later
  written but more important and complete _Elenchus_. Besides these
  should be mentioned the writings of Tertullian (§ 31, 10) and
  Theodoret (§ 47, 9) referring to this controversy, the _Stromata_
  of Clement of Alexandria, and the published discussions of Origen
  (§ 31, 4, 5), especially in his Commentary on John, also the five
  Dialogues of the Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) against the Gnostics
  from the beginning of the fourth century;[39] and finally many
  notices in the Church History of Eusebius. The still extant
  fragments of the Gnostic Apocryphal historian of the Apostles
  afford information about the teaching and forms of worship of
  the later syncretic vulgar Gnosticism, and also from the very
  defective representations of them in the works of their Catholic
  opponents.


                § 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM.

  In the older heretical Gnosticism (§ 18, 3), Jewish, pagan,
and Christian elements are found, which are kept distinct, or are
amalgamated or after examination are rejected, what remains being
developed, consolidated and distributed, but in a confused blending.
This is the case with Cerinthus. In Basilides again, who attaches
himself to the doctrines of Stoicism, we have Gnosticism developed under
the influence of Alexandrian culture; and soon thereafter in Valentinus,
who builds on Plato’s philosophy, it attains its richest, most profound
and noblest expression. From the blending of Syro-Chaldæan mythology
with Greek and Hellenistic-Gnostic theories issue the divers Ophite
systems. Antinomian Gnosticism with loose practical morality was an
outgrowth from the contempt shown to the Jewish God that created the
world and gave the law. The genuinely Syrian Gnosticism with its
Parseeist-dualistic ruggedness was most purely represented by Saturninus,
while in Marcion and his scholars the exaggeration of the Pauline
opposition of law and grace led to a dualistic contrast of the God of
the Old Testament and of the New. From the middle of the second century
onwards there appears in the historical development of Gnosticism an
ever-increasing tendency to come to terms with the doctrine of the
church. This is shown by the founders of new sects, Marcion, Tatian,
Hermogenes; and also by many elaborators of early systems, by Heracleon,
Ptolomæus and Bardesanes who developed the Valentinian system, in the
so-called Pistis Sophia, as the exposition of the Ophite system. This
tendency to seek reconciliation with the church is also shown in a
kind of syncretic popular or vulgar Gnosticism which sought to attach
itself more closely to the church by the composition of apocryphal
and pseudepigraphic Gospels and Acts of Apostles under biblical names
and dates (§ 32, 4-6).--The most brilliant period in the history of
Gnosticism was the second century, commencing with the age of Hadrian.
At the beginning of the third century there was scarcely one of the
more cultured congregations throughout the whole of the Roman empire and
beyond this as far as Edessa, that was not affected by it. Yet we never
find the numbers of regular Gnostic congregations exceeding that of the
Catholic. Soon thereafter the season of decay set in. Its productive
power was exhausted, and while, on the one side, it was driven back by
the Catholic ecclesiastical reaction, on the other hand, in respect of
congregational organization it was outrun and outbidden by Manichæism,
and also by Marcionism.

  § 27.1. =Cerinthus=, as Irenæus says, resting on the testimony
  of Polycarp, was a younger contemporary of the Apostle John in
  Asia Minor; the Apostle meeting the heretic in a bath hastened
  out lest the building should fall upon the enemy of the truth.
  In his Gnosticism, resting according to Hippolytus on a basis
  of Alexandrian-Greek culture, we have the transition from the
  Jewish-Christian to a more Gentile than Jewish-Christian Gnostic
  standpoint. The continued hold of the former is seen according
  to Epiphanius in the maintaining of the necessity of circumcision
  and of the observances by Christians of the law given by
  disposition of angels, as also, according to Caius of Rome, who
  regards him as the author of the New Testament Apocalypse, in
  chiliastic expectations. Both of these, however, were probably
  intended only in the allegorical and spiritual sense. At the
  same time, according to Irenæus and Theodoret, the essentially
  Gnostic figure of the Demiurge already appears in his writings,
  who without knowing the supreme God is yet useful to Him as
  the creator of the world. Even Jesus, the son of Joseph and
  Mary, knew him not, until the ἄνω Χριστός descended upon him at
  his baptism. Before the crucifixion, which was a merely human
  mischance without any redemptive significance, the Christ had
  again withdrawn from him.

  § 27.2. =The Gnosticism of Basilides.=--=Basilides= (Βασιλείδης)
  was a teacher in Alexandria about A.D. 120-130. He pretends to
  derive the gnostic system from the notes of the esoteric teaching
  of Christ taken down by the Apostle Matthew and an amanuensis
  of Peter called Glaucias. He also made use of John’s Gospel and
  Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians. He
  himself left behind 24 books Ἐξηγητικά and his equally talented
  son Isidorus has left a treatise under the title Ἠθικά. Fragments
  of both are found in Clement of Alexandria, two passages from
  the first are given also in the “Acts of Disputation,” by
  Archelaus of Cascar (§ 29, 1). Irenæus, i. 24, who refers to him
  as a disciple of Menander (§ 25, 2), and the Pseudo-Tertullian,
  c. 41, Epiphanius, 21, and Theodoret, i. 4, describe his system
  as grossly dualistic and decidedly emanationist. Hippolytus,
  vii. 14 ff., on the other hand, with whom Clement seems
  to agree, describes it as a thoroughly monistic system, in
  which the theogony is developed not by emanation from above
  downwards but by evolution from below upwards. This latter view
  which undoubtedly presents this system in a more favourable
  light,--according to Baur, Uhlhorn, Jacobi, Möller, Funk, etc.,
  its original form: according to Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Volkmar,
  etc., a later form influenced by later interpolations of Greek
  pantheistic ideas,--makes the development of God and the world
  begin with pure nothing: ἦν ὅτε ἦν οὐδέν. The principle of all
  development is ὁ οὐκ ὢν θεός, who out of Himself (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων)
  calls chaos into being. This chaos was still itself an οὐκ ὄν,
  but yet also the πανσπερμία τοῦ κόσμου upon which now the οὐκ ὢν
  θεός as ἀκίνητος κινητής operated attractively by his beauty. The
  pneumatic element in the newly created chaos is represented in a
  threefold sonship (υἱότης τριμερής) of which the first and most
  perfect immediately after creation with the swiftness of thought
  takes its flight to the happy realm of non-existence, the Pleroma.
  The second less perfect sonship struggles after the first (hence
  called, μιμητική), but must, on reaching the borders of the
  happy realm, cast aside the less perfect part of its being, which
  now as the Holy Spirit (μεθόριον πνεῦμα) forms the vestibule
  (στερέωμα) or boundary line between the Pleroma (τὰ ὑπερκόσμια)
  and the cosmos, and although severed from the sonship, still,
  like a vessel out of which sweet ointment has been taken, it
  bears to this lower world some of the perfume adhering to it.
  The third sonship being in need of purifying must still remain in
  the Panspermia, and is as such the subject of future redemption.
  On the other hand, the greatest archon as the most complete
  concentration of all wisdom, might and glory which was found
  in the psychical elements of chaos, flew up to the firmament as
  ἀῤῥητῶν ἀῤῥητότερος. He now fancied himself to be the Supreme God
  and ruler of all things, and begot a son, who according to the
  predetermination of the non-existing excelled him in insight and
  wisdom. For himself and Son, having with them besides six other
  unnamed principalities, he founded the higher heavens, the so-
  called Ogdoas. After him there arose of chaos a second inferior
  Archon with the predicate ἄῤῥητος, who likewise begat a son
  mightier than himself, and founded a lower heavenly realm,
  the so-called Hebdomas, the planetary heavens. The rest of the
  Panspermia was the developed κατὰ φύσιν, that is, in accordance
  with the natural principle implanted in it by the non-existent
  “at our stage” (τὸ διάστημα τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶς). As the time drew near
  for the manifestation of the children of God, that is, of men
  whose pneumatical endowment was derived from the third sonship,
  the son of the great Archon through the mediation of the μεθόριον
  πνεῦμα first devised the saving plan of the Pleroma. With fear
  and trembling now the great Archon too acknowledged his error,
  repented of this self-exaltation and with the whole Ogdoas
  rejoiced in the scheme of salvation. Through him also the son of
  the second Archon is enlightened, and he instructs his father,
  who now as the God of the Old Testament prepares the way for the
  development of salvation by the law and prophecy. The beginning
  is made by Jesus, son of the virgin Mary, who first himself
  absorbed the ray of the higher light, and as “the firstborn
  of the children of God” became also the Saviour (σωτήρ) of
  his brethren. His sufferings were necessary for removing the
  psychical and somatical elements of the Panspermia adhering to
  him. They were therefore actual, not mere seeming sufferings. His
  bodily part returned to the formlessness out of which it sprang;
  his psychical part arose from the grave, but in his ascension
  returned into the Hebdomas, while his pneumatic being belonging
  to the third sonship went up to the happy seat of the οὐκ ὢν θεός.
  And as he, the firstborn, so also all the children of God, have
  afterwards to perform their task of securing the highest possible
  development and perfection of the groaning creation (Rom. viii.
  19), that is, of all souls which by their nature are eternally
  bound “to our stage.” Then finally, God will pour over all
  ranks of being beginning from the lowest the great ignorance
  (τὴν μεγάλην ἄγνοιαν) so that no one may be disturbed in their
  blessedness by the knowledge of a higher. Thus the restitution of
  all things is accomplished.--The mild spirit which pervades this
  dogmatic system preserved from extravagances of a rigoristic or
  libertine sort the ethical system resulting from it. Marriage was
  honoured and regarded as holy, though celibacy was admitted to be
  helpful in freeing the soul from the thraldom of fleshly lusts.

  § 27.3. The system set forth by Irenæus and others, as that of
  Basilides, represents the Supreme God as _Pater innatus_ or θεὸς
  ἄῤῥητος. From him emanates the Νοῦς, from this again the Λόγος,
  from this the Φρόνησις, who brings forth Σοφία and Δύναμις. From
  the two last named spring the Ἀρχαί, Ἐξουσίαι and Ἄγγελοι, who
  with number seven of the higher gods, the primal father, at their
  head, constitute the highest heaven. From this as its ἀντίτυπος
  radiates forth a second spiritual world, and the emanation
  continues in this way, until it is completed and exhausts itself
  in the number of 365 spiritual worlds or heavens under the mystic
  name Ἀβραξάς or Ἀβρασάξ which has in its letters the numerical
  value referred to. This last and most imperfect of these
  spiritual worlds with its seven planet spirits forms the heaven
  visible to us. Through this three hundred and sixty-five times
  repeated emanation the Pleroma approaches the borders of the hyle,
  a seething mass of forces wildly tossing against one another.
  These rush wildly against it, snatch from it fragments of light
  and imprison them in matter. From this mixture the Archon of the
  lowest heaven in fellowship with his companions creates the earth,
  and to each of them apportions by lot a nation, reserving to
  himself the Jewish nation which he seeks to raise above all other
  nations, and so introduces envy and ambition into heaven, and
  war and bloodshed upon earth. Finally, the Supreme God sends his
  First-born, the Νοῦς, in order to deliver men from the power of
  the angel that created the world. He assumes the appearance of a
  body, and does many miracles. The Jews determined upon his death;
  nevertheless they crucified instead of him Simon the Cyrenian,
  who assumed his shape. He himself returned to his Father. By
  means of the Gnosis which he taught men’s souls are redeemed,
  while their bodies perish.--The development of one of these
  systems into the other might be most simply explained by assuming
  that the one described in the _Elenchus_ of Hippolytus is the
  original and that its reconstruction was brought about by the
  overpowering intrusion of current dualistic, emanationistic,
  and docetic ideas. All that had there been said about the great
  Archon must now be attributed to the Supreme God, the _Pater
  innatus_, while the inferior archon might keep his place as ruler
  of the lowest planetary heaven. The 365 spiritual worlds had
  perhaps in the other system a place between the two Archons, for
  even Hippolytus, vii. 26, mentions in addition the 365 heavens
  to which also he gives the name of the great Archon Abrasax.--It
  is a fact of special importance that even Irenæus and Epiphanius
  distinguish from the genuine disciples of Basilides the so-called
  =Pseudo-Basilideans= as representing a later development, easily
  deducible from the second but hardly traceable from the first
  account of the system. That with their Gnosis they blended magic,
  witchcraft and fantastic superstition appears from the importance
  which they attached to mystic numbers and letters. Their
  libertine practice can be derived from their antinomian contempt
  of Judaism as well as from the theory that their bodies are
  doomed to perish. So, too, their axiom that to suffer martyrdom
  for the crucified, who was not indeed the real Christ, is foolish,
  may be deduced from the Docetism of their system. Abrasax gems
  which are still to be met with in great numbers and in great
  variety are to be attributed to these Basilideans; but these
  found favour and were used as talismans not only among other
  Gnostic sects but also among the Alchymists of the Middle Ages.

  § 27.4. =Valentinian Gnosticism.=--=Valentinus=, the most
  profound, talented and imaginative of all the Gnostics, was
  educated in Alexandria, and went to Rome about A.D. 140, where,
  during a residence of more than twenty years, he presided over an
  influential school, and exercised also a powerful influence upon
  other systems. He drew the materials for his system partly from
  holy scripture, especially from the Gospel of John, partly from
  the esoteric doctrine of a pretended disciple of Paul, Theodades.
  Of his own voluminous writings, in the form of discourses,
  epistles and poems, only a few fragments are extant. The
  reporters of his teaching, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian,
  Epiphanius, differ greatly from one another in details, and leave
  us in doubt as to what really belongs to his own doctrine and
  what to its development by his disciples--The fundamental idea of
  his system rests on the notion that according to a law founded in
  the depths of the divine nature the æons by emanation come into
  being as pairs, male and female. The pairing of these æons in
  a holy marriage is called a Syzygy. With this is joined another
  characteristic notion, that in the historical development of
  the Pleroma the original types of the three great crises of the
  earthly history, Creation, the Fall, and Redemption, are met with.
  On the basis of this he develops the most magnificently poetic
  epic of a Christian mythological Theogony and Cosmogony. From the
  Βυθός or Αὐτοπάτωρ and its Ἔννοια or Σιγή, evolving his thought
  hitherto only in silent contemplation of his own perfection,
  emanates the first and highest pair of æons, the Νοῦς or
  Μονογενής who alone of all æons can bear to look into the depths
  of the perfection of the Father of all, and beside him his bride
  Ἀλήθεια. From them spring the Λόγος and Ζωή as the second pair,
  and from this pair again Ἄνθρωπος and Ἐκκλησία as the third pair.
  The Αὐτοπάτωρ and his Ennoia, with the first and highest pair
  of æons emanating for them, and these together with the second
  Tetras, form the Ogdoas. The Logos then begets a further removed
  circle of five pairs, the Decas, and finally the Anthropos begets
  the last series of six pairs, the Dodecas. Therewith the =Pleroma=
  attains a preliminary completion. A final boundary is fixed for
  it by the Ὅρος emanating from the Father of all, who, being alone
  raised above the operation of the law of the Syzygy, is endowed
  with a twofold ἐνεργεία, an ἐνεργεία διοριστική, by means of
  which he wards off all from without that would hurt, and an
  ἐνεργεία ἑδραστική, the symbol of which is the cross, with which
  he maintains inward harmony and order. How necessary this was is
  soon made apparent. For the Σοφία, the last and least member of
  the fourteen æon pairs, impelled by burning desire, tears herself
  away from her partner, and seeks to plunge into the Bythos
  in order to embrace the Father of All himself. She is indeed
  prevented from this by the Horos; but the breach in the Pleroma
  has been made. In order to restore the harmony that has thus been
  broken, the Monogenes begets with Aletheia a new æon pair, the
  Ἄνω Χριστός and the Πνεῦμα ἅγιον which emancipates the Sophia
  from her disorderly, passionate nature (Ἐνθύμησις), cuts out this
  latter from the Pleroma, but unites again the purified Sophia
  with her husband, and teaches all the æons about the Father’s
  unapproachable and incomprehensible essence, and about the reason
  and end of the Syzygies. Then they all, amid hymns of praise
  and thanksgiving, present an offering to the Father, each one of
  the best that he has, and form thereof an indescribably glorious
  æon-being, the Ἄνω Σωτήρ, and for his service myriads of august
  angels, who bow in worship before him.--The basis for the
  origination of the =sensible world=, the Ὑστέρημα, consist of
  the Enthymesis ejected from the Pleroma into the desert, void
  and substanceless Kenoma, which is by it for the first time
  filled and vitalized. It is an ἔκτρωμα, an abortion, which however
  retains still the æon nature of its divine present, and as such
  bears the name of Ἔξω (κάτω) Σοφία or Ἀχαμώθ (הַחָכְמוֹת). Hence even
  the blessed spirits of the Pleroma can never forsake her. They
  all suffer with the unfortunate, until she who had sprung from
  the Pleroma is restored to it purified and matured. Hence they
  espouse her, the Ektroma of the last and least of the æons, to
  the Ano-Soter, the noblest, most glorious and most perfect being
  in the æon-heaven, as her redeemer and future husband. He begins
  by comforting the despondent and casting out from her the baser
  affections. Among the worst, fear, sorrow, doubt, etc., is found
  the basis of the hylic stage of existence; among the better,
  repentance, desire, hope, etc., that of the psychic stage of
  existence (φύσεις). Over the beings issuing forth from the former
  presides Satan; over the psychical forms of being, as their
  highest development, presides the Demiurge, who prepares as
  his dwelling-place the seven lower heavens, the Hebdomas.
  But Achamoth had retired with the pneumatic substratum still
  remaining in her into the Τόπος τῆς μεσότητος, between the
  Pleroma and the lower world, whence she, inspired by the
  Ano-Soter, operates upon the Demiurge, who, knowing nothing of
  her existence, has no anticipation thereof. From the dust of the
  earth and pneumatic seed, which unobserved she conveys into it,
  he formed man, breathed into him his own psychical breath of
  life, and set him in paradise, that is, in the third of his seven
  heavens, but banished him to earth, when he disobeyed his command,
  and instead of his first ethereal garment clothed him in a
  material body. When men had spread upon the earth, they developed
  these different natures: _Pneumatical_, which free from the
  bondage of every outward law and not subject to the impulses of
  the senses, a law unto themselves, travel toward the Pleroma;
  next, the _Hylic_, which, hostile to all spirit and law, and
  the sport of all lusts and passions, are doomed to irremediable
  destruction; and finally, the _Psychical_, which under the
  discipline of outward law attain not indeed to a perfect divine
  life, but yet to outward righteousness, while on the other hand
  they may sink down to the rank and condition of the Hylic natures.
  The _Psychical_ natures were particularly numerous among the
  Jews. Therefore the Demiurge chose them as his own, and gave
  them a strict law and through his prophets promised them a
  future Messiah. The _Hylic_ natures which were found mostly among
  the heathens, were utterly hateful to him. The _Pneumatical_
  natures with their innate longing after the Pleroma, he did not
  understand and therefore disregarded; but yet, without knowing
  or designing it, he chose many of them for kings, priests, and
  prophets of his people, and to his amazement heard from their
  lips prophecies of a higher soul, which originated from Achamoth,
  and which he did not understand. When the time was fulfilled,
  he sent his Messiah in the person of Jesus. When he was baptized
  by John, the heaven opened over him and the Ano-Soter descended
  upon him. The Demiurge saw it and was astonished, but submitted
  himself awe-stricken to the will of the superior deities. The
  Soter remained then a year upon the earth. The Jews, refusing to
  receive him, nailed his organ, the psychical Messiah, to a cross;
  but his sufferings were only apparent sufferings, since the
  Demiurge had supplied him in his origin with an ethereal and
  only seemingly material body. In consequence of the work of the
  Ano-Soter the Pneumatical natures by means of the Gnosis taught
  by him, but the Psychical natures by means of Pistis, attain unto
  perfection after their kind. When once everything pneumatical and
  psychical which was bound up in matter, has been freed from it,
  the course of the world has reached its end and the longed-for
  time of Achamoth’s marriage will have come. Accompanied by
  myriads of his angels, the Soter leads the noble sufferer into
  the Pleroma. The pneumatical natures follow her, and as the
  Soter is married to Achamoth, the angels are married to them. The
  Demiurge goes with his tried and redeemed saints into the Τόπος
  τῆς μεσότητος. But from the depths of the Hyle breaks forth a
  hidden fire which utterly consumes the Hylic natures and the Hyle
  itself.[40]

  § 27.5. According to Hippolytus the Valentinian school split
  up into two parties--an Italian party, the leaders of which,
  Heracleon and Ptolemæus [Ptolemy], were at Rome, and an Eastern
  party to which Axionicus and Bardesanes belonged. =Heracleon= of
  Alexandria was a man of a profoundly religious temperament, who
  in his speculation inclined considerably toward the doctrine of
  the church, and even wrote the first commentary on the Gospel
  of John, of which many fragments are preserved in Origen’s
  commentary on that gospel. =Ptolemæus= [Ptolemy] drew even
  closer than his master to the church doctrine. Epiphanius quotes
  a letter of his to his pupil Flora in which, after Marcion’s
  example (see § 27, 11), the distinction of the divine and the
  demiurgical in the Old Testament, and the relation of the Old
  Testament to the New, are discussed. A position midway between
  that of the West and of the East is apparently represented
  by Marcus and his school. He combined with the doctrine of
  Valentinus the Pythagorean and cabbalistic mysticism of numbers
  and letters, and joined thereto magical and soothsaying arts.
  His followers, the Marcosians, had a form of worship full of
  ceremonial observances, with a twofold baptism, a psychical
  one in the Kato-Christus for the forgiveness of sins, and a
  pneumatical one for affiance with the future heavenly syzygy.
  Of the Antiochean Axionicus we know nothing but the name. Of far
  greater importance was =Bardesanes=, who flourished according
  to Eusebius in the time of Marcus Aurelius, but is assigned by
  authentic Syrian documents to the beginning of the third century.
  The chief sources of information about his doctrine are the
  56 rhyming discourses of Ephraem [Ephraim] against the heretics.
  Living at the court and enjoying the favour of the king of Edessa,
  he never attacked in his sermons the doctrinal system of the
  church, but spread his Gnostic views built upon a Valentinian
  basis in lofty hymns of which, besides numerous fragments in
  Ephraem [Ephraim], some are preserved in the apocryphal _Acta
  Thomae_ (§ 32, 6). Among his voluminous writings there was a
  controversial treatise against the Marcionites (see § 27, 11).
  In a Dialogue, Περὶ εἱμαρμένης, attributed to him, but probably
  belonging to one of his disciples named Philippus, from which
  Eusebius (_Præp. Ev._ vi. 10) quotes a passage, the Syrian
  original of which, “The Book of the Laws of the Land,” was only
  recently discovered,[41] astrology and fatalism are combated
  from a Christian standpoint, although the author is still himself
  dominated by many Zoroastrian ideas. Harmonius, the highly gifted
  son of Bardesanes, distinguished himself by the composition of
  hymns in a similar spirit.

  § 27.6. =The Ophites and related Sects.=--The multiform Ophite
  Gnosis is in general characterized by fantastic combinations of
  Syro-Chaldaic myths and Biblical history with Greek mythology,
  philosophy and mysteriosophy. In all its forms the serpent (ὄφις,
  נָחָשׁ) plays an important part, sometimes as Kakodemon, sometimes
  as Agathodemon. This arose from the place that the serpent
  had in the Egyptian and Asiatic cosmology as well as in the
  early biblical history. One of the oldest forms of Ophitism is
  described by Hippolytus, who gives to its representatives the
  name of =Naassenes=, from נָחָשׁ. The formless original essence, ὁ
  προών, revealed himself in the first men, Ἀδάμας, Adam, Cadmon,
  in whom the pneumatic, psychical and hylic principles were still
  present together. As the instrument in creation he is called
  Logos or Hermes. The serpent is revered as Agathodemon; it
  proceeds from the Logos, transmitting the stream of life to all
  creatures. Christ, the redeemer, is the earthly representative of
  the first man, and brings peace to all the three stages of life,
  because he, by his teaching, directs every one to a mode of life
  in accordance with his nature.--The =Sethites=, according to
  Hippolytus, taught that there were two principles: an upper one,
  τὸ φῶς, an under one, τὸ σκότος, and between these τὸ πνεῦμα, the
  atmosphere that moves and causes motion. From a blending of light
  with darkness arose chaos, in which the pneuma awakened life.
  Then from chaos sprang the soul of the world as a serpent, which
  became the Demiurge. Man had a threefold development: hylic or
  material in Cain, psychical in Abel, and pneumatical in Seth, who
  was the first Gnostic.--The founders of the =Perates=, who were
  already known to Clement of Alexandria, are called by Hippolytus
  Euphrates and Celbes. Their name implies that they withdrew from
  the world of sense in order to secure eternal life here below,
  περᾶν τὴν φθοράν. The original divine unity, they taught, had
  developed into a Trinity: τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἀυτογενές and γεννητόν,
  the Father, the Son, and the Hyle. The Son is the world serpent
  that moves and quickens all things (καθολικός ὄφις). It is his
  task to restore everything that has sunk down from the two higher
  worlds into the lower, and is held fast by its Archon. Sometimes
  he turns himself serpent-like to his Father and assumes his
  divine attributes, sometimes to the lower world to communicate
  them to it. In the shape of a serpent he delivers Eve from the
  law of the Archon. All who are outlawed by this Archon, Cain,
  Nimrod, etc., belong to him. Moses, too, is an adherent of his,
  who erected in the wilderness the healing brazen serpent to
  represent him, while the fiery biting serpent of the desert
  represent the demons of the Archon. The =Cainites=, spoken of by
  Irenæus and Epiphanius, were closely connected with the Perates.
  All the men characterized in the Old Testament as godless are
  esteemed by them genuine pneumatical beings and martyrs for the
  truth. The first who distinguished himself in conflict with the
  God of the Jews was Cain; the last who led the struggle on to
  victory, by bringing the psychical Messiah through his profound
  sagacity to the cross, was Judas Iscariot. The Gnostic =Justin=
  is known to us only through Hippolytus, who draws his information
  from a _Book of Baruch_. He taught that from the original essence,
  ὁ Ἀγαθός or Κύριος, יְהוָֹה, emanated a male principle, Ἐλωείμ, אֱלֹהִים,
  which had a pneumatical nature, and a female principle, Ἐδέμ, עֵדֶן,
  which was above man (psychical) and below the serpent (hylic).
  From the union of this pair sprang twelve ἄγγελοι πατρικοί, who
  had in them the father’s nature, and twelve ἄγγελοι μητρικοί,
  on whom the mother’s nature was impressed. Together they formed
  Paradise, in which Baruch, an angel of Elohim, represented the
  tree of life, and Naas, an Edem-angel, represented the tree
  of knowledge. The Elohim-angel formed man out of the dust
  of Paradise; Edem gave him a soul, Elohim gave him a spirit.
  Pressing upward by means of his pneumatical nature Elohim raised
  himself to the borders of the realms of light. The Agathos took
  him and set him at his right hand. The forsaken Edem avenged
  himself by giving power to Naas to grieve the spirit of Elohim
  in man. He tempted Eve to commit adultery with him, and got Adam
  to commit unnatural vice with him. In order to show the grieved
  spirit of man the way to heaven, Elohim sent Baruch first to
  Moses and afterwards to other Prophets of the Old Testament;
  but Naas frustrated all his efforts. Even from among the heathen
  Elohim raised up prophets, such as Hercules whom he sent to fight
  against the twelve Edem-angels (his twelve labours), but one of
  them named Babel or Aphrodite robbed even this divine hero of his
  power (a reminiscence of the story of Omphale). Finally, Elohim
  sent Baruch to the peasant boy Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary.
  He resisted all the temptations of Naas, who therefore got him
  nailed upon the cross. Jesus commended his spirit into the hands
  of the Father, into whose heaven he ascended, leaving his body
  and soul with Edem. So, after his example, do all the pious.

  § 27.7. The Gnosis of the =Ophites=, described by Irenæus, etc.,
  is distinguished from that of the earlier Naasenes [Naassenes]
  by its incorporation of Valentinian and dualistic or Saturninian
  (see § 27, 9) ideas. From the Bythos who, as the primary being,
  is also called the first man, Adam Cadmon, emanates the thought,
  ἔννοια, of himself as the second man or son of man, and from
  him the Holy Spirit or the Ano-Sophia, who in turn bears the
  Ano-Christus and Achamoth. The latter, an imperfect being of
  light, who is also called Προύνικος, which according to Epiphanius
  means πόρνη, drives about through the dark ocean of chaos, over
  which the productive mother, the Holy Spirit, broods, in order
  to found for himself in it an independent world of his own. There
  dense matter unites with the element of light and darkens it to
  such a degree that even the consciousness of its own divine origin
  begins to fade away from it. In this condition of estrangement
  from God she produces the Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, יַלְדָּא בָּהוּת, son
  of chaos; and he, a wicked as well as limited being, full of
  arrogance and pride, determines that he himself alone will be
  lord and master in the world which he creates. This brings
  Achamoth to penitent deliberation. By the vigorous exercise of
  all the powers of light dwelling in her, and strengthened by a
  gleam of light from above, she succeeds in raising herself from
  the realm of chaos into the Τόπος τῆς μεσότητος. Nevertheless
  Jaldabaoth brought forth six star spirits or planets after his
  own image, and placed himself as the seventh at their head. But
  they too think of rebelling. Enraged at this Jaldabaoth glances
  wildly upon the deep-lying slime of the Hyle; his frightfully
  distorted countenance is mirrored in this refuse of chaos; the
  image there comes to life and forms Ophiomorphus or Satan. By
  order of Jaldabaoth the star spirits make man; but they produce
  only an awkward spiritless being that creeps along the ground. In
  order to quicken it and make it stand erect the Demiurge breathes
  into it his own breath, but thereby deprives himself of a great
  part of that pneumatical element which he had from his mother.
  The so-called fall, in which Ophiomorphus or the serpent was only
  the unconscious instrument of Achamoth, is in truth the beginning
  of the redemption of man, the advance to self-consciousness
  and moral freedom. But as a punishment for his disobedience
  Jaldabaoth drove him out of the higher material world, Paradise,
  into the lower, where he was exposed to the annoyances of
  Ophiomorphus, who also brought the majority of mankind, the
  heathens, under his authority, while the Jews served Jaldabaoth,
  and only a small number of pneumatical natures by the help
  of Achamoth kept themselves free from both. The prophets whom
  Jaldabaoth sent to his people, were at the same time unconscious
  organs of Achamoth, who also sent down the Ano-Christus from the
  Pleroma upon the Messiah, whose kingdom is yet to spread among
  all nations. Jaldabaoth now let his own Messiah be crucified,
  but the Ano-Christus was already withdrawn from him and had
  set himself unseen at the right hand of the Demiurge, where he
  deprives him and his angels of all the light element which they
  still had in them, and gathers round himself the pneumatical
  from among mankind, in order to lead them into the Pleroma.--The
  latest and at the same time the noblest product of Ophite
  Gnosticism is the =Pistis Sophia=,[42] appearing in the middle
  of the third century, with a strong tincture of Valentinianism.
  It treats mainly of the fall, repentance, and complaint of
  Sophia, and of the mysteries that purify for redemption, often
  approaching very closely the doctrine of the church.

  § 27.8. =Antinomian and Libertine Sects.=--The later
  representatives of Alexandrian Gnosticism on account of the
  antinomian tendency of their system fell for the most part into
  gross immorality, which excused itself on the ground that the
  pneumatical men must throw contempt upon the law of the Demiurge,
  ἀντιτάσσεσθαι, (whence they were also called Antitactes), and
  that by the practice of fleshly lusts one must weaken and slay
  the flesh, παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί, so as to overcome the powers
  of the Hyle. The four following sects may be mentioned as those
  which maintained such views.--

    a. =The Nicolaitans=, who in order to give themselves the
       sanction of primitive Christianity sought to trace their
       descent from Nicolaus [Nicolas] the Deacon (Acts vi. 5). But
       while they have really no connection with him, they are just
       as little to be identified with the Nicolaitans of the
       Apocalypse (§ 18, 3).

    b. In a similar way the =Simonians= sought to attach themselves
       to Simon Magus (§ 25, 2). They gave to the fables associated
       with the name of Simon a speculative basis borrowed from
       the central idea of the philosophy of Heraclitus, that
       the principle of all things (ἡ ἀπέραντος δύναμις) is fire.
       From it in three syzygies, νοῦς and ἐπίνοια, φωνή and
       ὄνομα, λογισμός and ἐνθύμησις, proceed the six roots of
       the supersensible world, and subsequently the corresponding
       six roots of the sensible world, Heaven and earth, Sun and
       moon, Air and water, in which unlimited force is present
       as ὁ ἐστώς, στάς, and στησόμενος. Justin Martyr was already
       acquainted with this sect, and also Hippolytus, who quotes
       many passages from their chief treatise, entitled, Ἀπόφασις
       μεγάλη and reports scandalous things about their foul
       worship.

    c. =The Carpocratians.= In the system of their founder
       Carpocrates, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of
       the second century, God is the eternal Mould, the unity
       without distinctions, from whom all being flows and to whom
       all returns again. From Him the ἄγγελοι κοσμοποιοί revolted.
       By the creation of the world they established a distinct
       order of existence apart from God and consolidated it by the
       law issuing from them and the national religions of Jews and
       Gentiles founded by them. Thus true religion or the way of
       return for the human spirit into the One and All consists
       theoretically in Gnosis, practically in emancipation from
       the commands of the Demiurge and in a life κατὰ φύσιν. The
       distinction of good and bad actions rests merely on human
       opinions. Man is redeemed by faith and love. In order to be
       able to overcome the powers that created the world, he is
       in need of magic which is intimately connected with Gnosis.
       Every human spirit who has not fully attained to this end of
       all religious endeavour, is subjected, until he reaches it,
       to the assumption of one bodily form after another. Among
       the heroes of humanity who with special energy and success
       have assailed the kingdom of the Demiurge by contempt
       of his law and spread of the true Gnosis, a particularly
       conspicuous place is assigned to Jesus, the son of Joseph.
       What he was for the Jews, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, etc.,
       were for the Gentiles. To the talented son of Carpocrates,
       named Epiphanes, who died in his seventeenth year, after
       impressing upon his father’s Gnostic system a boundless
       communistic and libertine tendency with community of goods
       and wives, his followers erected a temple at Cephalonia, in
       which they set up for divine honours the statues of Christ
       and the Greek philosophers. At the close of their Agapæ,
       they indulged in _Concubitus promiscuus_.

    d. =The Prodicians= flourished about the time of Clement of
       Alexandria, and were connected, perhaps, through their
       founder Prodicus, with the Carpocratians. In order to prove
       their dominion over the sensible world they were wont to
       appear in their assemblies naked, and hence are also called
       =Adamites=. So soon as they succeeded in thus reaching
       the state of innocence that had preceded the fall, they
       maintained that as pneumatical king’s sons they were raised
       above all law and entitled to indulge in unbridled lust.

  § 27.9. =Saturninus=, or Satornilus of Antioch, according to
  Irenæus, a disciple of Menander, was one of the oldest Syrian
  Gnostics, during the age of Hadrian, and the one in whose system
  of Dualism the most decided traces of Parsee colouring is found.
  From the θεὸς ἄγνωστος the spirit world of the kingdom of light
  emanates in successive stages. On the lowest stage stand the
  seven planet spirits, ἄγγελοι κοσμοκράτορες, at their head the
  creator of the world and the god of the Jews. But from eternity
  over against the realm of light stands the Hyle in violent
  opposition under the rule of Satanas. The seven star spirits
  think to found therein a kingdom free and independent of the
  Pleroma, and for this purpose make an inroad upon the kingdom
  of the Hyle, and seize upon a part of it. Therefore they form
  the sensible world and create man as keeper thereof after a fair
  model sent by the good God of which they had a dim vision. But
  they could not give him the upright form. The supreme God then
  takes pity upon the wretched creature. He sends down a spark
  of light σπινθήρ into it which fills it with pneumatical life
  and makes it stand up. But Satanas set a hylic race of men
  over against this pneumatical race, and persecuted the latter
  incessantly by demons. The Jewish god then plans to redeem the
  persecuted by a Messiah, and inspires prophets to announce his
  coming. But Satan, too, has his prophets, and the Jewish god is
  not powerful enough to make his views prevail over his enemy’s.
  Finally the good God sends to the earth the Aeon [Æon] Νοῦς, in
  what has the appearance of a body, in order that he as σωτήρ may
  teach the pneumatical how to escape, by Gnosis and asceticism,
  abstaining from marriage and the eating of flesh, not only the
  attacks of Satan, but also the dominion of the Jewish god and his
  star spirits, how to emancipate themselves from all connection
  with matter, and to raise themselves into the realm of light.

  § 27.10. =Tatian and the Encratites.=--The Assyrian Tatian,
  converted to Christianity at Rome by Justin Martyr, makes his
  appearance as a zealous apologist of the faith (§ 30, 10). In
  his later years, however, just as in the case of Marcion, in
  consequence of his exaggeration of the Pauline antithesis of
  flesh and spirit, law and grace, he was led to propound a theory
  of the dualistic opposition between the god of the law, the
  Demiurge, and the god of the gospel, which found expression
  in a Gnostic-ascetic system, completely breaking away from the
  Catholic church, and reaching its conclusion in the hyperascetic
  sect of the Encratites that arose in Rome about A.D. 172. He now
  became head and leader of this sect, which, with its fanatical
  demand of complete abstinence from marriage, from all eating of
  flesh and all spirituous liquors, won his approval, and perhaps
  from him received its first dogmatic Gnostic impress. Of Tatian’s
  Gnostic writings, Προβλήματα and Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα
  καταρτισμοῦ, only some fragments, with scanty notices of his
  Gnostic system, are preserved. His dualistic opposition of the
  god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament cannot
  have meant a thorough hostility, for he makes the Demiurge
  sitting in darkness address himself to the supreme God in
  the language of prayer, “Let there be light.” He declares,
  however, that Adam, as the author of the fall, is incapable
  of redemption.--His followers were also called Ὑδροπαραστάται,
  Aquarii, because at the Supper they used water instead of wine.
  See Lit. at § 30, 10.

  § 27.11. =Marcion and the Marcionites.=--Marcion of Sinope in
  Pontus, who died about A.D. 170, was, according to Tertullian,
  a rich shipmaster who, on his arrival in Rome, in his early
  enthusiasm for the faith, bestowed upon the Church there a rich
  present, but was afterwards excommunicated by it as a heretic.
  According to the Pseudo-Tertullian and others he was the son of a
  bishop who excommunicated him for incontinence with one under the
  vow of virginity. The story may possibly be based upon a later
  misunderstanding of the charge of corrupting the church as the
  pure bride of Christ. He was a man of a fiery and energetic
  character, but also rough and eccentric, of a thoroughly
  practical tendency and with little speculative talent. He was
  probably driven by the hard inward struggles of his spiritual
  life, somewhat similar to those through which Paul had passed, to
  a full and hearty conception of the free grace of God in Christ;
  but conceived of the opposition between law and gospel, which the
  Apostle brought into harmony by his theory of the pædogogical
  office of the law, as purely hostile and irreconcileable.
  At Rome in A.D. 140, the Syrian Gnostic =Cerdo=, who already
  distinguished between the “good” God of Christianity and
  the “just” God of Judaism, gained an influence over him.
  He consequently developed for himself a Gnostic system, the
  dominating idea of which was the irreconcilable opposition of
  righteousness and grace, law and gospel, Judaism and Christianity.
  He repudiated the whole of the Old Testament, and set forth
  the opposition between the two Testaments in a special treatise
  entitled _Antitheses_. He acknowledged only Paul as an Apostle,
  since all the rest had fallen back into Judaism, and of the whole
  New Testament he admitted only ten Pauline epistles, excluding
  the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistles to the Hebrews, and
  admitting the Gospel of Luke only in a mutilated form.[43]
  Marcion would know nothing of a secret doctrine and tradition
  and rejected the allegorical interpretation so much favoured
  by the Gnostics, as well as the theory of emanation and the
  subordination of Pistis under Gnosis. While other Gnostics
  formed not churches but only schools of select bands of
  thinkers, or at most only small gatherings, Marcion, after
  vainly trying to reform the Catholic church in accordance with
  his exaggerated Paulinism, set himself to establish a well
  organised ecclesiastical system, the members of which were
  arranged as _Perfecti_ or _Electi_ and _Catechumeni_. Of the
  former he required a strict asceticism, abstinence from marriage,
  and restriction in food to the simplest and least possible. He
  allowed the Catechumens, however, in opposition to the Catholic
  practice (§ 35, 1), to take part in all the services, which were
  conducted in the simplest possible forms. The moral earnestness
  and the practical tendency of his movement secured him many
  adherents, of whom many congregations maintained their existence
  for a much longer time than the members of other Gnostic sects,
  even down to the seventh century. None of the founders of the old
  Gnostic sects were more closely connected in life and doctrine
  to the Catholic Church than Marcion, and yet, or perhaps just for
  that reason, none of them were opposed by it so often, so eagerly
  and so bitterly. Even Polycarp, on his arrival in Rome (§ 37, 2),
  in reply to Marcion’s question whether he knew him, said:
  Ἐπιγνώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ.--The general scope and
  character of =the System of Marcion= have been variously
  estimated. All older ecclesiastical controversialists, Justin,
  Rhodon in Eusebius, Tertullian and Irenæus, in their description
  and refutation of it seem to recognise only two principles
  (ἀρχαί), which stand in opposition to one another, as θεὸς ἀγαθός
  and θεὸς δίκαιος. The latter appears as creator of the world,
  or Demiurge, the god of the Jews, the giver of the law, unable,
  however, by his law to save the Jews and deter them from breaking
  it, or to lead back the Gentiles to the observance of it. Then
  of his free grace the “good” God, previously quite unknown,
  determined to redeem men from the power of the Demiurge. For this
  purpose he sends his Logos into the world with the semblance of a
  body. By way of accommodation he gives himself out as the Messiah
  of the Jewish god, proclaims the forgiveness of sins through free
  grace, communicates to all who believe the powers of the divine
  life, is at the instigation of the angry Demiurge nailed to the
  cross to suffer death in appearance only, preaches to Gentiles
  imprisoned in Hades, banishes the Demiurge to Hades, and
  ordains the Apostle Paul as teacher of believers.--The later
  heresiologists, however, Hippolytus, in his Elenchus, Epiphanius,
  Theodoret, and especially the Armenian Esnig (§ 64, 3), are
  equally agreed in saying that Marcion recognised three principles
  (ἀρχαί); that besides the good God and the righteous God he
  admitted an evil principle, the Hyle concentrated in Satan, so
  that even the pre-Christian development of the world was viewed
  from the standpoint of a dualistic conflict between divine powers.
  The righteous God and the Hyle, as a _quasi_ female principle,
  united with one another in creating the world, and when the
  former saw how fair the earth was, he resolved to people it with
  men created of his own likeness. For this purpose the Hyle at his
  request afforded him dust, from which he created man, inspiring
  him with his own spirit. Both divine powers rejoiced over man as
  parents over a child, and shared in his worship. But the Demiurge
  sought to gain undivided authority over man, and so commanded
  Adam, under pain of death, to worship him alone, and the Hyle
  avenged himself by producing a multitude of idols to whom the
  majority of Adam’s descendants, falling away from the God of
  the law, gave reverence.--The harmonizing of these two accounts
  may be accomplished by assuming that the older Church Fathers,
  in their conflict with Marcion had willingly restricted
  themselves to the most important point in the Marcionite system,
  its characteristic opposition of the Gods of the Old and New
  Testaments, passing over the points in which it agreed more
  or less with other Gnostic systems; or by assuming that later
  Marcionites, such as Prepon (§ 27, 12), in consequence of the
  palpable defectiveness and inadequacy of the original system of
  two principles, were led to give it the further development that
  has been described.[44]

  § 27.12. The speculative weakness and imperfection of his system
  led =Marcion’s Disciples= to expand and remodel it in many ways.
  Two of these, Lucanus and Marcus, are pre-eminent as remodellers
  of the system, into which they imported various elements from
  that of Saturninus. The Assyrian =Prepon= placed the “righteous”
  Logos as third principle between the “good” God and the “evil”
  Demiurge. Of all the more nameful Marcionites, =Apelles=, who
  died about A.D. 180, inclined most nearly to the church doctrine.
  Eusebius tells about a Disputation which took place in Rome
  between him and Rhodon, a disciple of Tatian. At the head of his
  essentially monistic system Apelles places the ἀγέννητος θεός
  as the μία ἀρχή. This God, besides a higher heavenly world, had
  created an order of angels, of whom the first and most eminent,
  the so-called _Angelus inclytus_ or _gloriosus_ as Demiurge made
  the earthly world after the image and to the glory of the supreme
  God. But another angel, the ἄγγελος πυρετός, corrupted his
  creation, which was already in itself imperfect, by bringing
  forth the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, with which he clothed the souls enticed
  down from the upper world. It was he, too, who spoke to Moses out
  of the burning bush, and as the god of the Jews gave the law from
  Sinai. The Demiurge soon repented of his ill-fated performance,
  and prayed the supreme God to send his Son as redeemer. Christ
  appeared, lived, wrought and suffered in a real body. It was not,
  however, the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας that he assumed, but a sinless body
  composed out of the four elements which he gave back to the
  elements on his ascension to heaven. Towards the close of his
  life Apelles seems, under the influence of the mystic revelations
  of a prophetess, Philoumena, whose φανερώσεις he published, to
  have more and more renounced his Gnostic views. He had already
  admitted in his Disputation with Rhodon, that even on the
  Catholic platform one may be saved, for the main thing is faith
  in the crucified Christ and the doing of his works. He would even
  have been prepared to subscribe to the Monotheism of the church,
  had he not been hindered by the opposition between the Old
  Testament and the New.

  § 27.13. The painter =Hermogenes= in North Africa, about A.D. 200,
  whom Tertullian opposed, took offence at the Catholic doctrine of
  creation as well as at the Gnostic theory of emanation, because
  it made God the author of evil. He therefore assumed an eternal
  chaos, from whose striving against the creative and formative
  influence of God he explained the origin of everything evil and
  vile.


              § 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.[45]

  The Jewish-Christianity that maintained separation from
Gentile-Christianity even after the overthrow of the Holy City and its
temple, assumed partly a merely separatist, partly a decidedly heretical
character. Both tendencies had in common the assertion of the continued
obligation to observe the whole of the Mosaic law. But while the former
limited this obligation to the Christians of Jewish descent as the
peculiar stem and kernel of the new Messianic community, and allowed the
Gentile Christians as Proselytes of the Gate to omit those observances,
the latter would tolerate no such concession and outran the Old
Testament monotheism by a barren monarchianism that denied the
divinity of Christ (§ 33, 1). At a later period the two parties were
distinguished as Nazareans and Ebionites. On the other hand, in the
Ebionites described to us by Epiphanius we have a form of Jewish
Christianity permeated by Gnostic elements. These Ebionites, settling
along with the Essenes (§ 8, 4) on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea,
came to be known under the name of Elkesaites. In the Pseudo-Clementine
scheme of doctrine, this Ebionitic Gnosis was carried out in detail and
wrought up into a comprehensive and richly developed system.

  § 28.1. =Nazareans and Ebionites.=--Tertullian and with him most
  of the later Church Fathers derive the name Ebionite from Ebion,
  a founder of the sect. Since the time of Gieseler, however, the
  name has generally been referred to the Hebrew word אֶבְיוֹן meaning
  poor, in allusion partly to the actual poverty of the church of
  Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 10), partly to the association of the terms
  poor and pious in the Psalms and Prophets (comp. Matt. v. 3).
  Minucius Felix, c. xxxvi. testifies that the Gentile Christians
  were also so designated by those without: _Ceterum quod plerique
  “Pauperes” dicimur, non est infamia nostra, sed gloria_. Recently,
  however, Hilgenfeld has recurred to the patristic derivation of
  the name.--In Irenæus the name Ebionæi makes its first appearance
  in literature, and that as a designation of Jewish Christians
  as heretics who admitted only a Gospel according to Matthew,
  probably the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews (§ 32, 4),
  branded the Apostle Paul as an apostate, insisted upon the
  strict observance of the Jewish law, and taught on Christological
  questions “_consimiliter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates_”
  (§ 27, 1, 8), while they denied that Christ was born of a virgin,
  and regarded Him as a mere man. Origen († A.D. 243) embraced all
  Jewish Christians under the name Ἐβιωναῖοι but did not deny the
  existence of two very different parties among them (διττοὶ and
  ἀμφότεροι Ἐβιωναῖοι). Eusebius does the same. Jerome again is
  the first to distinguish the more moderate party by the name
  Nazareans (Acts xxiv. 5) from the more extreme who are designated
  Ebionites. This too is the practice of Augustine and Theodoret.
  The former party acknowledged the virgin birth of Christ and
  so His divine origin, assigned to Paul his place as Apostle
  to the Gentiles, and made no demand of Gentile Christians that
  they should observe the ceremonial law of Moses, although they
  believed that they themselves were bound thereby. The latter
  again regarded it as absolutely necessary to salvation, and also
  held that Christ was the Messiah, but only a man, son of Joseph
  by Mary, endowed with divine powers in His baptism. His Messianic
  work, according to them, consisted in His fulfilling by His
  teaching the Mosaic law. His death was an offence to them, but
  they took comfort from the promise of His coming again, when they
  looked for the setting up of an earthly Messianic kingdom. Paul
  was depreciated by them and made of little account. Ebionites
  of both parties continued to exist in small numbers down to the
  fifth century, especially in Palestine and Syria. Both however
  had sunk by the middle of the second century into almost utter
  insignificance. The scanty remains of writings issuing from the
  party prove that especially the non-heretical Jewish Christianity
  before the close of this century had in great part abandoned its
  national Jewish character, and therewith its separate position
  as a religious sect, and by adopting the views of the Pauline
  Gentile Christianity (§ 30, 2) became gradually amalgamated
  with it.[46]

  § 28.2. =The Elkesaites.=--Independent accounts of this sect in
  substantial agreement with one another are given by Hippolytus
  in his _Elenchus_, by Origen as quoted in Eusebius, and by
  Epiphanius. Their designation has also led the Church Fathers
  to assume a sect founder of the name of Elxai or Elchasai,
  who is said to have lived in the time of Hadrian. The members
  of the sect themselves derived their name from חֵיל כְּסָי, δύναμις
  κεκαλυμμένη, the hidden power of God operating in them, that is,
  the Holy Spirit, the δύναμις ἄσαρκος of the Clementine Homilies.
  Probably it was the title of a book setting forth their esoteric
  doctrine, which circulated only among those bound under oath to
  secrecy. Origen says that the book was supposed to have fallen
  down from heaven; Hippolytus says that it was held to have been
  revealed by an angel who was the Son of God himself. Elxai
  obtained it from the Serians in Parthia and communicated it to
  the Sobiai, probably from שֹׁבְעַ; then the Syrian Alcibiades brought
  it from Apamea to Rome in the third century. The doctrinal
  system of the Elkesaites was very variable, and is represented
  by the Church Fathers referred to as a confused mixture of
  Christian elements with the legalism of Judaism, the asceticism
  of Essenism, and the naturalism of paganism, and exhibiting a
  special predilection for astrological and magical fancies. The
  law was regarded as binding, especially the precepts concerning
  the Sabbath and circumcision, but the sacrificial worship was
  abandoned, and the portions of the Old Testament referring to
  it as well as other parts. Their doctrine of baptism varied from
  that of baptism once administered to that of a baptism by oft
  repeated washings on days especially indicated by astrological
  signs. Baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and also for the
  magical cure of the sick. It was administered in the name of the
  Father and the Son, and in addition there were seven witnesses
  called, the five elements, together with oil and salt, the latter
  as representative of the Lord’s Supper, which was celebrated
  with salt and bread without wine. Eating of flesh was forbidden,
  but marriage was allowed and highly esteemed. Their Christology
  presented the appearance of unsettled fermentation. On the one
  hand Christ was regarded as an angel, and indeed as the μέγας
  βασιλεύς, of gigantic size, 96 miles high, and 24 miles broad;
  but on the other hand, they taught also a repeated incarnation of
  Christ as the Son of God, the final One being the Christ born of
  the virgin. He represents the male principle, and by his side, as
  the female principle, stands the Holy Spirit. Denial of Christ in
  times of persecution seemed to them quite allowable. At the time
  of Epiphanius,--who identifies them with the _Sampseans_, whose
  name was derived from שֶׁמֶשׁ the sun, because in prayer they turned
  to the sun, called also Ἡλιακοί,--they had for the most part
  their residence round about the Dead Sea, where they got mixed
  up with the Essenes of that region.--More recently the Elkesaites
  have been brought into connection with the still extant sect
  of the Sabeans or Mandeans (§ 25, 1). These Sabeans, from צבע
  meaning טבע, βαπτίζειν, are designated by the mediæval Arabic
  writers _Mogtasilah_, those who wash themselves, and _Elchasaich_
  is named as their founder, and as teaching the existence of two
  principles a male and a female. [47]

  § 28.3. =The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings= forms a
  literature of a romantic historico-didactic description which
  originated between A.D. 160 and 170.

    a. The so-called =Homiliæ XX Clementis=[48] were prefaced by
       two letters to the Apostle James at Jerusalem. The first
       of these is from Peter enjoining secrecy in regard to the
       “Kerugma” sent therewith. The second is from Clement of Rome
       after the death of Peter, telling how he as the founder and
       first bishop of the church of Rome had ordained Clement as
       his successor, and had charged him to draw up those accounts
       of his own career and of the addresses and disputations
       of Peter which he had heard while the Apostle pursued and
       contended with Simon Magus, and to send them to James as
       head of the church, “bishop of bishops, who ruled the church
       of Jerusalem and all the churches,” that they might be
       certified by him. The historical framework of the book
       represents a distinguished Roman of philosophical culture
       and of noble birth, named Clement, as receiving his first
       acquaintance with Christianity at Rome, and then as going
       forth on his travels to Judea as an eager seeker after the
       truth. At Alexandria (§ 16, 4) Barnabas convinces him of the
       truth of Christianity, and Clement follows him to Cæsarea
       where he listens to a great debate between Peter and Simon
       Magus (§ 25, 2). Simon defeated betakes himself to flight,
       but Peter follows him, accompanied by Clement and two who
       had been disciples of the magician, Niceta and Aquila.
       Though he goes after him from place to place, Peter does not
       get hold of Simon, but founds churches all along his route.
       On the way Clement tells him how long before his mother,
       Mattidia, and his two brothers had gone on a journey to
       Athens, and how his father, Faustus, had gone in search of
       them, and no trace of any of them had ever been found. Soon
       thereafter the mother is met with, and then it is discovered
       that Niceta and Aquila are the lost brothers Faustinus and
       Faustinianus. At the baptism of the mother the father also
       is restored. Finally at Laodicea Peter and Simon engage a
       second time in a four-days’ disputation which ends as the
       first. The story concludes with Peter’s arrival at Antioch.

    b. The ten books of the so-called =Recognitiones Clementis=,[49]
       present us again with the Clement of the historical romance,
       the historical here overshadowing the didactic, and a closer
       connection with church doctrine being here maintained.
       Critical examinations of the relations between the two sets
       of writings have more and more established the view that
       an older Jewish-Christian Gnostic work lay at the basis
       of both. This original document seems to have been used
       contemporaneously, but in a perfectly independent manner in
       the composition of both; the Homilies using the materials
       in an anti-Marcionite interest (§ 27, 11), the Recognitions
       using them in such a way as to give as little offence as
       possible to their Catholic readers. Still it is questionable
       whether this original document, which probably bore the
       title of Κηρύγματα Πέτρου, embraced in its earliest form
       the domestic romance of Clement, or only treated of the
       disputation of Peter with Simon at Cæsarea, and was first
       enlarged by addition of the Ἀναγνωρισμοί Κλήμεντος giving
       the story of Peter’s travels (Περίοδοι).

    c. Finally, extracts from the Homilies, worthless and of
       no independent significance, are extant in the form of
       two Greek =Epitomæ= (ed. Dressel, Lps., 1859). Equally
       unimportant is the Syrian Epitome, edited by Lagarde, Lps.,
       1861, a compilation from the Recognitions and the Homilies.
       All the three writers of the Epitomes had an interest only
       in the romantic narrative.

  § 28.4. =The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System= is represented
  in the most complete and most original manner in the Homilies.
  In the conversations, addresses, and debates there reported the
  author develops his own religious views, and by putting them
  in the mouth of the Apostle Peter seeks to get them recognised
  as genuine unadulterated primitive Christianity, while all the
  doctrines of Catholic Paulinism which he objects to, as well
  as those of heretical Gnosticism and especially of Marcionism,
  are put into the mouth of Simon Magus, the primitive heretic;
  and then an attempt is made at a certain reconciliation and
  combination of all these views, the evil being indeed contended
  against, but an element of truth being recognised in them all. He
  directs his Polemics against the polytheism of vulgar paganism,
  the allegorical interpretation by philosophers of pagan myths,
  the doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing and
  the sacrificial worship of Judaism, against the hypostatic
  Trinity of Catholicism, the chiliasm of the Ebionites, the pagan
  naturalistic element in Elkesaism, the dualism, the doctrine
  of the Demiurge, the Docetism and Antinomianism of the Gentile
  Christian Gnostics. He attempts in his Ironies to point out the
  Ebionitic identity of genuine Christianity with genuine Judaism,
  emphasizes the Essenic-Elkesaitic demand to abstain from eating
  flesh, to observe frequent fasts, divers washings and voluntary
  poverty (through a recommendation of early marriages), as well
  as the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of baptism for the
  forgiveness of sins, and justifies the Gnostic tendency of his
  times by setting up a system of doctrine of which the central
  idea is the connection of Stoical Pantheism with Jewish Theism,
  and is itself thoroughly dualistic: God the eternal pure Being
  was originally a unity of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, and his life consisted
  in extension and contraction, ἔκτασις and συστολή, the symbol
  of which the human heart was a later copy. The result of such
  an ἔκτασις was the separation of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, wherewith a
  beginning of the development of the world was made. The πνεῦμα is
  thus represented as Υἱός, also called Σοφία or Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος
  τοῦ μέλλοντος; the Σῶμα is represented as Οὐσία or Ὕλη which four
  times parts asunder in twofold opposition of the elements. Satan
  springs from the mixing of these elements, and is the universal
  soul of the Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. The Σῶμα has thereby become
  ἔμψυχον and ζῶον. Thus the Monas has unfolded itself into a Dyas,
  as the first link of a long chain of contrasted pairs or Syzygies,
  in the first series of which the large and male stands opposite
  the small and female, heaven and earth, day and night, etc. The
  last Syzygy of this series is Adam as the true male, and Eve as
  the false female prophet. In the second series that relation had
  come to be just reversed, Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, etc.
  In the protoplasts this opposition of truth and falsehood, of
  good and evil, was still a physical and necessary one; but in
  their descendants, because both elements of their parents are
  mixed up in them, it becomes an ethical one, conditioning and
  requiring freedom of self-determination. Meanwhile Satan tempted
  men to error and sin; but the true prophet (ὁ ἀληθὴς προφήτης) in
  whom the divine Πνεῦμα dwelt as ἔμφυτον and ἀένναον, always leads
  them back again into the true way of Gnosis and the fulfilment of
  the law. In Adam, the original prophet, who had taught whole and
  full truth, he had at first appeared, returning again after every
  new obscuration and disfigurement of his doctrine under varying
  names and forms, but always anew proclaiming the same truth. His
  special manifestations were in Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
  Moses, and finally, in Christ. Alongside of them all, however,
  stand false prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, to whom even
  John the Baptist belongs, and in the Old Testament many of their
  doctrines and prophecies have slipped in along with the true
  prophecy. The transition from the original pantheistic to the
  subsequent theistic standpoint, in which God is represented as
  personal creator of the world, lawgiver, and governor, seems
  to have been introduced by means of the primitive partition of
  the divine being into Πνεῦμα and Σῶμα. In vain, however, do we
  seek an explanation of the contradiction that, on the one hand,
  the end of the development of the world is represented as the
  separation of the evil from the good for the eternal punishment
  of the former, but on the other hand, as a return, through the
  purification of the one and the destruction of the other, of all
  into the divine being, the ἀνάπαυσις. Equally irreconcilable is
  the assertion of the unconditional necessity of Christian baptism
  with the assertion of the equality of all stages of revelation.


                           § 29. MANICHÆISM.

  Manichæism makes its appearance in Persia about the middle of the
third century, independently of the Gentile-Christian Gnosticism of the
Roman empire, which was more or less under the influence of the Greek
philosophy of the second century, but bearing undoubted connection with
Mandæism (§ 25, 1), and Elkesaism (§ 28, 2). In principle and tendency,
it was at various points, as _e.g._ in its theory of emanation, its
doceticism, etc., connected with Gnosticism, but was distinguished
therefrom pre-eminently by using Christian soteriological ideas
and modes of thought as a mere varnish for oriental pagan or
Babylonian-Chaldaic theosophy, putting this in place of Platonic or
Stoical notions which are quite foreign to it, basing the system on
Persian dualism and impregnating it with elements from Buddhist ethics.
Another point in which it is distinguished from Gnosticism is that it
does not present itself as an esoteric form of religion meant only for
the few specially gifted spirits, but distinctly endeavours to build up
a community of its own with a regularly articulated constitution and a
well organized ritual.

  § 29.1. =The Founder.=--What the Greek and Latin Fathers (Titus
  of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, etc.) say about the person and
  history of the founder of this sect is derived mainly from an
  account of a disputation which a bishop Archelaus of Cascar in
  Mesopotamia is said to have held with Manes or Manichæus. This
  document is written in Syriac and dates about A.D. 320, but it
  is simply a polemical work under the guise of a debate between
  men with historical names. These “Acts” have come down to us in
  a very corrupt Latin version, and contain, especially in their
  historical allusions, much that is incredible and legendary,
  while in their representation of the doctrine of Manes they are
  much more deserving of confidence. According to them the origin
  of Manichæism is to be attributed to a far travelled Saracen
  craftsman, named Scythianus, who lived in the age of the Apostles.
  His disciple, Terebinthus, who subsequently in Babylon took
  the name Buddas, and affirmed that he had been born of a
  virgin, wrote at the master’s dictation four books, _Mysteria_,
  _Capitula_, _Evangelium_, _Thesaurus_, which after his death
  came into the possession of a freed slave, Cubricus or Corbicus.
  This man made the wisdom taught therein his own, developed it
  more fully, appeared in Persia as the founder of a new religion,
  and called himself Manes. He was even received at court, but
  his failure to heal a prince was used by the jealous magicians
  to secure his overthrow. He escaped, however, from prison,
  and found a safe hiding place in Arabion, an old castle in
  Mesopotamia. Meanwhile he had got access to the sacred writings
  of the Christians and borrowed much from them for the further
  development of his system. He now gave himself out as the
  Paraclete promised by Christ, and by means of letters and
  messengers developed a great activity in the dissemination of his
  views, especially among Christians. This led to the disputation
  of Archelaus above referred to, in which Manes suffered utter
  defeat. He was soon thereafter seized by order of the Persian
  king, flayed alive, and his stuffed skin publicly exhibited as
  a warning.

  The reports in Persian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries
  though later seem much more credible, and the dates derivable
  from Manes’ own writings and those of his disciples quoted in
  Arabic documents of the tenth and eleventh centuries, are quite
  worthy of acceptance.[50] According to them Fatak the father
  of Manes, called Πατέκιος in a Greek oath formula still extant,
  was descended from a noble Persian family in Hamadan or Ecbatana,
  married a princess of the Parthian Asarcidae, not long before
  this, in A.D. 226, driven out by the Persian Sassanidæ, and
  settled down with her at Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital. Here
  he met with the Mogtasilah, Mandeans or Elkesaites (§ 28, 2),
  then removed to Southern Chaldea, and trained his son, born in
  A.D. 216, with great care in this faith. But even in his twelfth
  year Manes received a divine revelation, which ordained him to
  be the founder of a new religion, and in his twenty-fourth year
  he was commissioned to preach this religion publicly. On his first
  appearance in Persia, on the coronation day of king Sapor I.,
  in A.D. 242, he met with so little support that he found it
  necessary to keep away from the Persian empire for several
  decades, which he spent in foreign lands developing his system
  and successfully prosecuting missionary work. It was only about
  the end of Sapor’s reign († A.D. 272) that he ventured again to
  return. He won over to his views the king’s brother Peroz and
  through him found favour temporarily with Sapor, which, however,
  soon again turned into dislike. Sapor’s successor, Hormuz or
  Hormisdas I., seemed inclined to be tolerant toward him. For
  this very reason Bahram or Baranes I. showed himself all the more
  hostile, and had him crucified in A.D. 276, his body flayed, and
  the skin stuffed with straw thrown out at the gate of the city.

  The two accounts may, according to Kessler, be brought into
  harmony thus. The name Scythianus was given to Fatak as coming
  from Parthia or Scythia. Terebinthus, a corruption of the Aramaic
  _tarbitha_, sapling, was given originally as _Nomen appell._ to
  the son of Fatak, and was afterwards misunderstood and regarded
  as _Nomen propr._ of an additional member of the family,
  intermediate between Fatak and Manes. In the Latin Cubricus,
  however, we meet with a scornful rendering of his original name,
  which he, on his entering independently on his work, exchanged
  for the name Manes.[51] The name Buddas seems to indicate some
  sort of connection with Buddhism. We also meet with the four
  Terebinthus books among the seven chief works of Manes catalogued
  in the Fihrist. According to a Persian document the _Evangelium_
  bore the title _Ertenki Mani_, was composed by Manes in a cave
  in Turkestan, in which he stayed for a long time during his
  banishment, and was adorned with beautiful illustrations, and
  passed for a book sent down to him direct from heaven.

  § 29.2. =The System.=--The different sets of documents give very
  different accounts of the religious system of Manichæism. This is
  not occasioned so much by erroneous tradition or misconception as
  by the varying stages through which the doctrine of Manes passed.
  In Western and Christian lands it took on a richer Christian
  colouring than in Eastern and pagan countries. In all its forms,
  however, we meet with a groundwork of magical dualism. As in
  Parseeism, Ahriman and his Devas stand opposed to Ormuzd and
  his Ameshaspentas and Izeds, so also here from all eternity a
  luminous ether surrounding the realm of light, the _Terra lucida_,
  of the good God, with his twelve æons and countless beings
  of light, stands opposed to the realm of darkness, the _Terra
  pestifera_, with Satan and his demons. Each of the two kingdoms
  consists of five elements: the former of bright light, quickening
  fire, clear water, hot air, soft wind; the latter of lurid flame,
  scorching fire, grimy slime, dark clouds, raging tempest. In
  the one, perfect concord, goodness, happiness, and splendour
  prevail; in the other, wild, chaotic and destructive waves dash
  confusedly about. Clothing himself in a borrowed ray of light,
  Satan prepared himself for a robber campaign in the realm of
  light. In order to keep him off the Father of Lights caused to
  emanate from him the “Mother of Life,” and placed her as a watcher
  on the borders of his realm. She brought forth the first man
  (ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος), who armed with the five pure elements engaged
  in battle with the demons. When he sank before their furious
  onslaught, God sent a newly emanated æon for his deliverance, the
  “living spirit” (ζῶον πνεῦμα), who freed him and vanquished the
  demons. But a portion of the ethereal substance of the first man,
  his armour of light, had been already devoured by the demoniac
  Hyle, and as the _Jesus patibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐμπαθής,
  remains imprisoned in it. Out of the elements of light which he
  saved the living Spirit now forms the Sun and Moon, and settles
  there the first man as _Jesus impatibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπαθής,
  while out of the Hyle impregnated with elements of light he
  constructs the present earthly world, in order gradually to
  deliver the fragments of light bound up in it, the _Jesus
  patibilis_ or the soul of the world, and to fit them for
  restoration to their eternal home. The first man dwelling in
  the sun and the Holy Spirit enthroned in the luminous ether have
  to further and direct this process of purification. The sun and
  moon are the two light-ships, _lucidæ naves_, which the light
  particles wrenched out of the world further increase. The zodiac
  with its twelve signs operates in this direction like a revolving
  wheel with twelve buckets, while the smaller ship, as new moon,
  receives them, and as full moon empties them again into the sun,
  which introduces them into the realm of light. In order to check
  this process of purification Satan, out of the Hyle and the
  imprisoned particles of light, of which he still had possession,
  made Adam and Eve after his own image and that of the first man,
  and incited them to fleshly lusts and carnal intercourse, so
  that the light of their soul became dim and weak, and more and
  more the body became its gloomy prison. His demons, moreover,
  were continually busying themselves in fastening the chains of
  darkness more tightly about their descendants by means of the
  false religions of Judaism and paganism. Therefore at last the
  _Jesus impatibilis_, clothed with the appearance of a body,
  descended from the sun to the earth, to instruct men about their
  souls and the means and end of their redemption. The sufferings
  and death inflicted upon him by the Prince of Darkness were only
  in appearance. The death of the cross and the resurrection were
  only sensible representations of the overthrow and final victory
  of the _Jesus patibilis_. As in the macrocosm of the earthly
  world there is set forth the emancipation of this suffering
  Christ from the bonds of hylic matter, so also in the microcosm
  represented in each individual man, we have the dominion of the
  spirit over the flesh, the redemption of the soul of light from
  the prison of the body, and its return to the realm of light,
  conceived of as the end and aim of all endeavour. The method
  for attaining this consists in the greatest possible abstinence
  from all connection and intercourse with the world of sense; the
  _Signaculum oris_ in particular demands absolute abstinence from
  all animal food and restriction in the use even of vegetable food,
  for in the slaughtering of the animal all elements of light are
  with the life withdrawn from its flesh, and only hylic elements
  remain, whereas in vegetable fare the substances of light there
  present contribute to the strengthening of the light in the man’s
  own soul. Wine and all intoxicating drinks as “Satan’s gall”
  are strictly forbidden, as well as animal food. The _Signaculum
  manuum_ prohibits all injuring of animal or plant life, all
  avoidable contact with or work upon matter, because the material
  is thereby strengthened. The _Signaculum sinus_ forbids all
  sensual pleasure and carnal intercourse. The souls of those men
  who have perfectly satisfied the threefold injunction, return at
  death immediately into the blessed home of light. Those who only
  partially observe them must, by transmigration of the soul into
  other bodies, of animals, plants or men, in proportion to the
  degree of purification attained unto, that is, by metempsychosis,
  have the purifying process carried to perfection. But all who
  have not entered upon the way of sanctification, are finally
  delivered over unreservedly to Satan and hell. The Apostles
  greatly misunderstood and falsified this doctrine of Christ;
  but in the person of Manes the promised Paraclete appeared, who
  taught it again in its original purity. For the most part Manes
  accepted the Pauline epistles in which the doctrines of the
  groaning creation and the opposition of flesh and spirit must
  have been peculiarly acceptable to him; all the more decidedly
  did he reject the Acts of the Apostles, and vigorously did
  he oppose the account which it gave of the outpouring of the
  Holy Spirit as in conflict with his doctrine of the Paraclete.
  According to the Fihrist, Manes distinguished from the _Jesus
  impatibilis_ who as true redeemer descended to earth in the
  appearance of a body, the historical Jesus as prophet of the
  Devil, and the false Messiah who for the punishment of his
  wickedness suffered actual death on the cross instead of the
  true Jesus. The Old Testament he wholly rejected. The god of the
  Jews was with him the Prince of Darkness; the prophets with Moses
  at their head were the messengers of the Devil. As his own true
  precursors--the precursors of the Paraclete--he named Adam, Seth,
  Noah, Abraham, Buddha, and Zoroaster.

  § 29.3. =Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.=--Manes was
  still regarded after his death as the invisibly present head
  (_Princeps_) of the church. At the head of the hierarchical order
  as his visible representative stood an Imam or Pope, who resided
  at Babylon. The first of these, appointed by Manes himself before
  his death, was named Sis or Sisinius. The Manichæan ministry
  was distributed under him into twelve _Magistri_ and seventy-two
  _Bishops_, with presbyters and deacons in numbers as required.
  The congregations consisted of Catechumens (_Auditores_) and
  Elect (_Electi_, _Perfecti_). The latter were strictly bound
  to observe the threefold _Signaculum_. The _Auditores_ brought
  them the food necessary for the support of their life and out
  of the abundance of their holiness they procured pardon to
  these imperfect ones for their unavoidable violation of mineral
  and vegetable life in making this provision. The _Auditores_
  were also allowed to marry and even to eat animal food; but
  by voluntary renunciation of this permission they could secure
  entrance into the ranks of the _Electi_. The worship of the
  Manichæans was simple, but orderly. They addressed their prayers
  to the sun and moon. The Sunday was hallowed by absolute fasting,
  and the day of common worship was dedicated to the honour of
  the spirit of the sun; but on Monday the _Electi_ by themselves
  celebrated a secret service. At their annual chief festival,
  that of the Pulpit (βῆμα), on the day of their founder’s death,
  they threw themselves down upon the ground in oriental fashion
  before a beautifully adorned chair of state, the symbol of their
  departed master. The five steps leading up to it represented
  the five hierarchical decrees of the _Electi_, _Diaconi_,
  _Presbyteri_, _Episcopi_ and _Magistri_. Baptism and the Lord’s
  Supper, the former with oil, the latter with bread without wine,
  belonged to the secret worship of the Perfect. Oil and bread were
  regarded as the most luminous bearers of the universal soul in
  the vegetable world.--Notwithstanding the violent persecution
  which after the execution of Manes was raised against the
  adherents of his doctrine throughout the whole Persian empire,
  their number increased rapidly in all quarters, especially in
  the East, but also in the West, in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc.
  Proconsular Africa became the centre of its Western propaganda;
  and thence it spread into Italy and Spain. In A.D. 290 Diocletian
  issued an edict by which the Proconsul of Africa was required to
  burn the leaders of this sect, doubly dangerous as springing from
  the hostile Persian empire, along with their books, to execute
  with the sword its persistent adherents, or send them to work in
  the quarries, and confiscate their goods.--Continuation at § 54, 1.




            III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL
                      ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.[52]


         § 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC
                         AGE, A.D. 70-170.[53]

  The literary remains of the so-called Apostolic Fathers constitute the
first fruits of Patristic-Christian literature. These are in respect of
number and scope insignificant, and, inasmuch as they had their origin,
from the special individual circumstances of their writers, they were
composed for the most part in the form of epistles. The old traditional
view that the authors of these treatises had enjoyed the immediate
fellowship and instruction of the Apostles is at once too narrow
and too wide. Among these writings must be included first of all the
recently discovered “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” About A.D. 130,
when Christianity was making its way among the ranks of the cultured,
Christian writers began to feel themselves called upon to engage with
paganism in a literary warfare defensive and offensive, in order to
repel the charges and calumnies raised against their religion and to
demonstrate its inner worth in opposition to the moral and religious
degradation of heathenism. These writings had a more theological and
scientific character than those of the Apostolic Fathers, which had more
of a practical and hortatory tendency. The works of these Apologists
still extant afford interesting and significant glimpses of the life,
doctrine, and thinking of the Christians of that age, which but for
these writings would have been almost unknown.

  § 30.1. =The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.=--According to
  the established rule of the church we have to distinguish between
  New Testament and Patristic literature in this way: to the former
  belongs those writings to which, as composed by Apostles or at
  least under Apostolic authority, the ancient church assigned
  an objectively fundamental and regulative significance for
  further ecclesiastical development; while in the latter we have
  represented the subjective conception and estimation which the
  Church Fathers made of the Christian message of salvation and
  the structure they reared upon this foundation. The so-called
  Apostolic Fathers may be regarded as occupying a position
  midway between the two and forming a transition from the one
  to the other, or as themselves constituting the first fruits
  of Patristic literature. Indeed as regards the New Testament
  writings themselves the ancient church was long uncertain and
  undecided as to the selection of them from the multitude of
  contemporary writings;[54] and Eusebius still designated several
  of the books that were subsequently definitely recognised
  ἀντιλεγόμενα; while modern criticism has not only repeated such
  doubts as to the genuineness of these writings but has extended
  these doubts to other books of the New Testament. But even this
  criticism cannot deny the historical significance assigned above
  to those New Testament books contested by it, even though it may
  feel obliged to reject the account of them given by the ancient
  church, and to assign their composition to the Post-Apostolic
  Age.--When we turn to the so-called Apostolic Fathers, on closer
  examination the usual designation as well as the customary
  enumeration of seven names as belonging to the group will be
  found too narrow because excluding the New Testament writings
  composed by disciples of the Apostles, and too wide because
  including names which have no claim to be regarded as disciples
  or contemporaries of the Apostles, and embracing writings of
  which the authenticity is in some cases clearly disproved, in
  other cases doubtful or at least only problematical. We come upon
  firm ground when we proceed to deal with the Apologists of the
  age of Hadrian. It was not, however, till the period of the Old
  Catholic Church, about A.D. 170, that the literary compositions
  of the Christians became broadened, deepened and universalized
  by a fuller appropriation and appreciation of the elements
  of Græco-Latin culture, so as to form an all-sided universal
  Christian literature representative of Christianity as a universal
  religion.

  § 30.2. =The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age.=--By far the
  greater number of the ecclesiastical writers of this period
  belong to the Gentile Christian party. Hence we might suppose
  that it would reflect the Pauline type of doctrine, if not in its
  full depth and completeness, yet at least in its more significant
  and characteristic features. This expectation, however, is not
  altogether realised. Among the Church Fathers of this age we
  rather find an unconscious deterioration of the original doctrine
  of Paul revealing itself as a smoothing down and belittling or
  as an ignoring of the genuine Paulinism, which, therefore, as
  the result of the struggle against the Gnostic tendency, only in
  part overcome, was for the first time fully recognised and proved
  finally victorious in the Reformation of the 16th century. On the
  one hand, we see that these writers, if they do not completely
  ignore the position and task assigned to Israel as the chosen
  people of God, minimise their importance and often fail to
  appreciate the pædagogical significance of the Mosaic law
  (Gal. iii. 24), so that its ceremonial parts are referred to
  misunderstanding, want of sense, and folly, or are attributed
  even to demoniacal suggestion. But on the other hand, even
  the gospel itself is regarded again as a new and higher law,
  purified from that ceremonial taint, and hence the task of the
  ante-mundane Son of God, begotten for the purpose of creating the
  world, but now also manifest in the flesh, from whose influence
  upon Old Testament prophets as well as upon the sages of paganism
  all revelations of pre-Christian Judaism as well as all σπέρματα
  of true knowledge in paganism have sprung, is pre-eminently
  conceived of as that of a divine teacher and lawgiver. In this
  way there was impressed upon the Old Catholic Church as it
  grew up out of Pauline Gentile Christianity a legalistic moral
  tendency that was quite foreign to the original Paulinism, and
  the righteousness of faith taught by the Apostle when represented
  as obedience to the “new law” passed over again unobserved into a
  righteousness of works. Redemption and reconciliation are indeed
  still always admitted to be conditioned by the death of Christ
  and their appropriation to be by the faith of the individual;
  but this faith is at bottom nothing more than the conviction
  of the divinity of the person and doctrine of the new lawgiver
  evidencing itself in repentance and rendering of practical
  obedience, and in confident expectation of the second coming
  of Christ, and in a sure confidence of a share in the life
  everlasting.--The introduction of this legalistic tendency into
  the Gentile Christian Church was not occasioned by the influence
  of Jewish Christian legalism, nor can it be explained as
  the result of a compromise effected between Jewish Christian
  Petrinism and Gentile Christian Paulinism, which were supposed
  by Baur, Schwegler, etc., to have been, during the Apostolic
  Age, irreconcilably hostile to one another. This has been already
  proved by Ritschl, who charges its intrusion rather upon the
  inability of Gentile Christianity fully to understand the Old
  Testament bases of the Pauline doctrine. By means of a careful
  analysis of the undisputed writings of Justin Martyr and
  by a comparison of these with the writings of the Apostolic
  Fathers, Engelhardt has proved that anything extra-, un-, or
  anti-Pauline in the Christianity of these Fathers has not so much
  an Ebionitic-Jewish Christian, but rather a pagan-philosophic,
  source. He shows that the prevalent religio-moral mode of thought
  of the cultured paganism of that age reappears in that form
  of Christianity not only as an inability to reach a profound
  understanding of the Old Testament, but also just as much
  as a minimising and depreciating, or disdaining of so many
  characteristic features of the Pauline doctrinal resting on Old
  Testament foundations.

  § 30.3. =The so-called Apostolic Fathers.=[55]--

    a. =Clement of Rome= was one of the first Roman bishops,
       probably the third (§ 16, 1). The opinion that he is to
       be identified with the Clement named in Phil. iv. 3 is
       absolutely unsupported. The sameness of age and residence
       in some small measure favours the identifying him with
       Tit. Flav. Clemens [Clement], the consul, and cousin of the
       Emperor, who on account of his Christianity (?) was executed
       in A.D. 95 (§ 22, 1). Besides a multitude of other writings
       which subsequently assumed his well-known name (§ 28, 3;
       43, 4), there are ascribed to him two so-called Epistles
       to the Corinthians, of which however, the second certainly
       is not his. The First Epistle which in the ancient church
       was considered worthy to be used in public worship, was
       afterwards lost, but fragments of it were recovered in
       A.D. 1628 in the so-called _Codex Alexandrinus_ (§ 152, 2),
       together with a portion of the so-called “Second Epistle.”
       Recently however both writings were found in a complete
       form by Bryennius, Metropolitan of Serrä in Macedonia, in
       a Jerusalem Codex of A.D. 1056 discovered at Constantinople
       and published by him.[56] In the following year a Codex
       of the Syrian New Testament at Cambridge was more closely
       examined,[57] and in it there was found a complete Syriac
       translation of both writings inserted between the Catholic
       and the Pauline Epistles, while in _Codex Alexandrinus_ they
       are placed after the Apocalypse. =The “First” Epistle=, the
       date of which is generally given as A.D. 93-95, does not
       give the author’s name, but is assigned to Clement of Rome
       by Dionysius of Corinth in A.D. 170, as quoted in Eusebius,
       and by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and
       described as written from Rome in name of the church of that
       place to the church of Corinth, counselling peace and unity.
       In the passage c. 58-63, formerly wanting but now restored,
       the exhortation passes into a long prayer with intercessions
       for those in authority and for the church according to what
       was perhaps already the customary form of public prayer in
       Rome. Both churches, those of Rome and Corinth, are admitted
       without dispute to have been Gentile Christian churches,
       which had accepted the Pauline type of doctrine, without
       however fully fathoming or understanding it. But Peter also
       occupies a position of equal honour alongside of Paul, and
       nowhere does any trace appear of a consciousness of any
       opposition between the two apostles. The divine sonship
       of the Redeemer and His consequent universal sovereignty
       are the basis of the Christian confession, but no sort
       of developed doctrine of the divinity of Christ is here
       found, and even His pre-existence is affirmed only as the
       presupposition of the view that He was already operative in
       the prophets by His spirit. The Old Testament, allegorically
       and typically interpreted, is therefore the source and
       proof of Christian doctrine. Of a particular election of
       Israel the author knows nothing. Christians as such, whether
       descended from Gentiles or from Jews, are the chosen people
       of God; Abraham by reason of his faith is their father; and
       it is only by faith in the Almighty God that men of all ages
       have been justified before God.--In the so-called =Second
       “Epistle”= the completed form of the second half proves
       what the less complete form rendered probable, that it is
       no Epistle but a sermon, and indeed the oldest specimen of
       a sermon, that we here possess. The author, who delivered it
       somewhere about A.D. 144-150, wrote it out first for his own
       use, and then for the church. As it has in its theological
       views many points of contact with the _Shepherd of Hermas_
       (§ 30, 4), Harnack thinks it probable that a younger
       Clement of Rome mentioned by Hermas may be the author;
       while Hilgenfeld is inclined to regard it as a youthful
       work of Clement of Alexandria (§ 31, 4). It contains a
       forcible exhortation to thorough repentance and conversion
       in accordance with the command of Christ, with a reference
       to the judgment and the future glory. This shows in a
       remarkable way what rapid progress had been made from the
       religio-moral mode of thought of cultured paganism toward
       moralizing legalism, and the smoothing down of Christianity
       thereby introduced into the Gentile-Christian Catholic
       Church, during the half century between the composition of
       the Epistle of Clement and this Clementine discourse. For in
       the latter already the gospel is represented as a new law, a
       higher divine doctrine of virtue and reward, in which alms,
       fasts, and prayer appear as specially meritorious works. The
       righteousness that avails with God is still indeed derived
       from faith, but this faith is reduced to a belief in the
       future recompense of eternal life. Christ as Son of God is
       conceived of by the author as a pneumatical heavenly being,
       created before the world, who, sent by God into the world
       for man’s redemption, took upon Him human σάρξ. But besides
       Him, he also knows a second pneumatical hypostasis created
       before the world, “before sun and moon,” the ἐκκλησία ζῶσα,
       which, as the heavenly body of Christ, is at the same time
       the presupposition for the making of the world restored by
       His work of salvation. For the creation of this divine pair
       of æons, that is, of Christ as the ἄνθρωπος ἐπουράνιος and
       of the church as His heavenly σύζυγος, the author refers
       to the account of the creation in Gen. i. 27. Of passages
       quoted as sayings of Christ several are not to be found in
       our Gospels.

  § 30.4.

    b. The Epistle known by the name of Paul’s travelling companion
       =Barnabas= (Acts iv. 36) was first recovered in the 17th
       century. The first 4½ chapters were added from an old Latin
       translation, till in the 19th century the _Codex Sinaiticus_
       of the New Testament, and recently also the Jerusalem
       Codex of Bryennius above referred to, supplied the complete
       Greek text.[58] The date of the epistle has been variously
       assigned to the age of Domitian, to that of Nerva, to that
       of Hadrian; and is placed by Harnack between A.D. 96 and
       A.D. 125. Its extravagant allegorical interpretation of
       the Old Testament betrays its Alexandrian origin, and in
       Gentile-Christian depreciation of the ceremonial law of the
       Old Testament it goes so far as to attribute the conception
       and actual composition of its books to diabolical inspiration.
       It admits indeed a covenant engagement between God and
       Israel, but maintains that this was immediately terminated
       by Moses’ breaking of the tables of the law. All things
       considered the composition of this Epistle by Barnabas is
       scarcely conceivable. This was acknowledged by Eusebius
       who counted it among the νόθοι, and by Jerome, who placed
       it among the Apocrypha. For the rest, however, its type
       of doctrine is in essential agreement with that of Paul,
       though it fails to penetrate the depths of apostolic
       truth. It is at least decidedly free from any taint of
       that legalistic-moral conception of Christianity which is
       so strongly masked in the discourse of Clement. The divine
       sonship, pre-existence, and world-creating activity of Christ
       is expressly acknowledged and taught, though there is yet no
       reference to the doctrine of the Logos.

    c. The prophetical writing known to us as =Pastor Hermæ
       [Hermas]=,[59] which was first erroneously attributed by
       Origen to Hermas the scholar of Paul at Rome (Rom. xvi. 14),
       was so highly esteemed in the ancient church that it was
       used in public like the canonical books of the New Testament.
       Irenæus quotes it as holy scripture; Clement and Origen
       regarded it as inspired, and the African church of the 3rd
       century included it in the New Testament canon. On the other
       hand, the Muratorian canon (§ 36, 8) had already ranked it
       among the Apocrypha that might be used in private but not in
       public worship. The book owes its title to the circumstance
       that in it an angel appears in the form of a shepherd
       instructing Hermas. It contains four visions, in which the
       church, which πάντων πρώτη ἐκτίσθη, appears to the author
       as an old woman giving instruction (πρεσβυτέρα); it contains
       also twelve _Mandata_ of the angel, and finally, ten
       _Similitudines_ or parables. The Gentile-Christian origin of
       the author is shown by the position which he assigns to the
       church as coeval with the creation of the world and as at
       first embracing all mankind. The sending of the Son of God
       into the world has for its end not the founding but only the
       renewing and perfecting of the church, and the twelve tribes
       to which the Apostles were to preach the gospel are “the
       twelve peoples who dwell on the whole earth” (comp. Deut.
       xxxii. 8). In all the three parts the book takes the form of
       a continuous earnest call to repentance in view of the early
       coming again of Christ, dominated throughout by that same
       legalistic conception of the Gospel that we meet with in the
       discourse of Clement. Indeed this is more fully carried
       out, for it teaches that the true penitent is able not
       only to live a perfectly righteous life, but also in good
       works, such as fasts, alms, etc., to do more than fulfil the
       commands of God, and in this way to win for himself a higher
       measure of the divine favour and eternal blessedness. In
       Hermas we find no trace of any application of the doctrine
       of the Logos to the person of Christ, and the ideas of the
       Son of God and the Holy Spirit are confused with one another.
       The Son of God as the Holy Spirit is προγενέστερος πάσης
       τῆς κτίσεως; at His suggestion and by His means God created
       the world; through Him He bears, sustains, and upholds it;
       and by Him He redeems it by means of His incarnation, for
       the Son of God as the Holy Spirit descends upon the man
       Jesus in His baptism. From its prophetical utterances,
       its eager expectation of the early return of the Lord,
       and its promises of a new outpouring of the Spirit for the
       quickening of the church already become too worldly, the
       book may be characterized as a precursor of the Montanist
       movement (§ 40), although on questions of practical morality,
       such as second marriages, martyrdom, fasting, etc., it
       exhibits a milder tendency than that of Montanistic rigorism,
       and in reference to penitential discipline (§ 39, 2), while
       acknowledging the inadmissibility of absolution for a mortal
       sin committed after baptism, it nevertheless, owing to
       the nearness of the second coming, allows to be proclaimed
       by the angel a repeated, though only short, space for
       repentance. The date of the composition of this book is
       still matter of controversy. Since Hermas is commanded in
       the second vision to send a copy of his book to “Clement” in
       order to secure its further circulation, most of the earlier
       scholars, and among the moderns specially Zahn, identifying
       this Clement with the celebrated Roman Presbyter-Bishop
       of that name, fix its date at somewhere about A.D. 100.
       Recently, however, Harnack, v. Gebhardt, and others have
       rightly assigned much greater importance to the testimony
       of the Muratorian canon, according to which it was written
       somewhere between A.D. 130-160, “_nuperrime temporibus
       nostris in urbe Roma_,” by Hermas, the brother of the Roman
       bishop Pius (A.D. 139-154).

  § 30.5.

    d. =Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch=, is said to have been a
       pupil of the Apostle John, though no evidence of this can
       be produced from the Epistles ascribed to him. The _Acta
       martyrii sancti Ignatii_, extant in five parts, are purely
       legendary and full of contradictory statements. According
       to a later document, that of the Byzantine chronographer
       Joh. Malalas, at the time of the Parthian war during the
       visit of Trajan to Antioch in A.D. 115, soon after an
       earthquake had been experienced there, he was torn asunder
       by lions in the circus as a despiser of the gods. According
       to the martyrologies he was transported to Rome and suffered
       this fate there, as usually supposed in A.D. 115, in the
       opinion of Wieseler and others in A.D. 107 (Lightfoot says
       between A.D. 100-118), according to Harnack soon after
       A.D. 130.[60] The epistles to various churches and one
       to Polycarp ascribed to him have come down to us in three
       recensions differing from one another in extent, number and
       character. There is a shorter Greek recension containing
       seven, a larger Greek form, with expansions introduced for a
       purpose, containing thirteen epistles, twelve by and one to
       Ignatius, and the shortest of all in a Syriac translation
       containing three epistles, those to the Romans, to the
       Ephesians, and to Polycarp.[61] According to the first-named
       recension, Ignatius is represented as writing all his
       epistles during his martyr journey to Rome, but no reference
       to this is made in the Syrian recension. Vigorous polemic
       against Judaistic and Docetic heresy, undaunted confession
       of the divinity of Christ, and unwearied exhortation to
       recognise the bishop as the representative of Christ,
       while the presbyters are described as the successors of the
       Apostles, distinguish these epistles from all other writings
       of this age, especially in the two Greek recensions, and
       have led many critics to question their genuineness. Bunsen,
       Lipsius, Ritschl, etc., regarded the Syrian recension, in
       which the hierarchical tendency was more in the background,
       as the original and authentic form. Uhlhorn, Düsterdieck,
       Zahn, Funk, Lightfoot, Harnack, etc., prefer the shorter
       Greek recension, and view the Syrian form as abbreviated
       perhaps for liturgical purposes, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar,
       etc., deny the genuineness of all three. But even on this
       assumption, in determining the date of the composition of
       the two shorter recensions, to whichever of them we may
       ascribe priority and originality, we cannot on internal
       grounds put them later than the middle of the second century,
       whereas the larger Greek recension paraphrased and expanded
       into thirteen epistles belongs certainly to a much later
       date (§ 43, 4).[62]

  § 30.6.

    e. =Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna=, had also been according to
       Irenæus ordained to this office by the Apostle John. He
       died at the stake under Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus Pius?)
       in A.D. 166 (or A.D. 155) at an extreme old age (§ 22, 3).
       We possess an epistle of his to the Philippians of
       practical contents important on account of its New Testament
       quotations. Its genuineness, however, has been contested
       by modern criticism. It stands and falls with the seven
       Ignatian epistles, as it occupies common ground with them.
       We have a legendary biography of Polycarp by Pionius dating
       from the 4th century, which is reproduced in Lightfoot’s
       work.

    f. =Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis= in Galatia, was also,
       according to Irenæus, a pupil of the Apostle John. This
       statement, however, in the opinion of Eusebius and many
       moderns, rests upon a confusion between the Apostle and
       another John, whom Papias himself distinguishes by the title
       πρεσβύτερος (§ 16, 2). He is said to have suffered death
       as a martyr under Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 163. With
       great diligence he collected mediately and immediately
       from the mouths of the πρεσβύτεροι, that is, from such as
       had intercourse with the Apostles, or had been, like the
       above-mentioned John the Presbyter, μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου, oral
       traditions about the discourses of the Lord, and set down
       the results of his inquiries in a writing entitled Λογίων
       κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις. A passage quoted by Eusebius in his
       _Ch. Hist._, iii. 29, from the preface of this treatise has
       given rise to a lively controversy as to whether Papias was a
       pupil of the Apostle John and was acquainted with the fourth
       Gospel. Another fragment on the history of the origin of
       the Gospels of Matthew and Mark has occasioned a dispute
       as to whether only these two Gospels were known to him.
       Finally, there is preserved in Irenæus a passage giving a
       reputed saying of Christ regarding the fantastically rich
       fruitfulness of the earth during the thousand years’ reign
       (§ 33, 9). He so revels in fantastic and sensuous chiliastic
       dreams that Eusebius, who had previously spoken of him as
       a learned and well-read man, is driven to pass upon him the
       harsh judgment: σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν.[63]

    g. Finally, we must here include an epistle to a certain
       =Diognetus= by an unknown writer, who has described himself
       as μαθητὴς τῶν ἀποστόλων. Justin Martyr, among whose
       writings this epistle got inserted, cannot possibly have
       been the author, as both his style and his point of view
       are different. The epistle controverts in a spirited manner
       the objections of Diognetus to Christianity, views the
       pagan deities not, like the other Church Fathers, as demons,
       but as unsubstantial phantoms, explains the Old Testament
       institutions as human, and so in part foolish enactments,
       and maintains keenly and determinedly the opinion that
       God for the first time revealed Himself to man in Christ.
       He thus, as Dräseke thinks, to some extent favours the
       Marcionite view of the Old Testament, so that he regards
       it as not improbable that our epistle was composed by a
       disciple of Marcion, one perhaps like Apelles, who in the
       course of the later development of the school had rejected
       many of his master’s crudities (§ 27, 12). He addresses
       his discourse to Diognetus, the stoical philosopher who
       boasts of Marcus Aurelius as his master. On the other hand,
       Overbeck assigns its composition to the Post-Constantine
       Age, and the French scholar Doulcet, setting it down to the
       age of Hadrian, thinks he has discovered the author to be
       the Athenian philosopher Aristides. This idea has been more
       fully carried out by Kihn, who endeavours to make out not
       only the identity of the author, but that of him to whom the
       epistle is addressed: Κράτιστε Διόγνητε, “Almighty son of
       Zeus,” that is, Hadrian.

  § 30.7. =The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.=--The
  celebrated little treatise bearing the title Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ
  τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν was discovered by Bryennius
  (then metropolitan of Serrä, now of Nicomedia) in the Jerusalem
  Codex, to which we also owe the perfect text of the two so-called
  Epistles of Clement, and it was edited by this scholar with
  prolegomena and notes in Greek, at Constantinople in 1883. It at
  once set in motion many learned pens in Germany, France, Holland,
  England, and North America.--Eusebius, who first expressly names
  it in his list of New Testament writings as τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ
  λεγόμεναι διδαχαί, which Rufinus renders by _Doctrina quæ dicitur
  App._, places it in the closest connection with the Epistle of
  Barnabas among the ἀντιλεγόμενα νόθα (§ 36, 8). Four years later
  Athanasius ranks it as διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν ἀπ. along with the
  Shepherd of Hermas, giving it the first place, as a New Testament
  supplement corresponding to the Old Testament ἀναγινωσκόμενα
  (§ 59, 1). Clement of Alexandria quoting a passage from it uses
  the formula, ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἴρηται, and thus treats it as holy
  scripture. In Origen again no sort of reference to it has as
  yet been found. From the 39th Festival Epistle of Athanasius,
  A.D. 367, which ranks it, as we have just seen, as a New Testament
  supplement like the Old Testament Anaginoskomena, we know that
  it like these were used at Alexandria παρὰ τῶν πατέρων in the
  instruction of catechumens. In the East, according to Rufinus,
  when enumerating in his _Expos. Symb. Ap._ the Athanasian
  Anaginoskomena, we find alongside of Hermas, instead of
  the Didache, the “Two Ways,” _Duæ viæ vel Judicium secundum
  Petrum_. Jerome, too, in his _De vir. ill._, mentions among the
  pseudo-Petrine writings a _Judicium Petri_. We have here no doubt
  a Latin translation or recension of the first six chapters of
  the Didache beginning with the words: Ὅδοι δύο εἰσι, these two
  ways being the way of life and the way of death. The second title
  instead of the twelve Apostles names their spokesman Peter as the
  reputed author of the treatise. Soon after the time of Athanasius
  our tract passed out of the view of the Church Fathers, but it
  reappears in the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the 4th century
  (§ 43, 4, 5), of which it formed the root and stem. The Didache
  itself, however, should not be ranked among the pseudepigraphs,
  for it never claims to have been written by the twelve Apostles
  or by their spokesman Peter.--Bryennius and others, from the
  intentional prominence given to the twelve Apostles in the
  title and from the legalistic moralizing spirit that pervades
  the book, felt themselves justified in seeking its origin in
  Jewish-Christian circles. But this moralizing character it shares
  with the other Gentile-Christian writings of the Post-Apostolic
  Age (§ 30, 2), and the restriction of the term “Apostles” by the
  word “twelve” was occasioned by this, that the itinerant preachers
  of the gospel of that time, who in the New Testament are called
  Evangelists (§ 17, 5) were now called Apostles as continuators of
  the Apostles’ missionary labours, and also the exclusion of the
  Apostle Paul is to be explained by the consideration that the
  book is founded upon the sayings of the Lord, the tradition
  of which has come to us only through the twelve. It has been
  rightly maintained on the other hand by Harnack, that the author
  must rather have belonged to Gentile-Christian circles which
  repudiated all communion with the Jews even in matters of mere
  form; for in chap. viii. 1, 2, resting upon Matt. vi. 5, 16,
  he forbids fasting with the hypocrites, “the Jews,” or perhaps
  in the sense of Gal. ii. 13, the Jewish-Christians, on Monday
  and Thursday, instead of Wednesday and Friday according to the
  Christian custom (§ 37, 3), and using Jewish prayers instead
  of the Lord’s Prayer. The address of the title: τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
  is to be understood according to the analogy of Rom. xi. 13;
  Gal. ii. 12-14; and Eph. iii. 1. The author wishes in as brief,
  lucid, easily comprehended, and easily remembered form as
  possible, to gather together for Christians converted from
  heathenism the most important rules for their moral, religious
  and congregational life in accordance with the precepts of
  the Lord as communicated by the twelve Apostles, and in doing
  so furnishes us with a valuable “commentary on the earliest
  witnesses for the life, type of doctrine, interests and
  ordinances of the Gentile-Christian churches in the pre-Catholic
  age.” As to the date of its composition, its connection with
  the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas indicates the
  period within which it must fall, for the connection is so close
  that it must have employed them or they must have employed it.
  However, not only is the age of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well
  as that of the Shepherd of Hermas, still undetermined, but it is
  also disputed whether one or other of these two or the Didache
  has priority and originality. On the other hand, the Didache
  itself in almost all its data and presuppositions bears so
  distinct an impress of an archaic character that one feels
  obliged to assign its date as near the Apostolic Age as possible.
  Harnack who feels compelled to ascribe priority not only to the
  Pseudo-Barnabas, but also to the Shepherd of Hermas, fixes its
  date between A.D. 140-165, after Hermas and before Marcion. On
  the other hand, Zahn and Funk, Lechler, Taylor, etc., give the
  Didache priority even over the Epistle of Barnabas. The place
  as well as the time of the composition of this work is matter
  of dispute. Those who maintain its Jewish-Christian origin think
  of the southern lands to the east or west of the Jordan; others
  think of Syria. On account of its connection with the Epistle
  of Barnabas, and with reference to Clement and Athanasius (see
  above), Harnack has decided for Egypt, and, on account of its
  agreement with the Sahidic translation of the New Testament in
  omitting the doxology from Matt. v. 13, he fixes more exactly upon
  Upper Egypt. The objection that the designation of the grain of
  which the bread for the Lord’s Supper is made in the eucharistic
  prayer given in chap. ix. 4 as ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων, does not
  correspond with that grown there, is sought to be set aside
  with the scarcely satisfactory remark that “the origin of the
  eucharistic prayer does not decide the origin of the whole
  treatise.” That the book, however, does not bear in itself
  any specifically Alexandrian impress, such as, _e.g._, is
  undeniably met with in the Epistle of Barnabas, has been admitted
  by Harnack.[64]

  § 30.8. =The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists=[65]
  are lost. At the head of this band stood =Quadratus= of Athens,
  who addressed a treatise in defence of the faith to Hadrian, in
  which among other things he shows that he himself was acquainted
  with some whom Jesus had cured or raised from the dead. No trace
  of this work can be found after the 7th century. His contemporary,
  =Aristides= the philosopher, in Athens after his conversion
  addressed to the same emperor an Apology that has been praised by
  Jerome. A fragment of an Armenian translation of this treatise,
  which according to its superscription belongs to the 5th century,
  was found in a codex of the 10th century by the Mechitarists at
  S. Lazzaro, and was edited by them along with a Latin translation.
  This fragment treats of the nature of God as the eternal creator
  and ruler of all things, of the four classes of men,--barbarians
  who are sprung from Belos, Chronos, etc., Greeks from Zeus,
  Danaus, Hellenos, etc., Jews from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
  and Christians from Christ,--and of Jesus Christ as the Son of
  God born of a Jewish virgin, who sent His twelve Apostles into
  all the world to teach the nations wisdom. This probably formed
  the beginning of the Apology. The antique character of its point
  of view and the complete absence of any reference to the Logos
  doctrine or to any heretical teaching, lends great probability
  to the authenticity of this fragment, although the designation
  of the mother of Jesus as the “bearer of God” must be a
  later interpolation (comp. § 52, 3). The genuineness of the
  second piece, however, taken from another Armenian Codex,--an
  anti-docetic homily, _De Latronis clamore et Crucifixi
  responsione_ (Luke xxiii. 42), which from the words of Christ
  and those crucified with Him proves His divinity--is both on
  external and on internal grounds extremely doubtful. According
  to the Armenian editor this Codex has the title: By the Athenian
  philosopher Aristeas. This is explained as a corruption of the
  name Aristides, but recently another Catholic scholar, Dr. Vetter,
  on close examination found that the name was really that of
  Aristides.--To a period not much later must be assigned the
  apologetic dialogue between the Jewish Christian Jason and the
  Alexandrian Jew Papiscus, in which the proof from prophecy was
  specially emphasized, and the _in principio_ of Gen. i. 1 was
  interpreted as meaning _in filio_. The pagan controversialist
  Celsus is the first to mention this treatise. He considers it, on
  account of its allegorical fancies, not so much fitted to cause
  laughter as pity and contempt, and so regards it as unworthy of
  any serious reply. Origen, too, esteemed it of little consequence.
  Subsequently, however, in the 5th century, it obtained high
  repute and was deemed worthy of a Latin translation by the
  African bishop Celsus. The controversialist Celsus, and also
  Origen, Jerome, and the Latin translator, do not name the writer.
  His name is first given by Maximus Confessor as =Ariston of
  Pella=. Harnack has rendered it extremely probable that in the
  “_Altercatio Simonis Judæi et Theophili Christiani_” discovered
  in the 18th century, reported on by Gennadius (§ 47, 16), and
  ascribed by him to a certain Evagrius, we have a substantially
  correct Latin reproduction of the old Greek dialogue, in which
  everything that is told us about the earlier document is met
  with, and which, though written in the 5th century, in its ways
  of looking at things and its methods of proof moves within the
  circle of the Apologists of the 2nd century. In it, just as in
  those early treatises the method of proof is wholly in accordance
  with the Old Testament; by it every answer of the Christian
  to the Jew is supported; at last the Jew is converted and asks
  for baptism, while he regards the Christians as _lator salutis_
  and _ægrotorum bone medice_ with a play probably upon the word
  Ἰάσων=ἰατρός and from this it is conceivable how Clement of
  Alexandria supposed Luke, the physician, to be the author of
  the treatise. Harnack’s conclusion is significant inasmuch as
  it lends a new confirmation to the fact that the non-heretical
  Jewish Christianity of the middle of the second century had
  already completely adopted the dogmatic views of Gentile
  Christianity. =Claudius Apollinaris=, bishop of Hierapolis,
  and the rhetorician =Miltiades of Athens= addressed very famous
  apologies to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. =Melito of Sardis= was
  also a highly esteemed apologist, and a voluminous writer in many
  other departments of theological literature.[66] The elaborate
  introduction to the mystical interpretation of scripture by
  investigating the mystical meaning of biblical names and words
  published in Pitra’s “Spicileg. Solesm.” II. III., as “_Clavis
  Melitonis_,” belongs to the later period of the middle ages.
  Melito’s six books of Eclogues deal with the Old Testament as a
  witness for Christ and Christianity, where he takes as his basis
  not the LXX. but the Hebrew canon (§ 36, 1).[67]

  § 30.9. =Extant Writings of Apologists of the Post-Apostolic Age.=

    a. The earliest and most celebrated of these is =Justin
       Martyr=.[68] Born at Shechem (Flavia Neapolis) of Greek
       parents, he was drawn to the Platonic doctrine of God and to
       the Stoical theory of ethics, more than to any of the other
       philosophical systems to which, as a pagan, he turned in
       the search after truth. But full satisfaction he first found
       in the prophets and apostles, to whom he was directed by an
       unknown venerable old man, whom he once met by the sea-side.
       He now in his thirtieth year cast off his philosopher’s
       cloak and adopted Christianity, of which he became a
       zealous defender, but thereby called down upon himself
       the passionate hatred of the pagan sages. His bitterest
       enemy was the Cynic Crescens in Rome, who after a public
       disputation with him, did all he could to compass his
       destruction. In A.D. 165, under Marcus Aurelius, Justin
       was condemned at Rome to be scourged and beheaded.--His two
       Apologies, addressed to Antoninus Pius and his son Marcus
       Aurelius are certainly genuine. Of these, however, the
       shorter one, the so-called second Apology is probably only
       a sort of appendix to the first. His _Dialogus cum Tryphone
       Judæo_ is probably a free rendering of a disputation which
       actually occurred. Except a few fragments, his Σύνταγμα κατὰ
       Μαρκίωνος have been lost. It is disputed whether that was an
       integral part of the Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων of which
       he himself makes mention, or a later independent work. The
       following are of more than doubtful authenticity: the Λόγος
       παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Cohortatio ad Græcos_), which
       seeks to prove that not by the poets nor by the philosophers,
       but only by Moses and the prophets can the true knowledge
       of God be found, and that whatever truth is spoken by
       the former, they had borrowed from the latter; also, the
       shorter Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Oratio ad Græcos_), on the
       irrationality and immorality of the pagan mythology; further,
       the short treatise Περὶ μοναρχίας, which proves the vanity
       of polytheism from the admissions of heathen poets and
       philosophers; and a fragment Περὶ ἀναστάσεως.--Justin’s
       theology is of the Gentile Christian type, quite free from
       any Ebionitic taint, inclining rather to the speculation and
       ethics of Greek philosophy and to an Alexandrian-Hellenistic
       conception and exposition of scripture. To these sources
       everything may be traced in which he unconsciously departs
       from biblical Paulinism and Catholic orthodoxy. Then in
       his idea of God and creation, he has not quite overcome the
       partly pantheistic, partly dualistic, principles derived
       from the Platonic philosophy. He shows traces of Alexandrian
       influences in his conception of the person and work of
       Christ, to whom he assigns merely the role of a divine
       teacher, who has made known the true idea of God the Creator,
       of righteousness, and of eternal life, and has won power by
       death, resurrection and ascension, and will give evidence
       of it by His coming again to reward the righteousness
       of the saints with immortal blessedness. He was also led
       into doctrinal aberrations in the anthropological domain,
       because his idea of freedom and virtue borrowed from Greek
       philosophy prevented him from fully grasping the Pauline
       doctrine of sin. His theory of morals, with its legalistic
       tendency and its righteousness of works, was grounded
       not in Judaism but in Stoicism. His chiliasm, too, is not
       Ebionitic but is immediately derived from scripture, and
       has less significance for his speculation than the other
       eschatological principles of Resurrection, Judgment, and
       Recompence. His Christianity consists essentially of only
       three elements: Worship of the true God, a virtuous life
       according to the commandments of Christ, and belief in
       rewards and punishments hereafter. Over against the pagan
       philosophy it represents itself as the true philosophy,
       and over against the Mosaic law as the new law freed from
       the fetters of ceremonialism. Even in the natural man, in
       consequence of the divine reason that is innate in him,
       there dwells the power of living as a Christian: Abraham
       and Elias, Socrates and Heraclitus, etc., have to such a
       degree lived according to reason that they must be called
       Christians. But even they possessed only σπέρματα Λόγου,
       only a μέρος Λόγου; for the divine reason dwells in men
       only as Λόγος σπερματικός; in Christ alone as the incarnate
       Logos it dwells as ὁ πᾶς Λόγος or τὸ Λογικὸν τὸ ὅλον. He is
       the only true Son of God, pre-mundane but not eternal, the
       πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, or the πρωτότοκος τοῦ θεοῦ, by whom
       God in the beginning created all things. The Father alone is
       ὄντως θεός, and the Logos only a divine being of the second
       rank, a ἕτερος θεὸς παρὰ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, to whom,
       however, as such, worship should be rendered. In Justin’s
       theological speculation the Holy Spirit stands quite in
       the background, though the baptismal and congregational
       Trinitarian confession obliged him to assign to the Spirit
       the rank of an independent divine being, whom the Logos had
       used for the enlightening of His prophets. Justin too knows
       nothing of a particular election of Israel as the people of
       God; with him the Christians as such are the true Israel,
       the people of God, the children of the faith of Abraham.
       From the Old Testament he proves the divinity of the person
       and doctrine of Christ, and from the Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν
       ἀποστόλων (§ 36, 7) he derives his information about the
       historical life, teaching, and works of Jesus. The Gospel
       of John, although never mentioned, was not unknown to him,
       but it appeared to him more as a doctrinal and hortatory
       treatise than as a historical document, and undoubtedly
       his Logos doctrine is connected with that of John. He shows
       himself familiar with the Epistles of Paul, although he
       never expressly quotes from them.

  § 30.10.

    b. =Tatian=, a Greek born in Assyria (according to Zahn, a
       Semite) while engaged as a rhetorician at Rome, was won to
       Christianity by Justin Martyr, according to Harnack about
       A.D. 150. As the fruit of youthful zeal, he published an
       Apologetical Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας, in which he treats the
       Greek paganism and its culture with withering scorn for
       even its noblest manifestations, and shared with his teacher
       the hatred and persecution of the philosopher Crescens.
       His later written Εὐαγγέλιον διὰ τεσσάρων (§ 36, 7) was a
       Gospel harmony, in which the removal of all reference to
       the descent of Jesus from the seed of David, according
       to the flesh, objected to by Theodoret, was occasioned
       perhaps more by antipathy to Ebionism than by any sympathy
       with Gnosticism. Zahn affirms, while Harnack decidedly
       denies, that this work was originally composed in Syriac. The
       exclusive use by the Syrians of the Greek name _Diatessaron_
       seems to afford a strong argument for a Greek original.
       Its general agreement with the readings of the so-called
       Itala (§ 36, 8) witnesses to the West as the place of its
       composition. The introduction of a Syriac translation of it
       into church use in the East is to be explained by a longer
       residence of the author in his eastern home; and its neglect
       on the part of many of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers,
       and even their complete ignorance of it, may be accounted
       for by the fact that, while in the far East it was
       unsuspected, elsewhere it came to be branded as heretical
       (§ 27, 10).[69]

    c. =Athenagoras=, about whose life we have no authentic
       information, in A.D. 177 addressed his Πρεσβεία
       (_Intercessio_) περὶ Χριστιανῶν to Marcus Aurelius, in
       which he clearly and convincingly disproves the hideous
       calumnies of Atheism, Ædipodean atrocities, Thyestean feasts
       (§ 22), and extols the excellence of Christianity in life and
       doctrine. In the treatise Περὶ ἀναστάσεως νέκρων he proves,
       from the general philosophical rather than distinctively
       Christian standpoint, the necessity of resurrection from the
       vocation of man in connection with the wisdom, omnipotence
       and righteousness of God.

    d. =Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch= († after A.D. 180), was
       by birth a pagan. His writing Πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον περὶ τῆς τῶν
       Χριστιανῶν πίστεως is one of the most excellent apologetical
       treatises of this period. Autolycus was one of his heathen
       acquaintances. His commentaries and controversial works have
       been lost. Zahn, indeed, has sought to prove that an extant
       Latin Commentary on selected passages from the four Gospels
       in the allegorical style belonging to the first half of the
       3rd century, and bearing the name of Theophilus of Antioch,
       is a substantially faithful translation of the authentic
       Greek original of A.D. 170. He has also called attention
       to the great importance of this commentary, not only for
       the oldest history of the Canon, Text and Exposition,
       but also for that of the church life, the development of
       doctrine and the ecclesiastical constitution, especially of
       the monasticism already appearing in those early times. But
       while Zahn reached those wonderful results from a conviction
       that the verbal coincidences of the Latin Church Fathers of
       the 3rd to the 5th centuries with the supposed Theophilus
       commentary were examples of their borrowing from it, Harnack
       has convincingly proved that this so-called commentary is
       rather to be regarded as a compilation from these same Latin
       Church Fathers made at the earliest during the second half
       of the 5th century.

    e. Finally, an otherwise unknown author =Hermias= wrote under
       the title Διασυρμὸς τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων (_Irrisio gentilium
       philos._) a short abusive treatise, in a witty but
       superficial style, of which the fundamental principle is
       to be found in 1 Cor. iii. 19.


       § 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE,
                             A.D. 170-323.

  From about A.D. 170, during the Old Catholic Age, scientific theology
in conflict with Judaizing, paganizing and monarchianistic heretics
progressed in a more vigorous and comprehensive manner than in the
apologetical and polemical attempt at self-defence of Post-Apostolic
Times. Throughout this period, however, the zeal for apologetics
continued unabated, but also in other directions, especially in
the department of dogmatics, important contributions were made to
theological science. While these developments were in progress, there
arose within the Catholic church three different theological schools,
each with some special characteristic of its own, the Asiatic, the
Alexandrian, and the North African.

  § 31.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies.=--=The School
  of Asia Minor= was the outcome of John’s ministry there, and
  was distinguished by firm grasp of scripture, solid faith,
  conciliatory treatment of those within and energetic polemic
  against heretics. Its numerous teachers, highly esteemed in the
  ancient church, are known to us only by name, and in many cases
  even the name has perished. Only two of their disciples resident
  in the West--Irenæus and Hippolytus--are more fully known. A
  yet greater influence, more widely felt and more enduring, was
  that of the =Alexandrian School=.[70] Most of its teachers were
  distinguished by classical culture, a philosophical spirit,
  daring speculativeness and creative power. Their special task
  was the construction of a true ecclesiastical gnosis over against
  the false heretical gnosis, and so the most celebrated teachers
  of this school have not escaped the charge of unevangelical
  speculative tendencies. The nursery of this theological tendency
  was especially this Catechetical School of Alexandria which from
  an institution for the training of educated Catechumens had grown
  up into a theological seminary. =The North African School= by
  its realism, a thoroughly practical tendency, formed the direct
  antithesis of the idealism and speculative endeavours of the
  Alexandrian. It repudiated classical science and philosophy
  as fitted to lead into error, but laid special stress upon the
  purity of Apostolic tradition, and insisted with all emphasis
  upon holiness of life and strict asceticism.--Finally, our period
  also embraces the first beginnings of the =Antiochean School=,
  whose founders were the two presbyters Dorotheus and Lucian.
  The latter especially gave to the school in its earlier days
  the tendency to critical and grammatico-historical examination
  of scripture. At =Edessa=, too, as early as the end of the 2nd
  century, we find a Christian school existing.


                  1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK.

  § 31.2. =Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type.=

    a. =Irenæus=, a pupil of Polycarp, was a native of Asia Minor.
       According to the _Vita Polycarpi_ of Pionius he lived in
       Rome at the time of Polycarp’s death as a teacher, and it
       is not improbable that he had gone there in company with
       his master (§ 37, 2). Subsequently he settled in Gaul, and
       held the office of presbyter at Lyons. During his absence at
       Rome as the bearer of a tract by the imprisoned confessors
       of Lyons on the Montanist controversy to the Roman bishop
       Eleutherus, Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, fell a
       victim to the dreadful persecution of Marcus Aurelius which
       raged in Gaul. Irenæus succeeded him as bishop in A.D. 178.
       About the time and manner of his death nothing certain is
       known. Jerome, indeed, once quite casually designates him
       a martyr, but since none of the earlier Church Fathers, who
       speak of him, know anything of this, it cannot be maintained
       with any confidence. Gentleness and moderation, combined
       with earnestness and decision, as well as the most lively
       interest in the catholicity of the church and the purity of
       its doctrine according to scripture and tradition, were the
       qualities that make him the most important and trustworthy
       witness to his own age, and led to his being recognised in
       all times as one of the ablest and most influential teachers
       of the church and a most successful opponent of heretical
       Gnosticism. His chief work against the Gnostics: Ἔλεγχος καὶ
       ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδονύμου γνώσεως (_Adv. hæreses_) in 5 books,
       is mainly an _ex professo_ directed against the Valentinians
       and the schools of Ptolemy and Marcus There is appended to
       it, beyond what had been proposed at the beginning, a short
       discussion of the views of other Gnostics, the basis of
       which may be found in an older treatise, perhaps in the
       Syntagma of Justin. The last four books give the express
       scripture proofs to sustain the general confutation, without
       doing this, however, in a complete manner; at the same time
       there is rapid movement amid many digressions and excursuses.
       This work has come down to us in a complete form only
       in an old translation literally rendered in barbarous
       Latin, even to the reproduction of misunderstood words,
       which was used as early as by Tertullian in his treatise
       against the Valentinians. We are indebted to the writings
       of the heresiologists Hippolytus and Epiphanius for the
       preservation of many remarkable fragments of the original,
       with or without the author’s name. Of his other writings
       we have only a few faint reminiscences. Two epistles
       addressed to the Roman presbyter Florinus combat the
       Valentinian heresy to which Florinus was inclined. During the
       controversy about Easter (§ 37, 2) he wrote several epistles
       of a conciliatory character, especially one to Blastus in
       Rome, an adherent of the Asiatic practice, and in the name
       of the whole Gallic church, he addressed a letter to the
       Roman bishop, Victor, and afterwards a second letter in his
       own name.[71]

  § 31.3.

    b. =Hippolytus=, a presbyter and afterwards schismatical bishop
       at Rome, though scarcely to be designated of Asia Minor, but
       rather a Lyonese, if not a Roman pupil of Irenæus, belonged
       to the same theological school. He was celebrated for his
       comprehensive learning and literary attainments, and yet
       his career until quite recently was involved in the greatest
       obscurity. Eusebius, who is the first to refer to him,
       places him in the age of Alex. Severus (A.D. 222-235),
       calls him a bishop, without, however, naming his supposed
       oriental diocese, which even Jerome was unable to determine.
       The Liberian list of Popes of A.D. 354, describes him
       as _Yppolytus presbyter_ who was burnt in Sardinia about
       A.D. 235 along with the Roman bishop, Pontianus (§ 41, 1).
       In the fifth century, the Roman church gave him honour as a
       martyr. The poet Prudentius († A.D. 413) who himself saw the
       crypt in which his bones were laid and which in the book of
       his martyrdom was pictorially represented, celebrated his
       career in song. According to him Hippolytus was an adherent
       of the Novatian schism (§ 41, 3), but returned to the
       Catholic church and suffered martyrdom at Portus near Rome.
       According to his own statement quoted by Photius he was
       a hearer of the doctrinal discourses of Irenæus. A statue
       representing him in a sitting posture which was exhumed at
       Rome in A.D. 1551, has on the back of the seat a list of
       his writings along with an Easter cycle of sixteen years
       drawn up by him (§ 56, 3). Finally, there was found among
       the works of Origen a treatise on the various philosophical
       systems entitled _Philosophoumena_, which professes to be
       the first book of a writing in ten books found in Greece in
       A.D. 1842, Κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. Starting from the
       position, and seeking to establish it, that the heretics
       have got their doctrines not from holy scripture, but from
       astrology, pagan mysteries and the Greek philosophers, this
       treatise is generally of great importance not only for the
       history of the heresies of the Gnostics and Monarchians,
       but also for the history of philosophy. The English editor,
       E. Miller (Oxon., 1851), attributed the authorship of the
       whole to Origen, which, however, from the complete difference
       of style, point of view and position was soon proved to be
       untenable. Since the writer admits that he was himself the
       author of a book Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάντος οὐσίας, and Photius
       ascribes a book with the same title to the Roman Caius
       (§ 31, 7), Baur attributes to the latter the composition of
       the Elenchus. Photius, however, founds his opinion simply
       upon an apocryphal note on the margin of his copy of the
       book. Incomparably more important are the evidences for
       the Hippolytus authorship, which is now almost universally
       admitted. The Elenchus is not, indeed, enumerated in
       the list of works on the statue. The book Περὶ τῆς τοῦ
       πάντος οὐσίας, however, appears there, and it contains
       the statement that its author also wrote the Elenchus. The
       author of the Elenchus also states that he had previously
       written a similar work in a shorter form, and Photius
       describes such a shorter writing of Hippolytus, dating
       from the time of his intercourse with Irenæus, under the
       title Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων. Lipsius has made it
       appear extremely probable that in the _Libellus adv. omnes
       hæreticos_ appended to Tertullian’s _De præscriptione
       hæreticorum_, and so usually styled a treatise of the
       Pseudo-Tertullian, we have an abbreviated Latin reproduction
       of that work; for this one as well as the other begins
       with Dositheus and ends with Noëtus, and both deal with
       thirty-two heresies. Epiphanius and Philastrius [Philaster]
       have used it largely in their heresiological works. The
       discussion in the Elenchus agrees therewith in many passages
       but also in many is essentially different, which, however,
       when we consider the much later date of the first named
       treatise affords no convincing evidence against the theory
       that both are by one author. The Elenchus thereby wins a
       high importance as giving information about the condition of
       the Roman church during the first decades of the 3rd century,
       about the position of the author who describes himself in
       his treatise as a pupil of Irenæus, about his own and his
       opponents’ way of viewing things, and about his conflict
       with them leading to schism, though all is told from
       the standpoint of an interested party (§§ 33, 5; 41, 1).
       A considerable fragment directed against the errors of
       Noëtus (§ 33, 5) was perhaps originally a part of his
       Syntagma,--though not perhaps of the anonymous, so-called
       Little Labyrinth against the Artemonites (§ 33, 3) or
       probably against the Monarchians generally, from which
       Eusebius makes extensive quotations, especially about the
       Theodotians. This work is ascribed by Photius to the Roman
       Caius, but without doubt wrongly. Great probability has been
       given to the recently advanced idea that this book too may
       have been written by Hippolytus.[72]

  § 31.4. =The Alexandrian Church Teachers.=

    a. The first of the teachers of the catechetical school at
       Alexandria known by name was =Pantænus=, who had formerly
       been a Stoic philosopher. About A.D. 190 he undertook
       a missionary journey into Southern Arabia or India, and
       died in A.D. 202 after a most successful and useful life.
       Jerome says of him: _Hujus multi quidem in s. Scri. exstant
       Commentarii, sed Magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit_. Of his
       writings none are preserved.

    b. =Titus Flavius Clemens [Clement]= was the pupil of Pantænus
       and his successor at the catechetical school in Alexandria.
       On his travels undertaken in the search for knowledge he
       came to Alexandria as a learned pagan philosopher, where
       probably Pantænus gained an influence over him and was
       the means of his conversion. During the persecution under
       Septimius Severus in A.D. 202 he sought in flight to escape
       the rage of the heathens, in accordance with Matt. x. 23.
       But he continued unweariedly by writing and discourse
       to promote the interests of the church till his death in
       A.D. 220. The most important and most comprehensive of his
       writings is the work in three parts of which the first part
       entitled Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Cohortatio ad
       Græcos_) with great expenditure of learning seeks to prepare
       the minds of the heathen for Christianity by proving the
       vanity of heathenism; the second part, Ὁ παιδαγωγός in
       three books, with a _Hymnus in Salvatorem_ attached, gives
       an introduction to the Christian life; and the third part,
       Στρωματείς (_Stromata_), that is, patchwork, so-called from
       the aphoristic style and the variety of its contents, in
       eight books, setting forth the deep things of Christian
       gnosis, but in the form rather of a collection of materials
       than a carefully elaborated treatise. The little tractate
       Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος (_Quis dives salvetur_) shows how
       even wealth may be made contributory to salvation. Among
       his lost treatises the most important was the Ὑποτυπώσεις
       in eight books, an expository review of the contents of holy
       scripture.[73]

  § 31.5.

    c. Great as was the reputation of Clement, he was far
       outstripped by his pupil and successor =Origen=,
       acknowledged by pagan and Christian contemporaries to be
       a miracle of scholarship. On account of his indomitable
       diligence, he was named Ἀδαμάντιος. Celebrated as a
       philosopher, philologist, critic, exegete, dogmatist,
       apologist, polemist, etc., posterity has with equal right
       honoured him as the actual founder of an ecclesiastical and
       scientific theology, and reproached him as the originator
       of many heretical opinions (§§ 51; 52, 6). He was born of
       Christian parents at Alexandria about A.D. 185, was educated
       under his father Leonidas, Pantænus and Clement, while still
       a boy encouraged his father when he suffered as a martyr
       under Septimius Severus in A.D. 202, became the support
       of his helpless mother and his six orphaned sisters, and
       was called in A.D. 203 by bishop Demetrius to be teacher
       of the catechetical school. In order to qualify himself
       for the duties of his new calling, he engaged eagerly in
       the study of philosophy under the Neo-Platonist Ammonius
       Saccas. His mode of life was extremely simple and from
       his youth he was a strict ascetic. In his eager striving
       after Christian perfection he had himself emasculated,
       from a misunderstanding of Matt. xix. 12, but afterwards
       he admitted that that was a wrong step. His fame advanced
       from day to day. About A.D. 211 he visited Rome. Accepting
       an honourable invitation in A.D. 215 he wrought for a long
       time as a missionary in Arabia, he was then appointed by the
       celebrated Julia Mammæa (§ 22, 4) to Antioch in A.D. 218;
       and in A.D. 230 undertook in the interest of the church
       a journey to Greece through Palestine, where the bishops
       of Cæsarea and Jerusalem admitted him to the rank of a
       presbyter. His own bishop, Demetrius, jealous of the daily
       increasing fame of Origen and feeling that his episcopal
       rights had been infringed upon, recalled him, and had him
       at two Alexandrian Synods, in A.D. 231 and 232, arraigned
       and excommunicated for heresy, self-mutilation and contempt
       of the ecclesiastical laws of his office. Origen now
       went to Cæsarea, and there, honoured and protected by the
       Emperor, Philip the Arabian, opened a theological school.
       His literary activity here reached its climax. But under
       Decius he was cast into prison at Tyre, in A.D. 254,
       and died in consequence of terrible tortures which he
       endured heroically.--Of his numerous writings[74] only a
       comparatively small number, but those of great value, are
       preserved; some in the original, others only in a Latin
       translation.

        1. To the department of =Biblical Criticism= belongs the
           fruit of twenty-seven years’ labour, the so-called
           Hexapla, that is, a placing side by side the Hebrew text
           of the O.T. (first in Hebr. and then in the Gr. letters)
           and the existing Greek translations of the LXX., Aquila,
           Symmachus and Theodotion; by the addition in some
           books of other anonymous translations, it came to be
           an Octopla or Enneapla. By critical marks on the margin
           all variations were carefully indicated. The enormous
           bulk of fifty volumes hindered its circulation by means
           of transcripts; but the original lay in the library
           at Cæsarea open to the inspection of all, until lost,
           probably in the sack of the city by the Arabians in
           A.D. 653.[75]

        2. His =Exegetical works= consist of Σημειώσεις or
           short scholia on separate difficult passages, Τόμοι
           or complete commentaries on whole books of the bible,
           and Ὁμιλίαι or practical expository lectures. Origen,
           after the example of the Rabbinists and Hellenists,
           gave a decided preference to the allegorical method
           of interpretation. In every scripture passage he
           distinguished a threefold sense, as σῶμα, ψυχή, πνεῦμα,
           first a literal, and then a twofold higher sense, the
           tropical or moral, and the pneumatical or mystical.
           He was not just a despiser of the literal sense, but
           the unfolding of the mystical sense seemed to him
           of infinitely greater importance. All history in the
           bible is a picture of things in the higher world. Most
           incidents occurred as they are told; but some, the
           literal conception of which would be unworthy or
           irrational, are merely typical, without any outward
           historical reality. The Old Testament language is
           typical in a twofold sense: for the New Testament
           history and for the heavenly realities. The New
           Testament language is typical only of the latter.
           He regarded the whole bible as inspired, with the
           exception of the books added by the LXX., but the New
           Testament in a higher degree than the Old. But even the
           New Testament had defects which will only be overcome
           by the revelation of eternity.

        3. To the department of =Dogmatics= belongs his four books
           Περὶ ἀρχῶν (_De Principiis_), which have come down to
           us in a Latin translation of Rufinus with arbitrary
           interpolations. His Στρωματεῖς in ten books which
           sought to harmonize the Christian doctrine with Greek
           philosophy is lost, and also his numerous writings
           against the heretics. His comprehensive apologetical
           work in eight books, _Contra Celsum_ (§ 23, 3), has
           come down to us complete.[76] Gregory of Nazianzus
           [Nazianzen] and Basil the Great made a book entirely
           from his writings under the title Φιλοκαλία, which
           contains many passages from lost treatises, and a
           valuable original fragment from his Περὶ ἀρχῶν. His
           principal doctrinal characteristics are the following:
           There is a twofold revelation, the primitive revelation
           in conscience to which the heathen owe their σπέρματα
           ἀληθείας, and the historical revelation in holy
           scripture; there are three degrees of religious
           knowledge, that of the ψιλὴ πίστις, an unreasoned
           acceptance of the truth, wrought by God immediately in
           the heart of men, that of γνῶσις or ἐπιστήμη to which
           the reasoning mind of man can reach by the speculative
           development of scripture revelation in his life, and
           finally, that of σοφία or θεωρία, the vision of God,
           the full enjoyment of which is attained unto only
           hereafter. For his doctrine of the Trinity, see § 33, 6.
           His cosmological, angelological and anthropological
           views represent a mixture of Platonic, Gnostic
           and spiritualistic ideas, and run out into various
           heterodoxies; thus, he believes in timeless or eternal
           creation, an ante-temporal fall of human souls,
           their imprisonment in earthly bodies, he denies the
           resurrection of the body, he believed in the animation
           and the need and capacity of redemption of the stars
           and star-spirits, in the restoration of all spirits to
           their original, ante-temporal blessedness and holiness,
           ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων.

        4. Of his =Ascetical Works=, the treatise Περὶ εὐχῆς with
           an admirable exposition of the Lord’s prayer, and a
           Λόγος προτρεπικὸς εἰς μαρτύριον have been preserved.
           Of his numerous epistles, the _Epistola ad Julium
           Africanum_ defends against his correspondent the
           genuineness of the history of Susannah.

  § 31.6.

    d. Among the successors of Origen in the school of Alexandria
       the most celebrated, from about A.D. 232, was =Dionysius
       Alexandrinus= [of Alexandria]. He was raised to the rank
       of bishop in A.D. 247, and died in A.D. 265. In speculative
       power he was inferior to his teacher Origen. His special
       gift was that of κυβέρνησις. He was honoured by his own
       contemporaries with the title of The Great. During the
       Decian persecution he manifested wisdom and good sense
       as well as courage and steadfastness. The ecclesiastical
       conflicts of his age afforded abundant opportunities for
       testing his noble and gentle character, as well as his
       faithful attachment to the church and zeal for the purity of
       its doctrine, and on all hands his self-denying amiability
       wrought in the interests of peace. Of his much-praised
       writings, exegetical, ascetical, polemical (Περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν
       § 33, 9), apologetical (Περὶ φύσεως against the Atomism
       of Democritus and Epicurus), and dogmatical (§ 33, 7),
       only fragments are preserved, mostly from his Epistles
       in quotations by Eusebius. We have, however, one short
       tract complete addressed to Novatian at Rome (§ 31, 12),
       containing an earnest entreaty that he should abandon his
       schismatic rigorism.

    e. =Gregory Thaumaturgus= was one of Origen’s pupils at Cæsarea.
       Origen was the means of converting the truth-seeking heathen
       youth to Christianity, and Gregory clung to his teacher with
       the warmest affection. He subsequently became bishop of his
       native city of Neo-Cæsarea, and was able on his death-bed
       in A.D. 270 to comfort himself with the reflection that he
       left to his successor no more unbelievers in the city than
       his predecessor had left him of believers (their number was
       seventeen). He was called the second Moses and the power of
       working miracles was ascribed to him. We have from his pen
       a panegyric on Origen, an Epistle on Church Discipline, a
       Μετάφρασις εἰς Ἐκκλησιάστην, a Confession of Faith important
       for the history of the Ante-Nicene period (§ 50, 1): Ἔκθεσις
       πίστεως. Two other tracts in a Syrian translation are
       ascribed to him: To Philagrius on Consubstantiality, and
       To Theopompus on the Passibility of God. Dräseke, however,
       identifies the first-named with Oratio 45 of Gregory
       Nazianzus [Nazianzen] and assigns to him the authorship.[77]

    f. The learned presbyter =Pamphilus= of Cæsarea, the friend
       of Eusebius (§ 47, 2) and founder of a theological seminary
       and the celebrated library of Cæsarea, who died as a martyr
       under Maximinus, belongs to this group. His Old Testament
       Commentaries have been lost. In prison he finished his work
       in five books which he undertook jointly with Eusebius, the
       Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius independently added a
       sixth book. Only the first book is preserved in Rufinus’
       Latin translation.

  § 31.7. =Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters.=

    a. =Hegesippus= wrote his five books Ὑπομνήματα, about A.D. 180,
       during the age of the Roman bishop Eleutherus. From his
       knowledge of the Hebrew language, literature and traditions
       Eusebius concludes that he was a Jew by birth. He himself
       says distinctly that in A.D. 155 during the time of bishop
       Anicetus he was staying in Rome, and that on his way thither
       he visited Corinth. The opinion formerly current that
       his Hypomnemata consisted of a collection of historical
       traditions from the time of the Apostles down to the age of
       the writer, and so might be called a sort of Church History,
       arose from the historical character of the contents of eight
       quotations made from this treatise by Eusebius in his own
       Church History. It is, however, not borne out by the fact
       that what Hegesippus tells in his detailed narrative of the
       end of James the Just (§ 16, 3) occurs, not in the first
       or second but in the fifth and last book of his treatise.
       Moreover, among writers against the heretics or Gnostics,
       Eusebius enumerates in the first place one Hegesippus,
       having it would seem his Hypomnemata in view. From this
       circumstance, in conjunction with everything else quoted
       from and told about him by Eusebius, we may with great
       probability conclude that the purpose of his writing was
       to confute the heresies of his age. In doing so he traces
       them partly to Gentile sources, but partly and mainly to
       pre-Christian Jewish heresies, seven of which are enumerated.
       He treats in the first three books of the so-called Gnostics
       and their relations to heathenism and false Judaism. Then in
       the fourth book he discusses the heretical Apocrypha and, as
       contrasted with them, the orthodox ecclesiastical writings,
       mentioning among them expressly the Epistle of Clemens
       [Clement] Romanus [of Rome] to the Corinthians. Finally,
       in the fifth book, he proves from the Apostolic succession
       of the leaders of the church, the unity and truth of
       ecclesiastically transmitted doctrine. The historical value
       of his writing, owing to the confusion and want of critical
       power shown in the instances referred to, cannot be placed
       very high. The school of Baur, more particularly Schwegler
       (see § 20), attached greater importance to him as a supposed
       representative of the anti-Pauline Judaism of his time.
       The value of his testimony in this direction, however, is
       reduced by his acknowledgment of the Epistle of Clement that
       accords so high a place to the Apostle Paul. His relations
       to Rome and Corinth, with his judgment on the general unity
       of faith in the church of his age, prove that he would be by
       no means disposed to repudiate the Apostle Paul in favour of
       any Ebionitic tendency.

    b. =Caius of Rome=, a contemporary of bishop Zephyrinus
       about A.D. 210, was one of the most conspicuous opponents
       of Montanism. Eusebius who characterizes him as ἀνὴρ
       ἐκκλησιαστικός and λογιώτατος, quotes four times from
       his now lost controversial tract in dialogue form against
       Proclus the Roman Montanist leader.

  § 31.8.

    c. =Sextus Julius Africanus=, according to Suidas a native of
       Libya, took part, as he says himself in his Κεστοῖς, in the
       campaign of Septimius Severus against Osrhoëne in A.D. 195,
       became intimate with the Christian king Maanu VIII. of
       Edessa, whom in his Chronographies he calls ἱερὸς ἀνὴρ,
       and was often companion in hunting to his son and successor
       Maanu IX. About A.D. 220 we find him, according to Eusebius
       and others, in Rome at the head of an embassy from Nicopolis
       or Emmaus in Palestine petitioning for the restoration of
       that city. In consequence of Origen addressing him about
       A.D. 227 as ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφός it has been rashly concluded
       that he was then a presbyter or at least of clerical rank.
       The five books, Χρονογραφίαι, were his first and most
       important work. This work which was known partly in the
       original, partly in the citations from it in the Eusebian
       Chronicle (§ 47, 2), together with its Latin continuation
       by Jerome proved a main source of information in general
       history during the Byzantine period and the Latin Middle
       Age. Beginning with the creation of the world and fixing
       the whole course of the world’s development at 6,000 years,
       he set the middle point of this period to the age of Peleg
       (Gen. x. 25), and in accordance with the chronology of the
       LXX. and reckoning by Olympiads, proceeded to synchronize
       biblical and profane history. He assigned the birth of
       Christ to the middle of the sixth of the thousand year
       periods, at the close of which he probably expected the
       beginning of the millennium. From the fragments preserved
       by later Byzantine chroniclers, Gelzer has attempted to
       reproduce as far as possible the original work, carefully
       indicating its sources and authorities. Of the other works
       of Africanus we have in a complete form only an Epistle
       to Origen, “a real gem of brilliant criticism spiced with
       a gentle touch of fine irony” (Gelzer), which combats the
       authenticity and credibility of the Pseudo-Daniel’s history
       of Susannah. We have also a fragment quoted in Eusebius
       from an Epistle to a certain Aristides, which attempts
       a reconciliation of the genealogies in Matt. and Luke by
       distinguishing παῖδες νόμῳ and παῖδες φύσει with reference
       to Deut. xxv. 5. According to Eusebius “the chronologist
       Julius Africanus,” according to Suidas “Origen’s friend
       Africanus with the prænomen Sextus,” is also the author of
       the so called Κεστοί (_embroidery_), a great comprehensive
       work of which only fragments have been preserved, in which
       all manner of wonderful things from the life of nature and
       men, about agriculture, cattle breeding, warfare, etc.,
       were recorded, so that it had the secondary title Παράδοξα.
       The excessive details of pagan superstition here reported,
       much of which, such as that relating to the secret worship
       of Venus, was distinctly immoral, and its dependence on
       the secret writings of the Egyptians seem now as hard to
       reconcile with the standpoint of a believing Christian, as
       with the sharpness of intellect shown in his criticism of
       the letter of Susannah. It has therefore been assumed that
       alongside of the Christian chronologist Julius Africanus
       there was a pagan Julius Africanus who wrote the Κεστοί,--or,
       seeing the identity of the two is strongly evidenced both
       on internal and external grounds, the composition of the
       Κεστοί is assigned to a period when the author was still a
       heathen. The facts, however, that the Chronicles close with
       A.D. 221 and that the Κεστοί is dedicated to Alex. Severus
       (A.D. 222-235), seem to guarantee the earlier composition
       of the Chronicles. The author of the Κεστοί, too, by his
       quotation of Ps. xxxiv. 9 with the formula θεία ῥήματα,
       shows himself a Christian, and on the other hand, the author
       of the Chronicles says that at great cost he had made himself
       acquainted in Egypt with a celebrated secret book.

  § 31.9.

    d. =Methodius= bishop of Olympus in Lycia, subsequently at
       Tyre, a man highly esteemed in his day, died as a martyr
       in A.D. 311. He was a decided opponent of the spiritualism
       prevailing in the school of Origen. His Συμπόσιον τῶν δέκα
       παρθένων is a dialogue between several virgins regarding
       the excellence of virginity written in eloquent and glowing
       language (transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1870). Of his
       other works only outlines and fragments are preserved by
       Epiphanius and Photius. To these belong Περὶ αὐτεξουσίου καὶ
       ποθὲν κακά, a polemic against the Platonic-Gnostic doctrine
       of the eternity of matter as the ultimate ground and cause
       of sin, which are to be sought rather in the misuse of
       human freedom; the dialogues Περὶ ἀναστάσεως and Περὶ τῶν
       γεννητῶν, the former of which combats Origen’s doctrine of
       the resurrection, and the latter his doctrine of creation.
       His controversial treatise against Porphyry (§ 23, 3) has
       been completely lost.

    e. The martyr =Lucian of Samosata=, born and brought up in
       Edessa, was presbyter of Antioch and co-founder of the
       theological school there that became so famous (§ 47, 1),
       where he, deposed by a Syrian Synod of A.D. 269, and
       persecuted by the Emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272, as supporter
       of bishop Paul of Samosata (§ 33, 8), maintained his
       position under the three following bishops (till A.D. 303)
       apart from the official church, and died a painful martyr’s
       death under the Emperor Maximinus in A.D. 312. That
       secession, however, was occasioned less perhaps through
       doctrinal and ecclesiastical, than through national and
       political, anti-Roman and Syrian sympathies with his
       heretical countrymen of Samosata. For though in the Arian
       controversy (§ 50, 1) Lucian undoubtedly appears as the
       father of that Trinitarian-Christological view first
       recognised and combated as heretical in his pupil Arius in
       A.D. 318, this was certainly essentially different from the
       doctrine of the Samosatian. About Lucian’s literary activity
       only the scantiest information has come down to us. His most
       famous work was his critical revision of the Text of the Old
       and New Testaments, which according to Jerome was officially
       sanctioned in the dioceses of the Patriarchs of Antioch
       and Constantinople, and thus probably lies at the basis of
       Theodoret’s and Chrysostom’s exegetical writings. Rufinus’
       Latin translation of Eusebius’ Church History gives an
       extract from the “Apologetical Discourse” in which he seems
       to have openly confessed and vindicated his Christian faith
       before his heathen judge.


                  2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN.

  § 31.10. =The Church Teachers of North Africa.=--=Quintus
  Septimius Florens Tertullianus [Tertullian]= was the son of a
  heathen centurion of Carthage, distinguished as an advocate and
  rhetorician, converted somewhat late in life, about A.D. 190,
  and, after a long residence in Rome, made presbyter at Carthage
  in A.D. 220. He was of a fiery and energetic character, in his
  writings as well as in his life pre-eminently a man of force,
  with burning enthusiasm for the truth of the gospel, unsparingly
  rigorous toward himself and others. His “Punic style” is terse,
  pictorial and rhetorical, his thoughts are original, brilliant
  and profound, his eloquence transporting, his dialectic clear
  and convincing, his polemic crushing, enlivened with sharp wit
  and biting sarcasm. He shows himself the thoroughly accomplished
  jurist in his use of legal terminology and also in the acuteness
  of his deductions and demonstrations. Fanatically opposed to
  heathen philosophy, though himself trained in the knowledge of it,
  a zealous opponent of Gnosticism, in favour of strict asceticism
  and hostile to every form of worldliness, he finally attached
  himself, about A.D. 220, to the party of the Montanists (§ 40, 3).
  Here he found the form of religion in which his whole manner of
  thought and feeling, the energy of his will, the warmth of his
  emotions, his strong and forceful imagination, his inclination to
  rigorous asceticism, his love of bald realism, could be developed
  in all power and fulness, without let or hindrance. If amid
  all his enthusiasm for Montanism he kept clear of many of its
  absurdities, he had for this to thank his own strong common sense,
  and also, much as he affected to despise it, his early scientific
  training. He at first wrote his compositions in Greek, but
  afterwards exclusively in Latin, into which he also translated
  the most important of his earlier writings. He is perhaps not
  the first who treated of the Christian truth in this language
  (§ 31, 12a), but he has been rightly recognised as the actual
  creator of ecclesiastical Latin. His writings may be divided into
  three groups.

    a. =Apologetical and Controversial Treatises against Jews and
       Pagans=, which belong to his pre-Montanist period. The most
       important and instructive of these is the _Apologeticus adv.
       Gentes_, addressed to the Roman governor. A reproduction of
       this work intended for the general public, less learned, but
       more vigorous, scathing and uncompromising, is the treatise
       in two books entitled _Ad Nationes_. In the work _Ad
       Scapulam_, who as Proconsul of Africa under Septimius
       Severus had persecuted the Christians with unsparing cruelty,
       he calls him to account for this with all earnestness and
       plainness of speech. In the book, _De testimonio animæ_
       he carries out more fully the thought already expressed in
       the _Apologeticus c. 17_ of the _Anima humana naturaliter
       christiana_, and proves in an ingenious manner that
       Christianity alone meets the religious needs of humanity.
       The book _Adv. Judæos_ had its origin ostensibly in a public
       disputation with the Jews, in which the interruptions of his
       audience interferes with the flow of his discourse.

    b. =Controversial Treatises against the Heretics.= In the tract
       _De præscriptione hæreticorum_ he proves that the Catholic
       church, because in prescriptive possession of the field
       since the time of the Apostles, is entitled on the legal
       ground of _præscriptio_ to be relieved of the task of
       advancing proof of her claims, while the heretics on the
       other hand are bound to establish their pretensions. A
       heresiological appendix to this book has been erroneously
       attributed to Tertullian (see § 31, 3). He combats the
       Gnostics in the writings: _De baptismo_ (against the Gnostic
       rejection of water baptism); _Adv. Hermogenem_; _Adv.
       Valentinianos_; _De anima_ (an Anti-Gnostic treatise,
       which maintains the creatureliness, yea, the materiality of
       the soul, traces its origin to sexual intercourse, and its
       mortality to Adam’s sin); _De carne Christi_ (Anti-Docetic):
       _De resurrectione carnis Scorpiace_ (an antidote to the
       scorpion-poison of the Gnostic heresy); finally, the five
       books, _Adv. Marcionem_. The book _Adv. Praxeam_ is directed
       against the Patripassians (§ 33, 4). In this work his
       realism reaches its climax at c. 7 in the statement: “_Quis
       enim negabit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est?
       Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie_,”--where,
       however, he is careful to state that with him _corpus_ and
       _substantia_ are identical ideas, so that he can also say in
       c. 10 _de carne Christi_: “_Omne quod est, corpus est sui
       generis. Nihil est incorporate nisi quod non est._”

    c. =Practical and Ascetical Treatises.= His pre-Montanist
       writings are characterized by moderation as compared with
       the fanatical rigorism and scornful bitterness against the
       Psychical, _i.e._ the Catholics, displayed in those of the
       Montanist period. To the former class belong: _De oratione_
       (exposition of the Lord’s Prayer); _De baptismo_ (necessity
       of water baptism, disapproval of infant baptism); _De
       pœnitentia_; _De idolatria_; _Ad Martyres_; _De spectaculis_;
       _De cultu feminarum_ (against feminine love of dress); _De
       patientia_; _Ad uxorem_ (a sort of testament for his wife,
       with the exhortation after his death not to marry again,
       but at least in no case to marry an unbeliever). To the
       Montanist period belong: _De virginibus velandis_; _De
       corona militis_ (defending a Christian soldier who suffered
       imprisonment for refusing to wear the soldier’s crown);
       _De fuga in persecutione_ (which with fanatical decision
       is declared to be a renunciation of Christianity); _De
       exhortatione castitatis_ and _De monogamia_ (both against
       second marriages which are treated as fornication and
       adultery); _De pudicitia_ (recalling his milder opinion
       given in his earlier treatise _De pœnitentia_, that
       every mortal sin is left to the judgment of God, with the
       possibility of reconciliation); _De jejuniis adv. Psychicos_
       (vindication of the fasting discipline of the Montanists,
       § 40, 4); _De pallio_ (an essay full of wit and humour
       in answer to the taunts of his fellow-citizens about his
       throwing off the toga and donning the philosopher’s mantle,
       _i.e._ the Pallium, which even the Ascetics might wear).[78]

  § 31.11. =Thascius Cæcilius Cyprianus= [Cyprian], descended from
  a celebrated pagan family in Carthage, was at first a teacher
  of rhetoric, then, after his conversion in A.D. 245, a presbyter
  and from A.D. 248 bishop in his native city. During the Decian
  persecution the hatred of the heathen mob expressed itself in
  the cry _Cyprianum ad leonem_; but he withdrew himself for a
  time in flight into the desert in A.D. 250, from whence he guided
  the affairs of the church by his Epistles, and returned in the
  following year when respite had been given. The disturbances that
  had meanwhile arisen afforded him abundant opportunity for the
  exercise of that wisdom and gentleness which characterized him,
  and the earnestness, energy and moderation of his nature, as well
  as his Christian tact and prudence all stood him in good stead in
  dealing, on the one hand, with the fallen who sought restoration,
  and on the other, the rigorous schismatics who opposed them
  (§ 41, 2). When persecution again broke out under Valerian in
  A.D. 257 he was banished to the desert Curubis, and when he
  returned to his oppressed people in A.D. 258, he was beheaded.
  His epoch-making significance lies not so much in his theological
  productions as in his energetic and successful struggle for the
  unity of the church as represented by the monarchical position
  of the episcopate, and in his making salvation absolutely
  dependent upon submission to episcopal authority, as well
  as in the powerful impetus given by him to the tendency to
  view ecclesiastical piety as an _opus operatum_ (§ 39). As a
  theologian and writer he mainly attaches himself to the giant
  Tertullian, whose thoughts he reproduces in his works, with
  the excision, however, of their Montanist extravagances. Jerome
  relates that no day passed in which he did not call to his
  amanuensis: _Da magistrum_! In originality, profundity, force
  and fulness of thought, as well as in speculative and dialectic
  gifts, he stands indeed far below Tertullian, but in lucidity and
  easy flow of language and pleasant exposition he far surpasses
  him. His eighty-one Epistles are of supreme importance for the
  Ch. Hist. of his times, and next to them in value is the treatise
  “De unitate ecclesiæ” (§ 34, 7). His _Liber ad Donatum s. de
  gratia Dei_, the first writing produced after his conversion,
  contains treatises on the leadings of God’s grace and the
  blessedness of the Christian life as contrasted with the
  blackness of the life of the pagan world. The Apologetical
  writings _De idolorum vanitate_ and _Testimonia adv. Judæos_,
  II. iii., have no claims to independence and originality. This
  applies also more or less to his ascetical tracts: _De habitu
  virginum_, _De mortalitate_, _De exhortatione martyrii_,
  _De lapsis_, _De oratione dominica_, _De bono patientiæ_,
  _De zelo et livore_, etc. His work _De opere et eleemosynis_
  specially contributed to the spread of the doctrine of the merit
  of works.[79]

  § 31.12. =Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue.=

    a. The Roman attorney =Minucius Felix=, probably of Cirta in
       Africa, wrote under the title of _Octavius_ a brilliant
       Apology, expressed in a fine Latin diction, in the form of a
       conversation between his two friends the Christian Octavius
       and the heathen Cæcilius, which resulted in the conversion
       of the latter. It is matter of dispute whether it was
       composed before or after Tertullian’s Apologeticus, and
       to which of the two the origin of thoughts and expressions
       common to both is to be assigned. Recently Ebert has
       maintained the opinion that Minucius is the older, and
       this view has obtained many adherents; whereas the contrary
       theory of Schultze has reached its climax in assigning the
       composition of the _Octavius_ to A.D. 300-303, so that he is
       obliged to ascribe the Octavius as well as the Apologeticus
       to a compiler of the fourth or fifth century, plagiarizing
       from Cyprian’s treatise _De idolorum vanitate_!

    b. =Commodianus= [Commodus], born at Gaza, was won to
       Christianity by reading holy scripture, and wrote about
       A.D. 250 his _Instructiones adv. Gentium Deos_, consisting
       of eighty acrostic poems in rhyming hexameters and scarcely
       intelligible, barbarous Latin. His _Carmen apologeticum adv.
       Jud. et Gent._ was first published in 1852.

    c. The writings of his contemporary the schismatical =Novatian=
       of Rome (§ 41, 3) show him to have been a man of no ordinary
       dogmatical and exegetical ability. His _Liber de Trinitate
       s. de Regula fidei_ is directed in a subordinationist
       sense against the Monarchians (§ 33). The _Epistola de
       cibis Judaici_ repudiates any obligation on the part of
       Christians to observe the Old Testament laws about food;
       and the _Epistola Cleri Romani_ advocates milder measures
       in the penitential discipline.

    d. =Arnobius= was born at Sicca in Africa, where he was engaged
       as a teacher of eloquence about A.D. 300. For a long time he
       was hostilely inclined toward Christianity, but underwent a
       change of mind by means of a vision in a dream. The bishop
       distrusted him and had misgivings about admitting him
       to baptism, but he convinced him of the honesty of his
       intentions by composing the seven books of _Disputationes
       adv. Gentes_. This treatise betrays everywhere defective
       understanding of the Christian truth; but he is more
       successful in combating the old religion than in defending
       the new.

    e. The bishop =Victorinus of Pettau= (Petavium in Styria), who
       died a martyr during the Diocletian persecution in A.D. 303,
       wrote commentaries on the Old and New Testament books that
       are no longer extant. Only a fragment _De fabrica mundi_ on
       Gen. i. and Scholia on the Apocalypse have been preserved.

    f. =Lucius Cœlius Firmianus Lactantius= († about A.D. 330),
       probably of Italian descent, but a pupil of Arnobius
       in Africa, was appointed by Diocletian teacher of Latin
       eloquence at Nicomedia. At that place about A.D. 301 he
       was converted to Christianity and resigned his office
       on the outbreak of the persecution. Constantine the Great
       subsequently committed to him the education of his son
       Crispus, who, at his father’s command, was executed in
       A.D. 326. From his writings he seems to have been amiable
       and unassuming, a man of wide reading, liberal culture
       and a warm heart. The purity of his Latin style and the
       eloquence of his composition, in which he excels all the
       Church Fathers, has won for him the honourable name of the
       Christian Cicero. We often miss in his writings grip, depth
       and acuteness of thinking; especially in their theological
       sections we meet with many imperfections and mistakes.
       He was not only carried away by a fanatical chiliasm,
       but adopted also many opinions of a Manichæan sort. The
       _Institutiones divinæ_ in seven bks., a complete exposition
       and defence of the Christian faith, is his principal work.
       The _Epitome div. inst._ is an abstract of the larger works
       prepared by himself with the addition of many new thoughts.
       His book _De mortibus persecutorum_ (Engl. trans. by
       Dr. Burnett, “Relation of the Death of the Primitive
       Persecutors.” Amsterdam, 1687), contains a rhetorically
       coloured description of the earlier persecutions as well
       as of those witnessed by himself during his residence in
       Nicomedia. It is of great importance for the history of the
       period but must be carefully sifted owing to its strongly
       partisan character. Not only the joy of the martyrs but
       also the proof of a divine Nemesis in the lives of the
       persecutors are regarded as demonstrating the truth of
       Christianity. The tract _De ira Dei_ seeks to prove the
       failure of Greek philosophy to combine the ideas of justice
       and goodness in its conception of God. The book _De opificio
       Dei_ proves from the wonderful structure of the human body
       the wisdom of divine providence. Jerome praises him as a
       poet; but of the poems ascribed to him only one on the bird
       phœnix, which, as it rises into life out of its own ashes
       is regarded as a symbol of immortality and the resurrection,
       can lay any claim to authenticity.


       § 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE.[80]

  The practice, so widely spread in pre-Christian times among pagans
and Jews, of publishing treatises as original and primitive divine
revelations which had no claim to such a title found favour among
Christians of the first centuries, and was continued far down into the
Greek and Latin Middle Ages. The majority of the apocryphal or anonymous
and pseudepigraphic writings were issued in support of heresies Ebionite
or Gnostic. Many, however, were free from heretical taint and were
simply undertaken for the purpose of glorifying Christianity by what
was then regarded as a harmless _pia fraus_ through a _vaticinia post
eventum_, or of filling up blanks in the early history with myths and
fables already existing or else devised for the occasion. They took the
subjects of their romances partly from the field of the Old Testament,
and partly from the field of the New Testament in the form of Gospels,
Acts, Apostolic Epistles and Apocalypses. A number of them are
professedly drawn from the prophecies of old heathen seers. Of greater
importance, especially for the history of the constitution, worship and
discipline of the church are the Eccles. Constitutions put forth under
the names of Apostles. Numerous apocryphal Acts of Martyrs are for the
most part utterly useless as historical sources.

  § 32.1. =Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies.=--Of these the
  =Sibylline Writings= occupy the most conspicuous place. The
  Græco-Roman legend of the Sibyls, σιοῦ βούλη (Æol. for θεοῦ
  βούλη), _i.e._ prophetesses of pagan antiquity, was wrought up
  at a very early period in the interests of Judaism and afterwards
  of Christianity, especially of Ebionite heresy. The extant
  collection of such oracles in fourteen books were compiled in the
  5th or 6th century. It contains in Greek verses prophecies partly
  purely Jewish, partly Jewish wrought up by a Christian hand,
  partly originally Christian, about the history of the world, the
  life and sufferings of Christ, the persecutions of His disciples
  and the stages in the final development of His kingdom. The
  Christian participation in the composition of the Sibylline
  oracles began in the first century, soon after the irruption of
  Vesuvius in A.D. 79, and continued down to the 5th century. The
  Apologists, especially Lactantius, made such abundant use of
  these prophecies that the heathens nicknamed them Sibyllists.--Of
  the prophecies about the coming of Christ ascribed to an ancient
  Persian seer, =Hystaspes=, none have been preserved.

  § 32.2. =Old Testament Pseudepigraphs.=[81]--These are mostly of
  =Jewish Origin=, of which, however, many were held by the early
  Christians in high esteem.

    a. To this class belongs pre-eminently the =Book of Enoch=,
       written originally in Hebrew in the last century before
       Christ, quoted in the Epistle of Jude, and recovered only in
       an Ethiopic translation in A.D. 1821. In its present form in
       which a great number of older writings about Enoch and Noah
       have been wrought up, the book embraces accounts of the fall
       of a certain part of the angels (Gen. vi. 1-4; Jude 6; and
       2 Pet. ii. 4), also statements of the holy angels about the
       mysteries of heaven and hell, the earth and paradise, about
       the coming of the Messiah, etc.

    b. The =Assumptio Mosis= (ἀνάληψις), from which, according to
       Origen, the reference to the dispute between Michael and
       Satan about the body of Moses in the Epistle of Jude is
       taken, was discovered by the librarian Ceriani at Milan.
       He found the first part of this book in an old Latin
       translation and published it in A.D. 1860. In the exercise
       of his official gift Moses prophesies to Joshua about the
       future fortunes of his nation down to the appearing of the
       Messiah. The second part, which is wanting, dealt with the
       translation of Moses. The exact date of its composition is
       not determined, but it may be perhaps assigned to the first
       Christian century.

    c. The so-called =Fourth Book of Ezra= is first referred to by
       Clement of Alexandria. It is an Apocalypse after the manner
       of the Book of Daniel. It was probably written originally in
       Greek but we possess only translations: a Latin one and four
       oriental ones--Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac and Armenian. From
       these oriental translations the blanks in the Latin version
       have been supplied, and its later Christian interpolations
       have been detected. The angel Uriel in seven visions makes
       known to the weeping Ezra the signs of the approaching
       destruction of Jerusalem, the decay of the Roman empire,
       the founding of the Messianic kingdom, etc. The fifth vision
       of the eagle with twelve wings and three heads seems to fix
       the date of its composition to the time of Domitian.

    d. In the year 1843 the missionary Krapff sent to Tübingen
       the title of an Ethiopic Codex, in which Ewald recognised
       the writing referred to frequently by the Church Fathers as
       the =Book of Jubilees= (Ἰωβελαῖα) or the =Little Genesis=
       (Λεπτογένεσις). This book, written probably about A.D. 50
       or 60, is a complete summary of the Jewish legendary matter
       about the early biblical history from the creation down to
       the entrance into Canaan, divided into fifty jubilee periods.
       The name _Little Genesis_ was given it, notwithstanding
       its large dimensions, as indicating a Genesis of the second
       rank.[82]

  § 32.3. The following Pseudepigraphs are of =Christian Origin=.

    a. The short romantic =History of Assenath=, daughter of
       Potiphar and wife of Joseph (Gen. xli. 45). Its main point
       is the conversion of Assenath by an angel.

    b. =The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs=, after the style of
       Gen. xlix., written in Greek in the 2nd cent., and quoted
       by Origen. As in the chapter of Gen. referred to parting
       counsels are put in the mouth of Jacob, they are here
       ascribed to his twelve sons. These discourses embrace
       prophecies of the coming of Christ and His atoning
       sufferings and death, statements about baptism and the
       Lord’s supper, about the great Apostle of the Gentiles,
       the rejection of the O.T. covenant people and the election
       of the Gentiles, the destruction of Jerusalem and the
       final completion of the kingdom of God. The book is thus a
       cleverly compiled and comprehensive handbook of Christian
       faith, life and hope.

    c. Of the =Ascensio Isaiæ= (Ἀναβατικόν) and the =Visio Isaiæ=
       (Ὅρασις) traces are to be found as early as in Justin
       Martyr and Tertullian. The Greek original is lost. Dillmann
       published an old Ethiopic version (Lps., 1877), and Gieseler
       an old Lat. text (Gött., 1832). Its Cabbalistic colouring
       commended it to the Gnostics. In its first part, borrowed
       from an old Jewish document, it tells about the martyrdom of
       Isaiah who was sawn asunder by King Manasseh; in its second
       part, entitled _Visio Isaiæ_ it is told how the prophet in
       an ecstasy was led by an angel through the seven heavens and
       had revealed to him the secrets of the divine counsels
       regarding the incarnation of Christ.

    d. A collection in Syriac belonging perhaps to the 5th or 6th
       century in which other legends about early ages are kept
       together, is called =Spelunca thesaurorum=. We are here
       told about the sepulchre of the patriarch Lamech and the
       treasures preserved there from which the wise men obtained
       the gifts which they presented to the infant Saviour. The
       Ethiopic _Vita Adami_ is an expansion of the book just
       referred to. This book is manifestly a legendary account of
       the changes wrought upon all relations of life in our first
       parents by means of the fall (hence the title: “Conflict
       of Adam and Eve”), and Golgotha is named as Adam’s burying
       place. A second and shorter part treats of the Sethite
       patriarchs down to Noah. The still shorter third part
       relates the post-diluvian history down to the time of
       Christ.[83]

  § 32.4. =New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs.=--The
  Gnostics especially produced these in great abundance. Epiphanius
  speaks of them as numbering thousands. But the Catholics, too,
  were unable to resist the temptation to build up the truth by
  these doubtful means.

    I. =Apocryphal Gospels.=

        1. =Complete Gospels= existed in considerable numbers,
           _i.e._ embracing the period of Christ’s earthly
           labours, more or less corrupted in the interests of
           Gnostic or Ebionitic heresy, or independently composed
           Gospels; but only of a few of these do we possess any
           knowledge.[84] The most important of these are the
           following: _The Gosp. of the Egyptians_, esteemed by
           the Encratites, according to Origen one of the writings
           referred to in Luke i. 1; also _the Gosp. of the XII.
           Apostles_, generally called by the Fathers Εὐαγγ. καθ’
           Ἑβραίους originally written in Aramaic; and finally,
           _the Gosp. of Marcion_ (§ 27, 11). The most important
           of these is the Gospel of the Hebrews, on account of
           its relation to our canonical Gospel of Matthew, which
           is generally supposed to have been written originally
           in Aramaic.[85] Jerome who translated the Hebrew Gospel
           says of it: _Vocatur a plerisque Matthæi authenticum_;
           but this is not his own opinion, nor was it that of
           Origen and Eusebius. The extant fragments show many
           divergences as well as many similarities, partly in
           the form of apocryphal amplifications, partly of changes
           made for dogmatic reasons.

        2. Gospels dealing with particular Periods--referring to
           the days preceding the birth of Jesus and the period of
           the infancy or to the closing days of His life, where
           the heretical elements are wanting or are subordinated
           to the general interests of Christianity. Of these
           there was a large number and much of their legendary or
           fabulous material, especially about the family history
           of the mother of Jesus (§ 57, 2), has passed over into
           the tradition of the Catholic Church. Among them may be
           mentioned;

            a. _The Protevangel. Jacobi minoris_, perhaps the
               oldest, certainly the most esteemed and most widely
               spread, written in Greek, beginning with the story
               of Mary’s birth and reaching down to the death of
               the children of Bethlehem;

            b. The _Ev. Pseudo Matthæi_, similar in its contents,
               but continued down to the period of Jesus’ youth,
               and now existing only in a Lat. translation;

            c. The _Ev. de nativitate Mariæ_, only in Lat.,
               containing the history of Mary down to the birth of
               Jesus;

            d. The _Hist. Josephi fabri lignarii_ down to his death,
               dating probably from the 4th cent., only now in an
               Arabic version;

            e. The _Ev. Infantiæ Salvatoris_, only in Arabic, a
               compilation with no particular dogmatic tendency;

            f. Also the so-called _Ascension of Mary_ (§ 57, 2)
               soon became the subject of apocryphal treatment,
               for which John was claimed as the authority (John
               xix. 26), and is preserved in several Greek, Syriac,
               Arabic and Latin manuscripts;

            g. The _Ev. Nicodemi_ (John xix. 39) in Greek and Lat.
               contains two Jewish writings of the 2nd century.
               The first part consists of the _Gesta_ or _Acta
               Pilati_. There can be no doubt of its identity with
               the _Acta Pilati_ quoted by Justin, Tert., Euseb.,
               Epiph. It contains the stories of the canonical
               Gospels variously amplified and an account of
               the judicial proceedings evidently intended to
               demonstrate Jesus’ innocence of the charges brought
               against Him by His enemies. The second part,
               bearing the title _Descensus Christi ad inferos_,
               is of much later origin, telling of the descent
               of Christ into Hades along with two of the saints
               who rose with him (Matt. xxvii. 52), Leucius and
               Carinus, sons of Simeon (Luke ii. 25).[86]

  § 32.5.

   II. The numerous =Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the
       Apostles= were partly of heretical, and partly of Catholic,
       origin. While the former have in view the establishing of
       their heretical doctrines and peculiar forms of worship,
       constitution and life by representing them as Apostolic
       institutions, the latter arose mostly out of a local
       patriotic intention to secure to particular churches the
       glory of being founded by an Apostle. Those inspired by
       Gnostic influences far exceed in importance and number
       not only the Ebionitic but also the genuinely Catholic.
       The Manichæans especially produced many and succeeded in
       circulating them widely. The more their historico-romantic
       contents pandered to the taste of that age for fantastic
       tales of miracles and visions the surer were they to find
       access among Catholic circles.--A collection of such
       histories under the title of Περίοδοι τῶν ἀποστόλων was
       received as canonical by Gnostics and Manichæans, and even
       by many of the Church Fathers. Augustine first named as
       its supposed author one Leucius. We find this name some
       decades later in Epiphanius as that of a pupil of John and
       opponent of the Ebionite Christology, and also in Pacianus
       of Barcelona as that of one falsely claimed as an authority
       by the Montanists. According to Photius this collection
       embraced the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul,
       and the author’s full name was Leucius Carinus, who also
       appears in the second part of the _Acta Pilati_, but in
       quite other circumstances and surroundings. That all the
       five books were composed by one author is not probable;
       perhaps originally only the Acts of John bore the name of
       Leucius, which was subsequently transferred to the whole.
       Zahn’s view, on the other hand, is, that the Περίοδοι τῶν
       ἀποστόλων, especially the _Acts of John_, was written under
       the falsely assumed name of John’s pupil Leucius, about
       A.D. 130, at a time when the Gnostics had not yet been
       separated from the Church as a heretical sect, was even at
       a later period accepted as genuine by the Catholic church
       teachers notwithstanding the objectionable character of much
       of its contents, its modal docetic Christology and encratite
       Ethics with contempt of marriage, rejection of animal food
       and the use of wine and the demand of voluntary poverty, and
       held in high esteem as a source of the second rank for the
       Apostolic history. Lipsius considers that it was composed in
       the interests of the vulgar Gnosticism (§ 27) in the second
       half of the 2nd, or first half of the 3rd cent., and proves
       that from Eusebius down to Photius, who brands it as πασῆς
       αἱρέσεως πηγὴν καὶ μητέρα, the Catholic church teachers
       without exception speak of it as heretical and godless,
       and that the frequent patristic references to the _Historiæ
       ecclesiasticiæ_ do not apply to it but to Catholic
       modifications of it, which were regarded as the genuine
       and generally credible original writing of Leucius which
       were wickedly falsified by the Manichæans.--Catholic
       modifications of particular Gnostic Περίοδοι, as well as
       independent Catholic writings of this sort in Greek are
       still preserved in MS. in great numbers and have for the
       most part been printed. The _Hist. certaminis apostolici_ in
       ten books, which the supposed pupil of the Apostles Abdias,
       first bishop of Babylon, wrote in Hebrew, was translated by
       his pupil Eutropius into Greek and by Julius Africanus into
       Latin.[87]--They are all useless for determining the history
       of the Apostolic Age, although abundantly so used in the
       Catholic church tradition. For the history of doctrines and
       sects, the history of the canon, worship, ecclesiastical
       customs and modes of thought during the 2nd-4th cents., they
       are of the utmost importance.

  § 32.6.

       From the many apocryphal monographs still preserved on the
       life, works and martyrdom of the biblical Apostles and their
       coadjutors, in addition to the Pseudo-Clementines already
       discussed in § 28, 3, the following are the most important.

        a. The Greek =Acta Petri et Pauli=. These describe the
           journeys of Paul to Rome, the disputation of the
           two Apostles at Rome with Simon Magus, and the Roman
           martyrdom of both, and constitute the source of the
           traditions regarding Peter and Paul which are at the
           present day regarded in the Roman Catholic Church as
           historical. These Acts, however, as Lipsius has shown,
           are not an original work, but date from about A.D. 160,
           and consist of a Catholic reproduction of Ebionite
           or Anti-Pauline, _Acts of Peter_, with additions from
           Gentile-Christian traditions of Paul. The _Acts of Peter_
           take up the story where the Pseudo-Clementines end, as
           may be seen even from their Catholic reproduction, for
           they make Simon Magus, followed everywhere and overcome
           by the Apostle Peter, at last seek refuge in Rome,
           where, again unmasked by Peter, he met a miserable end
           (§ 25, 2). As the Κηρύγματα Πέτρου which formed the
           basis of the Pseudo-Clementine writings combats the
           specifically Pauline doctrines as derived from Simon
           Magus (§ 28, 4), so the Acts of Peter identify him
           even personally with Paul, for they maliciously and
           spitefully assign well-known facts from the Apostle’s
           life to Simon Magus, which are _bona fide_ in the
           Catholic reproduction assumed to be genuine works
           of Simon.--The Gnostic _Acts of Peter_ and _Acts
           of Paul_ had wrought up the current Ebionite and
           Catholic traditions about the doings and martyr deaths
           of the two Apostles with fanciful adornments and
           embellishments after the style and in the interests of
           Gnosticism. A considerable fragment of these, purified
           indeed by Catholic hands, is preserved to us in
           the _Passio Petri et Pauli_, to which is attached
           the name of Linus, the pretended successor of
           Peter. The fortunes of the two Apostles are related
           quite independently of one another: Paul makes his
           appearance at Rome only after the death of Peter. Of the
           _non-heretical Acts of Paul_ which according to Eusebius
           were in earlier times received in many churches as holy
           scripture (§ 36, 8), no trace has as yet been discovered.

        b. Among the Greek =Acts of John=, the remnants of the
           Leucian Περίοδοι Ἰωάννου preserved in their original
           form deserve to be first mentioned. According to
           Zahn, they are one of the earliest witnesses for
           the genuineness of the Gospel of John, and give the
           deathblow to the theory that with and after the Apostle
           John, there was in Ephesus another John the Presbyter
           distinct from him (§ 16, 2). Lipsius, on the other
           hand, places their composition in the second half of
           the 2nd cent., and deprives them of that significance
           for the life of the Apostle, but admits their great value
           for a knowledge of doctrines, principles and forms of
           worship of the vulgar Gnosticism then widely spread. The
           Πράξεις Ἰωάννου, greatly esteemed in the Greek church,
           and often translated into other languages, written
           in the 5th cent. by a Catholic hand and ascribed to
           Prochoros [Prochorus] the deacon of Jerusalem (Acts
           vi. 5), is a poetic romance with numerous raisings from
           the dead, exorcisms, etc., almost wholly the creation
           of the writer’s own imagination, without a trace of any
           encratite tendency like the Leucian Περίοδοι and without
           any particular doctrinal significance.

        c. To the same age and the same Gnostic party as the Leucian
           Acts of John, belong the =Acts of Andrew= preserved
           in many fragments and circulated in various Catholic
           reproductions. Of these latter the most esteemed were
           the _Acts of Andrew and Matthew_ in the city of the
           cannibals.

        d. The Catholic reproductions in Greek and Syriac that
           have come down to us of the Leucian =Acts of Thomas= are
           of special value because of the many Gnostic elements
           which, particularly in the Greek, have been allowed to
           remain unchanged in the very imperfectly purified text.
           The scene of the Apostle’s activity is said to be India.
           The central point in his preaching to sinners is the
           doctrine that only by complete abstinence from marriage
           and concubinage can we become at last the partner of
           the heavenly bridegroom (§ 27, 4). A highly poetical
           hymn on the marriage of Sophia (Achamoth) is left
           in the Greek text unaltered, while the Syriac text
           puts the church in place of Sophia. Then we have two
           poetical consecration prayers for baptism and the
           eucharist, in which the Syriac substituted Christ
           for Achamoth. But besides, even in the Syriac text,
           a grandly swelling hymn, which is wanting in the Greek
           text, romances about the fortunes of the soul, which,
           sent from heaven to earth to fetch a pearl watched by
           the serpent forgets its heavenly origin and calling,
           and only remembers this after repeated reminders from
           heaven, etc. Gutschmied has shown it to be probable
           that the history groundwork of the Acts of Thomas is
           borrowed from older Buddhist legends (§ 68, 6).

        e. =The Acta Pauli et Thecla=, according to Tertullian and
           Jerome, were composed by a presbyter of Asia Minor who,
           carried away by the mania for literary forging, excused
           himself by saying that he had written _Pauli amore_,
           but was for this nevertheless deprived of his office.
           According to these Acts Thecla, the betrothed bride
           of a young man of importance at Iconium, was won to
           Christianity by a sermon of Paul on continence as a
           condition of a future glorious resurrection, forsook
           her bridegroom, devoted herself to perpetual virginity,
           and attached herself forthwith to the Apostle whose
           bodily presence is described as contemptible,--little,
           bald-headed, large nose, and bandy legs,--but lighted
           up with heavenly grace. Led twice to martyrdom she was
           saved by miraculous divine interposition, first from
           the flames of the pile, then, after having baptized
           herself in the name of Christ by plunging into a pit
           full of water, from the rage of devouring animals;
           whereupon Paul, recognising that sort of baptism in an
           emergency as valid, sent her forth with the commission:
           Go hence and teach the word of God! After converting
           and instructing many, she died in peace in Seleucia.
           Although Jerome treats our book as apocryphal, the
           legends of Thecla as given in it were regarded in the
           West as genuine, and St. Thecla was honoured throughout
           the whole of the Latin middle ages next to the mother
           of Jesus as the most perfect pattern of virginity.
           In the Greek church where we meet with the name first
           in the Symposium of Methodius, the book remained
           unsuspected and its heroine, as ἡ ἀπόστολος and ἡ
           πρωτομάρτυς, was honoured still more enthusiastically
           than in the West.

        f. The Syriac =Doctrina Addæi Apost.= was according to
           its own statement deposited in the library of Edessa,
           but allusions to later persons and circumstances show
           that it could not have been written before A.D. 280
           (according to Zahn about A.D. 270-290; acc. to Lipsius
           not before A.D. 360). It assigns the founding of the
           church of Edessa, which is proved to have been not
           earlier than A.D. 170, according to local tradition
           to the Apostle Addai [Addæi] (in Euseb. and elsewhere,
           Thaddeus: comp. Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18), whom it
           represents as one of the seventy disciples and as
           having been sent by Thomas to Abgar Uchomo in accordance
           with Christ’s promise (§ 13, 2).[88]

  § 32.7.

  III. =Apostolic Epistles.= The apocryphal _Epistle of Paul to
       the Laodiceans_ (Col. iv. 16), and that to the _Corinthians_
       suggested by the statement in 1 Cor. v. 9, are spiritless
       compilations from the canonical Epistles. From the
       _Correspondence of Paul with Seneca_, quotations are made by
       Jerome and Augustine. It embraces fourteen short epistles.
       The idea of friendly relations between these two men
       suggested by Acts xviii. 12, Gallio being Seneca’s brother,
       forms the motive for the fiction.

   IV. =The apocryphal Apocalypses= that have been preserved are of
       little value. An _Apocalypsis Petri_ was known to Clement of
       Alexandria. The _Apoc. Pauli_ is based on 2 Cor. xii. 2.

    V. =Apostolical Constitutions=, comp. § 43, 4, 5.[89]

  § 32.8. =The Acts of the Martyrs.=--Of the numerous professedly
  contemporary accounts of celebrated martyrs of the 2nd and 3rd
  cents., those adopted by Eusebius in his Church History may be
  accepted as genuine; especially the _Epistle of the Church of
  Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium_ about the persecution which
  it suffered (§ 22, 3); also the _Report of the Church at Lyons
  and Vienne_ to the Christians in Asia and Phrygia about the
  persecution under Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177 (§ 22, 3); and an
  _Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria_ to Fabian of Antioch
  about the Alexandrian martyrs and confessors during the Decian
  persecution. The Acts of the Martyrs of Scillita are also genuine
  (§ 22, 3); so too the Montanistic History of the sufferings of
  Perpetua, Felicitas, and their companions (§§ 22, 4; 40, 3); as
  well as the _Acta s. Cypriani_. The main part of the _Martyrdom
  of Justin Martyr_ by Simeon Metaphr. (§ 68, 4) belongs
  probably to the 2nd cent. The _Martyrdom of Ignatius_ (§ 30, 5)
  professedly by his companions in his last journey to Rome, and
  the _Martyrdom of Sympherosa_ in the Tiber, who was put to death
  with her seven sons under Hadrian, as well as all other Acts of
  the Martyrs professedly belonging to the first four centuries,
  are of more than doubtful authenticity.


                § 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE
                         OLD CATHOLIC AGE.[90]

  The development of the system of Christian doctrine must become a
necessity when Christianity meeting with pagan culture in the form of
science is called upon to defend her claim to be the universal religion.
In the first three centuries, however, there was as yet no official
construction and establishment of ecclesiastical doctrine. There
must first be a certain measure of free subjective development and
wrestling with antagonistic views. A universally acknowledged organ is
wanting, such as that subsequently found in the Œcumenical Councils.
The persecutions allowed no time and peace for this; and the church had
enough to do in maintaining what is specifically Christian in opposition
to the intrusion of such anti-Christian, Jewish and Pagan elements
as sought to gain a footing in Ebionism and Gnosticism. On the other
hand, friction and controversy within the church had already begun
as a preparation for the construction of the ecclesiastical system of
doctrine. The _Trinitarian_ controversy was by far the most important,
while the _Chiliastic_ discussions were of significance for Eschatology.

  § 33.1. =The Trinitarian Questions.=--The discussion was mainly
  about the relation of the divine μοναρχία (the unity of God) to
  the οἰκονομία (the Trinitarian being and movement of God). Then
  the relation of the Son or Logos to the Father came decidedly
  to the front. From the time when the more exact determination of
  this relationship came to be discussed, toward the end of the 2nd
  cent., the most eminent teachers of the Catholic church maintained
  stoutly the personal independence of the Logos--=Hypostasianism=.
  But the necessity for keeping this view in harmony with the
  monotheistic doctrine of Christianity led to many errors and
  vacillations. Adopting Philo’s distinction of λόγος ἐνδιάθετος
  and λόγος προφορικός (§ 10, 1), they for the most part regarded
  the hypostasizing as conditioned first by the creating of the
  world and as coming forth not as a necessary and eternal element
  in the very life of God but as a free and temporal act of the
  divine will. The proper essence of the Godhead was identified
  rather with the Father, and all attributes of the Godhead were
  ascribed to the Son not in a wholly equal measure as to the
  Father, for the word of Christ: “the Father is greater than I”
  (John xiv. 28), was applied even to the pre-existent state of
  Christ. Still greater was the uncertainty regarding the Holy
  Spirit. The idea of His personality and independence was far less
  securely established; He was much more decidedly subordinated,
  and the functions of inspiration and sanctification proper to
  Him were ascribed to Christ, or He was simply identified with
  the Son of God. The result, however, of such _subordinationist
  hypostasianism_ was that, on the one hand, many church teachers
  laid undue stress on the fundamental anti-pagan doctrine of the
  unity of God, just as on the other hand, many had indulged in
  exaggerated statements about the divinity of Christ. It seemed
  therefore desirable to set aside altogether the question of the
  personal distinction of the Son and Spirit from the Father. This
  happened either in the way clearly favoured by the Ebionites who
  regarded Christ as a mere man, who, like the prophets, though
  in a much higher measure, had been endued with divine wisdom and
  power (_dynamic_ =Monarchianism=), or in a way more accordant
  with the Christian mode of thought, admitting that the fulness
  of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, and either identifying the
  Logos with the Father (_Patripassianism_), or seeing in Him
  only a mode of the activity of the Father (_modal Monarchianism_).
  Monarchianism in all these forms was pronounced heretical by all
  the most illustrious fathers of the 3rd cent., and hypostasianism
  was declared orthodox. But even under hypostasianism an
  element of error crept in at a later period in the form of
  subordinationism, and modal Monarchianism approached nearer
  to the church doctrine by adopting the doctrine of sameness
  of essence (ὁμοουσία) in Son and Father. The orthodox combination
  of the two opposites was reached in the 3rd cent, in _homoousian
  hypostasianism_, but only in the 4th cent. attained universal
  acceptance (§ 50).

  § 33.2. =The Alogians.=--Soon after A.D. 170 in Asia Minor we
  meet with the Alogians as the first decided opponents from within
  the church of Logos doctrine laid down in the Gospel by John
  and the writings of the Apologists. They started in diametrical
  opposition to the chiliasm of the Montanists and their claims
  to prophetic gifts, and were thus led not only to repudiate the
  Apocalypse but also the Gospel of John; the former on account of
  its chiliast-prophetic contents which embraced so much that was
  unintelligible, yea absurd and untrue; the latter, first of all
  on account of the use the Montanists made of its doctrine of the
  Paraclete in support of their prophetic claims (§ 40, 1), but
  also on account of its seeming contradictions of and departures
  from the narratives of the Synoptists, and finally, on account
  of its Logos doctrine in which the immediate transition from the
  incarnation of the Logos to the active life of Christ probably
  seemed to them too closely resembling docetic Gnosticism. They
  therefore attributed to the Gnosticizing Judaist, Cerinthus, the
  authorship both of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse. Of
  their own Christological theories we have no exact information.
  Irenæus and Hippolytus deal mildly with them and recognise
  them as members of the Catholic church. It is Epiphanius who
  first gives them the equivocal designation of Alogians (which
  may either be “deniers of the Logos” or “the irrational”),
  denouncing them as heretical rejecters of the Logos doctrine
  and the Logos-Gospel. This is the first instance which we have of
  historical criticism being exercised in the Church with reference
  to the biblical books.

  § 33.3. =The Theodotians and Artemonites.=--Epiphanius describes
  the sect of the Theodotians at Rome as an ἀπόσπασμα τῆς ἀλόγου
  αἱρέσεως. The main source of information about them is the Little
  Labyrinth (§ 31, 3), and next to it Hippolytus in his Syntagma,
  quoted by the Pseudo-Tertullian and Epiphanius, and in his
  Elenchus. The founder of this sect, =Theodotus= ὁ σκυτεύς, _the
  Tanner_, a man well trained in Greek culture, came A.D. 190 to
  Byzantium where, during the persecution, he denied Christ, and
  on this account changed his residence to Rome and devoted himself
  here to the spread of his dynamic Monarchianism. He maintained
  ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν,--_Spiritu quidem sancto
  natum ex virgine, sed hominem nudum nulla alia præ cæteris nisi
  sola justitæ auctoritate_. He sought to justify his views by
  a one-sided interpretation of scripture passages referring to
  the human nature of Christ.[91] But since he acknowledged the
  supernatural birth of Christ as well as the genuineness of the
  Gospel of John, and in other respects agreed with his opponents,
  he could still represent himself as standing on the basis of
  the Old Catholic _Regula fidei_ (§ 35, 2). Nevertheless the
  Roman bishop Victor (A.D. 189-199) excommunicated him and his
  followers. The most distinguished among his disciples was a
  _second_ =Theodotus= ὁ τραπεζίτης, the _Money-changer_. By an
  exegesis of Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; vii. 3, 17, he sought to prove
  that Melchisedec was δύναμις τίς μεγίστη and more glorious than
  Christ; the former was the original type, the latter only the
  copy; the former was intercessor before God for the angels,
  the latter only for men; the origin of the former is secret,
  because truly heavenly, that of Christ open, because born of
  Mary. The later heresiologists therefore designate his followers
  Melchisedecians. Laying hold upon the theory φύσει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
  θεοῦ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου τότε τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πεφηνέναι which, according
  to Epiphanius, was held even by Catholics, and also, like the
  Shepherd of Hermas, identifying the Son of God with the Holy
  Spirit that descended in baptism on the man Jesus, Theodotus
  seems from those two points of view to have proceeded to
  teach, that the historical Christ, because operated upon only
  dynamically by the Holy Spirit or the Son of God, was inferior to
  the purely heavenly Melchisedec who was himself the very eternal
  Son of God. The reproaches directed against the Theodotians by
  their opponents were mainly these: that instead of the usual
  allegorical exegesis they used only a literal and grammatical,
  that they practised an arbitrary system of Textual criticism, and
  that instead of holding to the philosophy of the divine Plato,
  they took their wisdom from the empiricists (Aristotle, Euclid,
  Galen, etc.), and sought by such objectionable means to support
  their heretical views. We have thus probably to see in them a
  group of Roman theologians, who, towards the close of the 2nd
  cent. and the beginning of the 3rd cent. maintained exegetical
  and critical principles essentially the same as those which the
  Antiochean school with greater clearness and definiteness set
  forth toward the end of the 3rd cent. (§§ 31, 1; 47, 1). The
  attempt, however, which they made to found an independent sect
  in Rome about A.D. 210 was an utter failure. According to the
  report of the Little Labyrinth, they succeeded in getting for
  their bishop a weak-minded confessor called Natalius. Haunted
  by visions of judgment and beaten sore one night by good angels
  till in a miserable plight, he hasted on the following morning
  to cast himself at the feet of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217),
  successor of Victor, and showing his stripes he begged for
  mercy and restoration.--The last of the representatives of the
  Theodotians in Rome, and that too under this same Zephyrinus, was
  a certain =Artemon= or Artemas. He and his followers maintained
  that their own doctrine (which cannot be very exactly determined
  but was also of the dynamic order) had been recognised in Rome
  as orthodox from the time of the Apostles down to that of bishop
  Victor, and was first condemned by his successor Zephyrinus. This
  assertion cannot be said to be altogether without foundation in
  view, on the one hand, of the agreement above referred to between
  Theodotus the younger and the Roman Hermas, and on the other hand,
  of the fact that the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus had
  passed over to Noëtian _Modalism_. Artemon must have lived at
  least until A.D. 260, when Paul of Samosata (§ 33, 8), who also
  maintained fellowship with the excommunicated Artemonites in
  Rome, conducted a correspondence with him.

  § 33.4. =Praxeas and Tertullian.=--Patripassianism, which
  represented the Father Himself as becoming man and suffering in
  Christ, may be characterized as the precursor and first crude
  form of Modalism. It also had its origin during the 2nd cent.,
  in that same intellectually active church of Asia Minor, and
  from thence the movement spread to Rome, where after a long and
  bitter struggle it secured a footing in the 3rd cent.--=Praxeas=,
  a confessor of Asia Minor and opponent of Montanism, was its first
  representative at Rome, where unopposed he expounded his views
  about A.D. 190. As he supported the Roman bishop Victor in his
  condemnation of Montanism (§ 40, 2), so he seems to have won
  the bishop’s approval for his Christological theory.[92] Perhaps
  also the excommunication which was at this time uttered against
  the dynamic Monarchian, Theodotus the Elder, was the result of
  the bishop’s change of views. From Rome Praxeas betook himself,
  mainly in the interest of his Anti-Montanist crusade, to Carthage,
  and there also won adherents to his Christology. Meanwhile,
  however, Tertullian returned to Carthage, and as a convert
  to Montanism, hurled against Praxeas and his followers a
  controversial treatise, in which he laid bare with acute
  dialectic the weaknesses and inconsistencies, as well as the
  dangerous consequences of their theory. Just like the Alogians,
  Praxeas and his adherents refused to admit the doctrine of the
  Logos into their Christology, and feared that it in connection
  with the doctrine of the hypostasis would give an advantage to
  Gnosticism. In the interests of monotheism, as well as of the
  worship of Christ, they maintained the perfect identity of Father
  and Son. God became the Son by the assumption of the flesh;
  under the concept of the Father therefore falls the divinity,
  the spirit; under that of the Son, the humanity, the flesh of
  the Redeemer.--=Tertullian= himself in his Hypostasianism had not
  wholly got beyond the idea of subordinationism, but he made an
  important advance in this direction by assuming three stages in
  the hypostasizing of the Son (_Filiatio_). The first stage is
  the eternal immanent state of being of the Son in the Father; the
  second is the forthcoming of the Son alongside of the Father for
  the purpose of creating the world; and the third is the going
  forth of the Son into the world by means of the incarnation.

  § 33.5. =The Noëtians and Hippolytus.=--The Patripassian
  standpoint was maintained also by =Noëtus= of Smyrna, who summed
  up his Christological views in the sentence: the Son of God is
  His own, and not another’s Son. One of his pupils, _Epigonus_,
  in the time of bishop Zephyrinus brought this doctrine to Rome,
  where a Noëtian sect was formed with Cleomenes at its head.
  Sabellius too, who in A.D. 215 came to Rome from Ptolemais in
  Egypt, attached himself to it, but afterwards constructed an
  independent system of doctrine in the form of a more speculative
  Modalism. The most vigorous opponent of the Noëtians was the
  celebrated presbyter =Hippolytus= (§ 31, 3). He strongly insisted
  upon the hypostasis of the Son and of the Spirit, and claimed
  for them divine worship. But inasmuch as he maintained in all
  its strictness the unity of God, he too was unable to avoid
  subordinating the Son under the Father. The Son, he taught, owed
  His hypostasizing to the will of the Father; the Father commands
  and the Son obeys; the perfect Logos was the Son from eternity,
  but οὐ λόγος ὡς φωνὴ, ἀλλ’ ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ πάντος λογισμός,
  therefore in a hypostasis, which He became only at the creation
  of the world, so that He became perfect Son first in the
  incarnation. Bishop Zephyrinus, on the other hand, was not
  inclined to bear hard upon the Noëtians, but sought in the
  interests of peace some meeting-point for the two parties. The
  conflagration fairly broke out under his successor, Callistus
  (A.D. 217-222; comp. § 41, 1). Believing that truth and error
  were to be found on both sides he defined his own position thus:
  God is a spirit without parts, filling all things, giving life
  to all, who as such is called Logos, and only in respect of name
  is distinguished as Father and Son. The Pneuma become incarnate
  in the Virgin is personally and essentially identical with the
  Father. That which has thereby become manifest, the man Jesus,
  is the Son. It therefore cannot be said that the Father as such
  has suffered, but rather that the Father has suffered in and
  with the Son. Decidedly Monarchian as this formula of compromise
  undoubtedly is, it seems to have afforded the bridge upon which
  the official Roman theology crossed over to the homoousian
  Hypostasianism which forty years later won the day (§ 33, 7).
  Among the opposing parties it found no acceptance. Hippolytus
  denounced the bishop as a Noëtian, while the Noëtians nicknamed
  him a Dytheist. The result was that the two party leaders,
  Sabellius and Hippolytus, were excommunicated. The latter formed
  the company of his adherents in Rome into a schismatic sect.

  § 33.6. =Beryllus and Origen.=--=Beryllus of Bostra=[93] in
  Arabia also belonged to the Patripassians; but he marks the
  transition to a nobler Modalism, for though he refuses to the
  deity of Christ the ἰδία θεότης, he designates it πατρικὴ θεότης,
  and sees in it a new form of the manifestation (πρόσωπον) of
  God. In regard to him an Arabian Synod was held in A.D. 244,
  to which =Origen= was invited. Convinced by him of his error,
  Beryll [Beryllus] retracted.--All previous representatives of
  the hypostasis of the Logos had understood his hypostatizing
  as happening in time for the purpose of the creation and the
  incarnation. =Origen= removed this restriction when he enunciated
  the proposition: The Son is from eternity begotten of the Father
  and so from eternity an hypostasis. The generation of the Son
  took not place simply as the condition of creation, but as of
  itself necessary, for where there is light there must be the
  shedding forth of rays. But because the life of God is bound
  to no time, the objectivizing of His life in the Son must also
  lie outside of all time. It is not therefore an act of God
  accomplished once and for ever, but an eternally continued
  exercise of living power (ἀεὶ γεννᾲ τὸν υἱόν). Origen did not
  indeed get beyond subordinationism, but he restricted it within
  the narrowest possible limits. He condemns the expression that
  the Son is ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, but only in opposition
  to the Gnostic theories of emanation. He maintained a ἑτερότης
  τῆς οὐσίας, but only in opposition to the ὁμοούσιος in the
  Patripassian sense. He teaches a generation of the Son ἐκ τοῦ
  θελήματος θεοῦ, but only because he sees in Him the objectified
  divine will. He calls Him a κτίσμα, but only in so far as He is
  θεοποιούμενος, not αὐτόθεος, though indeed the Son is αὐτοσοφία,
  αὐτοαλήθεια, δεύτερος θεός. Thus what he teaches is not a
  subordination of essence or nature, but only of existence or
  origin.

  § 33.7. =Sabellius and Dionysius of Alex. and Dionysius of
  Rome.=--We have already seen that =Sabellius= had founded in
  Rome a speculative Manichæan system, which found much favour
  among the bishops of his native region. His assigning an essential
  and necessary place in his system to the Holy Spirit indicates
  an important advance. God is a unity (μονάς) admitting of no
  distinctions, resting in Himself as θεὸς σιωπών coming forth
  out of Himself (for the purpose of creation) as θεὸς λαλῶν. In
  the course of the world’s development the Monas for the sake of
  redemption assumes necessarily three different forms of being
  (ὀνόματα πρόσωπα), each of which embraces in it the complete
  fulness of the Monas. They are not ὑποστάσεις, but πρόσωπα, masks,
  we might say roles, which the God who manifests Himself in the
  world assumes in succession. After the _prosopon_ of the Father
  accomplished its work in the giving of the law, it fell back into
  its original condition; advancing again through the incarnation
  as Son, it returns by the ascension into the absolute being of
  the Monas; it reveals itself finally as the Holy Spirit to return
  again, after securing the perfect sanctification of the church,
  into the Monas that knows no distinctions, there to abide through
  all eternity. This process is characterized by Sabellius as
  an expansion (ἔκτασις) and contraction (συστολή). By way of
  illustration he uses the figure of the sun ὄντος μὲν ἐν μίᾳ
  ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντος τὰς ἐνεργείας, namely τὸ τῆς
  περιφερείας σχῆμα, τὸ φωτιστικὸν καὶ τὸ θάλπον.--At a Synod of
  Alexandria in A.D. 261 =Dionysius the Great= (§ 31, 6) entered
  the lists against the Sabellianism of the Egyptian bishops, and
  with well-intentioned zeal employed subordinationist expressions
  in a highly offensive way (ξένον κατ’ οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ
  Πατρὸς ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄμπελον καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς
  τὸ σκάφος,--ὡς ποίημα ὢν οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γέννηται). When bishop
  =Dionysius of Rome= (A.D. 259-268) was informed of these
  proceedings he condemned his Alexandrian colleague’s modes of
  expression at a Synod at Rome in A.D. 262, and issued a tract
  (Ἀνατροπή), in which against Sabellius he affirmed hypostasianism
  and against the Alexandrians, notwithstanding the suspicion of
  Manichæanism that hung about it, the doctrine of the ὁμοουσία
  and the eternal generation of the Son. With a beautiful modesty
  Dionysius of Alexandria retracted his unhappily chosen phrases
  and declared himself in thorough agreement with the Roman
  exposition of doctrine.

  § 33.8. =Paul of Samosata.=--In Rome and throughout the West
  general dynamical Monarchianism expired with Artemon and his
  party. In the East, however, it was revived by Paul of Samosata,
  in A.D. 260 bishop of the Græco-Syrian capital Antioch, which,
  however, was then under the rule of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.
  Attaching himself to the other dynamists, especially the
  Theodotians and Artemonites, he went in many respects beyond them.
  Maintaining as they did the unipersonality of God (ἓν πρόσωπον),
  he yet admitted a distinction of Father, Son (λόγος) and Spirit
  (σοφία) the two last, however, being essentially identical
  attributes of the first, and also the distinction of the
  λόγος προφορικός from the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the one being the
  ἐπιστήμη ἀνυπόστατος operative in the prophets, the other the
  ἐπ. ἀνυπ. latent in God. Further, while placing like the dynamists
  the personality of Christ in His humanity and acknowledging
  His supernatural birth from the Holy Spirit by the Virgin, he
  conceived of Him, like the modern Socinians, as working the
  way upward, ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι, _i.e._ by reason of His
  unique excellence to divine rank and the obtaining of the divine
  name.--Between A.D. 264-269 the Syrian bishops held three large
  Synods in regard to him at Antioch, to which also many other
  famous bishops of the East were invited. The first two were
  without result, for he knew how to conceal the heterodox character
  of his views. It was only at the third that the presbyter Malchion,
  a practised dialectician and formerly a rhetorician, succeeded
  in unmasking him at a public disputation. The Synod now declared
  him excommunicated and deprived him of his office, and also
  transmitted to all the catholic churches, first of all to Rome
  and Alexandria, the records of the disputation together with
  a complete report in which he was described as a proud, vain,
  pompous, covetous and even immoral man (§ 39, 3). Nevertheless
  by the favour of the Queen he kept possession of his bishopric,
  and holding a high office at the court he exercised not only
  spiritual functions but also great civil authority. But when
  Zenobia was overcome by Aurelian in A.D. 272, the rest of the
  bishops accused him before the pagan emperor, who decided that
  the ecclesiastical buildings should be made over to that one
  of the contending bishops whom the Christian bishops of Rome
  and Italy should recognise. In these conflicts undoubtedly a
  national and political antagonism lay behind the dogmatic and
  ecclesiastical dispute (§ 31, 9 e).--At the Synod of A.D. 269
  the expression ὁμοούσιος, which since it had been first used by
  Sabellius was always regarded with suspicion in church circles,
  was dragged into the debate and expressly condemned; and so it is
  doubtful whether Paul himself had employed it, or whether, on the
  contrary, he wished to charge his opponents with heresy as being
  wont to use this term.

  § 33.9. =Chiliasm= or the doctrine of an earthly reign of the
  Messiah in the last times full of splendour and glory for His
  people arose out of the literal and realistic conception of the
  Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The adoption of the
  period of a thousand years for its duration rested on the idea
  that as the world had been created in six days, so, according
  to Ps. xc. 4 and 2 Pet. iii. 8, its history would be completed
  in six thousand years. Under the oppression of the Roman rule
  this notion came to be regarded as a fundamental doctrine of
  Jewish faith and hope (Matt. xx. 21; Acts i. 6). The Apocalypse
  of St. John was chiefly influential in elaborating the Christian
  chiliastic theory. In chap. xx. under the guise of vision the
  doctrine is set forth that after the finally victorious conflict
  of the present age there will be a first and partial resurrection,
  the risen saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years, and
  then after another revolt of Satan that is soon suppressed the
  present age will be closed in the second universal resurrection,
  the judgment of the world and the creation of new heavens and a
  new earth. What fantastic notions of the glory of the thousand
  years’ reign might be developed from such passages, is seen in
  the traditional saying of the Lord given by Papias (_Iren._,
  v. 33) about the wonderful fruitfulness of the earth during the
  millennium: one vine-stock will bear 10,000 stems (palmites),
  each stem will have 10,000 branches (bracchia), each branch
  10,000 twigs (flagella), each twig 10,000 clusters (botrus), each
  cluster 10,000 grapes, and every grape will yield 25 measures
  of wine; “_et quum eorum apprehenderit aliquis Sanctorum,
  alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum, me sume, per me Dominum
  benedic_!” After the time of Papias Chiliasm became the favourite
  doctrine of the Christians who under the severe pressure of
  pagan persecution longed for the early return of the Lord. The
  Apologists of the 2nd century do indeed pass it over in silence,
  but only perhaps because it seemed to them impolitic to give
  it a marked prominence in works directly addressed to the pagan
  rulers; at least Justin Martyr does not scruple in the _Dialog.
  c. Tryph._ addressed to another class of readers to characterize
  it as a genuinely orthodox doctrine. Asia Minor was the chief
  seat of these views, where, as we have seen (§ 40), Montanism
  also in its most fanatical and exaggerated form was elevated
  into a fundamental article of the Christian faith. Irenæus
  enthusiastically adopted chiliastic views and gave a full though
  fairly moderate exposition of them in his great work against the
  Gnostics (v. 24-36). Tertullian also championed these notions,
  at the same time rejecting many outgrowths of a grossly carnal
  nature (_Adv. Marc._, iii. 24, and in a work no longer extant,
  _De spe fidelium_). The most vigorous opposition is shown to
  Chiliasm by the Alogians, Praxeas the Patripassian and Caius
  of Rome, who were also the determined opponents of Montanism.
  The last named indeed went so far in his controversial writing
  against Proclus the Montanist, as to ascribe the authorship of
  the Johannine Apocalypse to the heretic Cerinthus (§ 27, 1).
  The Alexandrian spiritualists too, especially Origen (_De Prin._,
  ii. 11), were decided opponents of every form of Chiliasm and
  explained away the Scripture passages on which it was built by
  means of allegorical interpretation. Nevertheless even in Egypt
  it had numerous adherents. At their head about the middle of
  the 3rd cent. stood the learned bishop Nepos of Arsinoe, whose
  Ἔλεγχος τῶν ἀλληγοριστῶν directed against the Alexandrians is no
  longer extant. After his death his party under the leadership of
  the presbyter Coracion separated from the church of Alexandria,
  the bishop Dionysius the Great going down himself expressly
  to Arsinoe in order to heal the breach. In a conference of the
  leaders of the parties continued for three days he secured the
  sincere respect of the dissentients by his counsels, and even
  Coracion was induced to make a formal recantation. Dionysius
  then wrote for the confirmation of the converts his book: Περὶ
  ἐπαγγελιῶν. But not long after, opposition to the spiritualism of
  the school of Origen made Methodius, the bishop of Olympus, play
  the part of a new herald of Chiliasm, and in the West, Commodian,
  Victor of Poitiers, and especially Lactantius, became its zealous
  advocates in a particularly materialistic form. Its day, however,
  was already past. What tended most to work its complete overthrow
  was the course of events under Constantine. Amid the rejoicings
  of the national church as a present reality, interest in the
  expectation of a future thousand years’ reign was lost. Among
  post-Constantine church teachers only Apollinaris the Younger
  favoured Chiliasm (§ 47, 5). Jerome indeed, in deference to the
  cloud of witnesses from the ancient church, does not venture to
  pronounce it heretical, but treats it with scornful ridicule;
  and Augustine (_De civ. Dei_), though at an earlier period not
  unfavourable to it, sets it aside by showing that the scriptural
  representations of the thousand years’ reign are to be understood
  as referring to the church obtaining dominion through the
  overthrow of the pagan Roman empire, the thousand years being a
  period of indefinite duration, and the first resurrection being
  interpreted of the reception of saints and martyrs into heaven
  as sharers in the glory of Christ.--See Candlish, “The Kingdom of
  God.” Edin., 1884. Especially pp. 409-415, “Augustine on the City
  of God.”




          IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE.[94]


            § 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.[95]

  From the beginning of the 2nd cent. the episcopal constitution
was gradually built up, and the superiority of one bishop over the
whole body of the other presbyters (§ 17, 6) won by degrees universal
acceptance. The hierarchical tendency inherent in it gained fresh
impetus from two causes: (1) from the gradual disappearance of the
charismatic endowments which had been continued from the Apostolic
Age far down into post-Apostolic times, and the disposition of
ecclesiastical leaders more and more to monopolise the function
of teaching; and (2) from the reassertion of the idea of a special
priesthood as a divine institution and the adoption of Old Testament
conceptions of church officers. The antithesis of _Ordo_ or κλῆρος
(sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) and _Plebs_ or λαός (λαϊκοί) when once expression had
been given to it, tended to become even more marked and exclusive. In
consequence of the successful extension of the churches the functions,
rights and duties of the existing spiritual offices came to be more
precisely determined and for the discharge of lower ecclesiastical
service new offices were created. Thus arose the partition of the
clergy into _Ordines majores_ and _Ordines minores_. As it was in the
provincial capital that common councils were held, which were convened,
at first in consequence of the requirements of the hour, afterwards as
regular institutions (Provincial Synods), the bishop of the particular
capital assumed the president’s chair. Among the metropolitans
pre-eminence was claimed by churches founded by Apostles (_sedes
apostolicæ_), especially those of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria,
Ephesus and Corinth. To the idea of the =unity and catholicity of
the church=, which was maintained and set forth with ever increasing
decision, was added the idea of the Apostle Peter being the single
individual representative of the church. This latter notion was founded
on the misunderstood word of the Lord, Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Rome, as the
capital of the world, where Peter and Paul suffered death as martyrs
(§ 16, 1), arrogated to itself the name of _Chair_ (Cathedra) _of Peter_
and transferred the idea of the individual representation of the church
to its bishops as the supposed successors of Peter.

  § 34.1. =The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into
  Post-Apostolic Times= has, by means of the Apostolic Didache
  recently rendered accessible to us (§ 30, 7), not only received
  new confirmation, but their place in the church and their relation
  to it has been put in a far clearer light. In essential agreement
  with 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11 (§ 17, 5), it presents to
  us the three offices of Apostle, Prophet and Teacher. The Pastors
  and Teachers of the Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of
  the passage from Corinthians, are grouped together in one; and
  the Evangelists, that is, helpers of the Apostles, appear now
  after the decease of the original Apostles, as their successors
  and heirs of their missionary calling under the same title of
  Apostles. Hermas indeed speaks only of Apostles and Teachers;
  but he himself appears as a Prophet and so witnesses to the
  continuance of that office. The place and task of the three
  offices are still the same as described in § 17, 5 from Eph.
  iv. 11, 12 and ii. 20. These three were not chosen like the
  bishops and deacons by the congregations, but appointment and
  qualifications for office were dependent on a divine call,
  somewhat like that of Acts xiii. 2-4, or on a charism that had
  evidently and admittedly been bestowed on them. They are further
  not permanent officials in particular congregations but travel
  about in the exercise of their teaching function from church to
  church. Prophets and Teachers, however, but not Apostles, might
  settle down permanently in a particular church.--In reference
  exclusively to the =Apostles= the Didache teaches as follows:
  In the case of their visiting an already constituted church
  they should stay there at furthest only two days and should
  accept provision only for one day’s journey but upon no account
  any money (Matt. x. 9, 10). Eusebius too, in his Ch. Hist.,
  iii. 37, tells that after the death of the twelve the gospel was
  successfully spread abroad in all lands by means of itinerating
  Apostolic men, whom he designates, however, by the old name of
  evangelists, and praises them for having according to the command
  of the Lord (Matt. x. and Luke x.) parted their possessions among
  the poor, and having adhered strictly to the rule of everywhere
  laying only the foundations of the faith and leaving the further
  care of what they had planted to the settled pastors.--The
  Didache assigns the second place to the =Prophets=: they too,
  inasmuch as like the Apostles they are itinerants, are without
  a fixed residence; but they are distinguished from the latter by
  having their teaching functions directed not to the founding of
  a church but only to its edification, and in this respect they
  are related to the Teachers. Their distinguishing characteristic,
  however, is the possession of the charism of prophesying in the
  wider sense, whereas the Teachers’ charism consisted in the λόγος
  σοφίας and the λόγος γνώσεως (§ 17, 1). When they enter into a
  church as ἐν πνεύματι λαλοῦντες, that church may not, according
  to the Didache, in direct opposition to 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 Cor.
  xii. 10; xiv. 29; 1 John iv. 1, exercise the right of trying
  their doctrine, for that would be to commit the sin against the
  Holy Ghost who speaks through them, but the church may inquire
  of their life, and thus distinguish true prophets from the
  false. If they wish to settle down in a particular church, that
  church should make provision for their adequate maintenance by
  surrendering to them, after the pattern of the Mosaic law, all
  firstlings of cattle, and first fruits of grain and oil and wine,
  and also the first portion of their other possessions, “for they
  are your high priests.” This phrase means either, that for them
  they are with their prophetic gift what the high priests of the
  old covenant with their Urim and Thummim were to ancient Israel,
  or, as Harnack understands it on the basis of chap. x. 7: τοῖς
  προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν, while ordinary
  ministers had to confine themselves to the usual formularies,
  that they were pre-eminently entrusted with the administration of
  the Lord’s Supper which was the crowning part of the worship. If,
  however, there were no Prophets present, these first fruits were
  to be distributed among the poor.--The rank also of =Teachers=
  (διδάσκαλοι, Doctores) is still essentially the same as described
  in § 17, 5. As their constant association with the Apostles
  and Prophets would lead us to expect, they also were properly
  itinerant teachers, who like the Prophets had to minister to
  the establishment of existing churches in the Christian life,
  in faith and in hope. But when they settled down in a particular
  church, whether in consequence of that church’s special needs, or
  with its approval in accordance with their own wish, that church
  had to provide for their maintenance according to the principle
  that the labourer is worthy of his reward. The author of the
  Didache, as appears from the whole tenor of his book, was himself
  such a teacher. Hermas, who at the same time makes no mention of
  the Prophets, speaks only twice and that quite incidentally of
  the Teachers, without indicating particularly their duties and
  privileges.--The continuance of those three extraordinary offices
  down to the end of the 2nd cent. was of the utmost importance.
  The numerous churches scattered throughout all lands had not
  as yet a firmly established New Testament Canon nor any one
  general symbol in the form of a confession of faith, and so
  were without any outward bond of union: but these Teachers, by
  means of their itinerant mode of life and their authoritative
  position, which was for the first time clearly demonstrated by
  Harnack, contributed powerfully to the development of the idea
  of ecclesiastical unity. According to Harnack, the composition
  of the so-called Catholic Epistles and similar early Christian
  literature is to be assigned to them, and in this way he would
  account for the Apostolic features which are discoverable
  in these writings. He would not, however, attribute to them
  the fiction of claiming for their works an Apostolic origin,
  but supposes that the subsequently added superscriptions
  and the author’s name in the address rest upon an erroneous
  tradition.--The gradual disappearance of charismatic offices was
  mainly the result of the endeavour, that became more and more
  marked during the 2nd cent., after the adoption of current social
  usages and institutions, which necessarily led to a repression
  of the enthusiastic spirit out of which those offices had sprung
  and which could scarcely reconcile itself with what seemed
  to it worldly compromises and concessions. The fanatical and
  eccentric pretension to prophetic gifts in Montanism, with its
  uncompromising rigour (§ 40) and its withdrawal from church
  fellowship, gave to these charismatic offices their deadly blow.
  A further cause of their gradual decay may certainly be found in
  their relation to the growing episcopal hierarchy. At the time of
  the Didache, which knows nothing of a subordination of presbyters
  under the bishop (indeed like Phil. i. 1, it makes no mention
  of presbyters), this relation was one of thoroughly harmonious
  co-ordination and co-operation. In the 13th chap. the exhortation
  is given to choose only faithful and approved men as bishops
  and deacons, “for they too discharge for you τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν
  προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων and so they represent along with those
  the τετιμημένοι among you.” The service of prophets, according
  to the Didache, was pre-eminently that of the ἀρχιερεῖς and so
  there was entrusted to them the consecration of the elements
  in the Lord’s Supper. This service the bishops and deacons
  discharged, inasmuch as, in addition to their own special duties
  as presidents of the congregation charged with its administration
  and discipline, they were required in the absence of prophets
  to conduct the worship. Then also they had to officiate as
  Teachers (1 Tim. v. 17) when occasion required and the necessary
  qualifications were possessed. But this peaceful co-operating
  of the two orders undoubtedly soon and often gave place to
  unseemly rivalry, and the hierarchical spirit obtruding itself
  in the _Protepiscopate_ (§ 17, 6), which first of all reduced
  its colleagues from their original equality to a position of
  subordination soon asserted itself over against the extraordinary
  offices which had held a place co-ordinate with and in the
  department of doctrine and worship even more authoritative and
  important than that of the bishops themselves. They were only too
  readily successful in having their usurpation of their offices
  recognised as bearing the authority of a divine appointment.
  These soon completed the theory of the hierarchical and
  monarchical rank of the clergy and the absurd pretension to
  having obtained from God the absolute fulness of His Spirit and
  absolute sovereign power.

  § 34.2. =The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy= was the
  result of an evolution which in existing circumstances was not
  only natural but almost necessary. In the deliberations and
  consultations of the college of presbyters constituting the
  ecclesiastical court, just as in every other such assembly, it
  must have been the invariable custom to confer upon one of their
  number, generally the eldest, or at least the one among them most
  highly esteemed, the presidency, committing to him the duty of
  the orderly conduct of the debates, as well as the formulating,
  publishing and enforcing of their decrees. This president must
  soon have won the pre-eminent authority of a _primus inter pares_,
  and have come to be regarded as an ἐπίσκοπος of higher rank.
  From such a primacy to supremacy, and from that to a monarchical
  position, the progress was natural and easy. In proportion as the
  official authority, the ἐπισκοπή, concentrated itself more and
  more in the president, the official title, ἐπίσκοπος, at first by
  way of eminence, then absolutely, was appropriated to him. This
  would be all the more easily effected since, owing to the twofold
  function of the office (§ 17, 5, 6), he who presided in the
  administrative council still bore the title of πρεσβύτερος. It
  was not accomplished, however, without a long continued struggle
  on the part of the presbyters who were relegated to a subordinate
  rank, which occasioned keen party contentions and divisions
  lasting down even into the 3rd century (§ 41). But the need of
  the churches to have in each one man to direct and control was
  mightier than this opposition. That need was most keenly felt
  when the church was threatened with division and dissolution
  by the spread of heretical and separatist tendencies. The need
  of a single president in the local churches was specially felt
  in times of violent persecution, and still more just after the
  persecution had ceased when multitudes who had fallen away during
  the days of trial sought to be again restored to the membership
  of the church (§ 39, 2), in order to secure the reorganization
  of the institution which, by violence from without and weakness
  within, had been so sorely rent. Both in the Old and in the New
  Testament there seemed ground for regarding the order of things
  that had grown up in the course of time as _jure divino_ and
  as existing from the beginning. After the idea of a distinct
  sacerdotal class had again found favour, the distribution of
  the clergy in the Old Testament into High priest, priests and
  Levites was supposed to afford an exact analogy to that of
  the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. To effect this the
  charismatic offices of teaching had to be ignored and their
  divinely ordained functions had to be set aside. It was even
  supposed that the relative ranks in the offices of the Christian
  church must be determined by the corresponding orders in the Old
  Testament. Then in the gospels, it seemed as if the relations of
  Christ to His disciples corresponded to that of the bishop to the
  presbyters; and from the Acts of the Apostles the preponderating
  authority of James at the head of the Jerusalem presbytery or
  eldership (§ 17, 2) might be used as a witness for the supremacy
  of the bishop. The oldest and most important contender for the
  monarchical rank of the bishop is the author of the _Ignatian
  Epistles_ (§ 30, 5). In every bishop he sees the representative
  of Christ, and in the college of presbyters the representatives
  of the Apostles. In the _Clementines_ too the bishop appears
  as ἐπὶ τῆς Χριστοῦ καθέδρας καθεσθείς. This view also finds
  expression in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (2, 26), and even in
  the writings of _Dionysius the Areopagite_ (§ 47, 11). Another
  theory, according to which the bishops are successors of the
  Apostles and as such heirs of the absolute dominion conferred in
  Matt. xiv. 18, 19 upon Peter and through him on all the Apostles,
  sprang up in the West and gained currency by means of Cyprian’s
  eloquent enunciation of it (§ 34, 7).

  § 34.3. =The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old Catholic
  Age.= The =Ordines Majores= embraced the Bishops, Presbyters
  and Deacons. Upon the =Bishop=, elected by the people and the
  clergy in common, there devolved in his monarchical position the
  supreme conduct of all the affairs of the church. The exclusively
  episcopal privileges were these: the ordination of presbyters
  and deacons, the absolving of the penitent, according to strict
  rule also the consecration of the eucharistic elements, in later
  times also the right of speaking at Synods, and in the West also
  the confirmation of the baptised. In large cities where a single
  church was no longer sufficient daughter churches were instituted.
  Country churches founded outside of the cities were supplied
  with presbyters and deacons from the city. If they increased
  in importance, they chose for themselves their own bishop, who
  remained, however, as Χωρεπίσκοπος dependent upon the city bishop.
  Thus distinctly official episcopal dioceses came to be formed.
  And just as the city bishops had a pre-eminence over the country
  bishops, so also the bishops of the chief cities of provinces
  soon came as metropolitans to have a pre-eminence over those
  of other cities. To them was granted the right of calling and
  presiding at the Synods, and of appointing and ordaining the
  bishops of their province. The name Metropolitan, however, was
  first used in the Acts of the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325.--The
  =Presbyters= were now only the advisers and assistants of the
  bishop, whose counsel and help he accepted just in such ways and
  at such times as seemed to him good. They were employed in the
  directing of the affairs of the church, in the administration of
  the sacrament, in preaching and in pastoral work, but only at the
  bidding or with the express permission of the bishop. During the
  following period for the first time, when demands had multiplied,
  and the episcopal authority was no longer in need of being
  jealously guarded, were their functions enlarged to embrace
  an independent pastoral care, preaching and dispensation of the
  sacraments for which they were personally responsible.--In regard
  to official position the =Deacons= had a career just the converse
  of this; for their importance increased just as the range
  of their official functions was enlarged. Seeing that in the
  earliest times they had occupied a position subordinate to the
  presbyter-bishops, they could not be regarded in this way as
  their rivals; and the development of the proto-presbyterate into
  a monarchical episcopate was too evidently in their own interests
  to awaken any opposition on their part. They therefore stood in a
  far closer relation to the bishops than did the presbyters. They
  were his confidants, his companions in travel, often also his
  deputies and representatives at the Synods. To them he committed
  the distribution of the church’s alms, for which their original
  charge of the poor qualified them. To these duties were added
  also many of the parts of divine service; they baptised under the
  commission of the bishop, obtained and prepared the sacramental
  elements, handed round the cup, at the close of the service
  carried to the sick and imprisoned the body and blood of the Lord,
  intimated the beginning and the close of the various parts of
  divine service, recited the public prayers, read the gospels, and
  kept order during worship. Often, too, they preached the sermon.
  In consequence of the preponderating position given to the Old
  Testament idea of the priesthood the bishop was compared to the
  high priest, the presbyters to the priests, and the deacons to
  the Levites, and so too did they already assume the name, from
  which the German word “Priester,” English “Priest,” French
  “Prêtre,” Italian “Prête,” is derived.

  Among the =Ordines Minores= the oldest was the office of =Reader=,
  Ἀναγνώστης. In the time of Cyprian this place was heartily
  accorded to the Confessors. In later times it was usual to begin
  the clerical career with service in the readership. The duties
  of this office were the public reading of the longer scripture
  portions and the custody of the sacred books. Somewhat later than
  the readership the office of the =Subdiaconi=, ὑποδιάκονοι was
  instituted. They were assistants to the Deacons, and as such
  took first rank among the _Ordines Minores_, and of these were
  alone regarded as worthy of ordination. Toward the end of the 3rd
  century the office of the =Cantores=, ψαλταί, was instituted for
  the conducting of the public service of praise. The =Acolytes=,
  who are met with in Rome first about the middle of the 3rd
  century, were those who accompanied the bishop as his servants.
  The =Exorcists= discharged the spiritual function of dealing with
  those possessed of evil spirits, ἐνεργούμενοι, δαιμονιζόμενοι,
  over whom they had to repeat the public prayers and the formula
  of exorcism. As there was also an exorcism associated with
  baptism, the official functions of the exorcists extended to
  the catechumens. The =Ostiarii= or =Janitores=, θυρωροί, πυλωροί,
  occupied the lowest position.--In the larger churches for the
  instruction of the catechumens there were special =Catechists=
  appointed, _Doctores audientium_, and where the need was
  felt, especially in the churches of North Africa speaking
  the Punic tongue, there were also =Interpreters= whose duty
  it was to translate and interpret the scripture lessons. To
  the =Deaconesses=, for the most part widows or virgins, was
  committed the care of the poor and sick, the counselling of
  inexperienced women and maidens, the general oversight of
  the female catechumens. They had no clerical character.--The
  =Ordination= of the clergy was performed by the laying on
  of hands. Those were disqualified who had just recently been
  baptised or had received baptism only during severe illness
  (_Neophyti_, _Clinici_), also all who had been excommunicated
  and those who had mutilated themselves.--Continuation, § 45, 3.

  § 34.4. =Clergy and Laity.=--The idea that a priestly mediation
  between sinful men and a gracious deity was necessary had been so
  deeply implanted in the religious consciousness of pre-Christian
  antiquity, pagan as well as Jewish, that a form of public worship
  without a priesthood seemed almost as inconceivable as a religion
  without a god. And even though the inspired writings of the New
  Testament decidedly and expressly taught that the pre-Christian
  or Old Testament institution of a special human priesthood
  had been abolished and merged in the one eternal mediation
  of the exalted Son of God and Son of man, and that there was
  now a universal spiritual priesthood of all Christians with
  the right and privilege of drawing near even to the heavenly
  throne of grace (Heb. iv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6), yet,
  in consequence of the idea of the permanence of Old Testament
  institutions which prevailed, even in the Post-Apostolic Age,
  the sacerdotal theory came more and more into favour. This
  relapse to the Old Testament standpoint was moreover rendered
  almost inevitable by the contemporary metamorphosis of the
  ecclesiastical office which existed as the necessary basis of
  human organisation (§ 17, 4) into a hierarchical organisation
  resting upon an assumed divine institution. For clericalism,
  with its claims to be the sole divinely authorised channel for
  the communication of God’s grace, was the correlate and the
  indispensable support of hierarchism, with its exclusive claims
  to legislative, judicial, disciplinary and administrative
  precedence in the affairs of the church. The reaction which
  Montanism (§ 40) initiated in the interests of the Christian
  people against the hierarchical and clerical tendencies spreading
  throughout the church, was without result owing to its extreme
  extravagance. Tertullian emphasised indeed very strongly the
  Apostolic idea of the universal priesthood of all Christians, but
  in Cyprian this is allowed to fall quite behind the priesthood
  of the clergy and ultimately came to be quite forgotten.--The Old
  Catholic Age, however, shows many reminiscences of the original
  relation of the congregation to the ecclesiastical officers,
  or as it would now be called, of the laity to the clergy. That
  the official teaching of religion and preaching in the public
  assemblies of the church, although as a rule undertaken by the
  _Ordines majores_, might even then in special circumstances and
  with due authorisation be discharged by laymen, was shown by
  the Catechetical institution at Alexandria and by the case
  of Origen who when only a Catechist often preached in the
  church. The Apostolic Constitutions, too, 8, 31, supported the
  view that laymen, if only they were skilful in the word and of
  irreproachable lives, should preach by a reference to the promise:
  “They shall be all taught of God.” The repeated expressions of
  disapproval of the administration of the eucharist by laymen
  in the Ignatian Epistles presupposes the frequent occurrence
  of the practice; Tertullian would allow it in case of necessity,
  for “_Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici_.” Likewise in
  reference to the administration of baptism he teaches that under
  ordinary circumstances _propter ecclesiæ honorem_ it should be
  administered only by the bishop and the clergy appointed by him
  to the work, _alioquin_ (_e.g._ in times of persecution) _etiam
  laicis jus est_. This, too, is the decision of the Council
  of Elvira in A.D. 306. The report which Cyprian gives of his
  procedure in regard to the vast number of the _Lapsi_ of his time
  (§ 39, 2; 41, 2) affords evidence that at least in extraordinary
  and specially difficult cases of discipline the whole church was
  consulted. The people’s right to take part in the choice of their
  minister had not yet been questioned, and their assistance at
  least in the Synods was never refused.

  § 34.5. =The Synods.=--The Council of Apostles at Jerusalem
  (Acts xv.) furnished an example of Synodal deliberation and
  issuing of decrees. But even in the pagan world such institutions
  had existed. The old religio-political confederacies in Greece
  and Asia Minor had indeed since the time of the Roman conquest
  lost their political significance; but their long accustomed
  assemblies (κοιναὶ σύνοδοι, _Concilia_) continued to meet in
  the capitals of the provinces under the presidency of the Roman
  governor. The fact that the same nomenclature was adopted seems
  to show that they were not without formal influence on the
  origin of the institution of the church synod. The first occasion
  for such meetings was given by the Montanist movements in Asia
  Minor (§ 40, 1); and soon thereafter by the controversies about
  the observance of Easter (§ 37, 2). In the beginning of the 3rd
  century the Provincial Synods had already assumed the position
  of fixed and regularly recurring institutions. In the time of
  Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons took an active part in the
  Synods alongside of the bishops, and the people generally were
  not prevented from attending. No decision could be arrived at
  without the knowledge and the acquiescence of the members of the
  church. From the time of the Nicene Council, in A.D. 325, the
  bishops alone had a vote and the presence of the laity was more
  and more restricted. The decrees of Synods were communicated
  to distant churches by means of Synodal rescripts, and even
  in the 3rd century the claim was made in these, in accordance
  with Acts xv., to the immediate enlightenment of the Holy
  Spirit.--Continuation, § 43, 2.

  § 34.6. =Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.=--From the very
  earliest times the Christian churches of all lands maintained
  a regular communication with one another through messengers
  or itinerating brethren. The _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_
  furnishes the earliest account of this: Any one who comes from
  another place in the name of the Lord shall be received as a
  brother; one who is on his journey, however, shall not accept the
  hospitality of the church for more than two, or at furthest than
  three days; but if he chooses to remain in the place, he must
  engage in work for his own support, in which matter the church
  will help him; if he will not so conduct himself he is to be sent
  back as a χριστέμπορος, who has been seeking to make profit out
  of his profession of Christ. The Didache knows nothing as yet of
  the letters of authentication among the earlier messengers of the
  church which soon became necessary and customary. As a guarantee
  against the abuse of this custom such συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor.
  iii. 1) had come into use even in Tertullian’s time, who speaks
  of a _Contesseratio hospitalitatis_, in such a form that they
  were understood only by the initiated as recognisable tokens of
  genuineness, and were hence called _Litteræ formatæ_, or γράμματα
  τετυπωμένα. The same care was also taken in respect of important
  epistolary communications from one church to another or to other
  churches. Among these were included, _e.g._ the Synodal rescripts,
  the so-called γράμματα ἐνθρονιστικά by which the newly-chosen
  bishops intimated their entrance upon office to the other bishops
  of their district, the _Epistolæ festales_ (paschales) regarding
  the celebration of a festival, especially the Easter festival
  (§ 56, 3), communications about important church occurrences,
  especially about martyrdoms (§ 32, 8), etc. According to Optatus
  of Mileve (§ 63, 1): “_Totus orbis_” could boast of “_comnmercio
  formatarum in una communionis societate concordat_.”

  § 34.7. =The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.=--The fact
  that Christianity was destined to be a religion for the world,
  which should embrace all peoples and tongues, and should permeate
  them all with one spirit and unite them under one heavenly
  head, rested upon the presupposition that the church was one and
  universal or catholic. The inward unity of the spirit demanded
  also a corresponding unity in manifestation. It is specially
  evident from the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ that the
  consciousness of the unity of the church had deeply rooted itself
  even in the Post-Apostolic Age (§ 20, 1). “The points which
  according to it prove the unity of Christendom are the following:
  firstly, the _disciplina_ in accordance with the ethical
  requirements of the Lord, secondly, baptism in the name of the
  Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thirdly, the order of fasting and
  prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord’s Prayer, and
  fourthly and lastly, the eucharist, _i.e._ the sacred meal in
  partaking of which the church gives thanks to God, the creator of
  all things, for the revelation imparted to it through Jesus, for
  faith and knowledge and immortality, and implores the fulfilment
  of its hope, the overthrow of this world, the coming again of
  Christ, and reception into the kingdom of God. He who has this
  doctrine and acts in accordance with it is a ‘Christian,’ belongs
  to ‘the saints,’ is a ‘brother,’ and ought to be received even
  as the Lord” (Harnack). The struggle against the Gnostics had
  the effect of transforming this primitive Christian idea of
  unity into a consciousness of the necessity of adopting a common
  doctrinal formula, which again this controversy rendered much
  more definite and precise, to which a concise popular expression
  was given in one common _Regula fidei_ (§ 35, 2), and by
  means of which the specific idea of catholicity was developed
  (§ 20, 2).--The misleading and dangerous thing about this
  construction and consolidation of one great Catholic church was
  that every deviation from external forms in the constitution and
  worship as well as erroneous doctrine, immorality and apostasy,
  was regarded as a departing from the one Catholic church, the
  body of Christ, and consequently, since not only the body was
  put upon the same level with the head, but even the garment of
  the body was identified with the body itself, as a separating
  from the communion of Christ, involving the loss of salvation
  and eternal blessedness. This notion received a powerful
  impulse during the 2nd century when the unity of the church
  was threatened by heresies, sects and divisions. It reached
  its consummation and won the _Magna Charta_ of its perfect
  enunciation in Cyprian’s book _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_. In
  the monarchical rank of the bishop of each church, as the
  representative of Christ, over the college of presbyters, as
  representatives of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch sees the
  guarantee of the church’s unity. According to Cyprian, this unity
  has its expression in the Apostolate; in the Episcopate it has
  its support. The promise of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18, is given to
  Peter, not as the head but as the single representative of the
  Apostles (John xx. 21). The Apostolic office, with the promise
  attached to it, passed from the Apostles by means of ordination
  to the bishops. These, through their monarchical rank, represent
  continuously for the several churches (_Ecclesia est in episcopo_),
  and through their combined action, for the whole of Christendom,
  the unity of the church; _Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulus
  in solidum, pars tenetur_. All the bishops, just as all the
  Apostles, have perfect parity with one another; _pares consortio,
  jure et honore_. Each of them is a successor of Peter and heir
  of the promise given first to Peter but for all.--He who cuts
  himself off from the bishops, cuts himself off from the church.
  _Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem....
  Extra ecclesiam nulla spes salutis._ Alongside of the Apostolic
  writings, the tradition which prevailed among the Apostolic
  churches (_Sedes apostolicæ_) was regarded as a standard of
  catholicity in constitution, worship and doctrine; indeed, it
  must even have ranked above the Apostolic writings themselves
  in settling the question of the New Testament Canon (§ 36, 8),
  until these had secured general circulation and acceptance.

  § 34.8. =The Roman Primacy.=--The claims of the Roman bishopric
  to the primacy over the whole church, which reached its fuller
  development in the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 46, 7), were founded
  originally and chiefly on the assertion that the promise of
  Matt. xvi. 18, 19, was given only and exclusively to the Apostle
  Peter as the Primate of the Apostles and the head of the church.
  This assumption overlooked the fact that in Matt. xviii. 18 and
  John xx. 21 ff., this promise was given with reference to all
  the Apostles. These claims were further supposed to be supported
  by the words addressed to Peter, “strengthen thy brethren”
  (Luke xxii. 31), which seemed to accord to Peter a primacy
  over his fellow Apostles; and also by the interpretation given
  of John xxi. 15 ff., where “lambs” were understood of laymen
  and “sheep” of the Apostles. It was likewise assumed that
  the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and so the
  legitimate and only heir of all his prerogatives. The fable of
  the Roman bishopric of Peter (§ 16, 1) was at an early period
  unhesitatingly adopted, all the more because no one expected the
  results which in later times were deduced from a quite different
  understanding of Matt. xvi. 18. During this whole period such
  consequences were never dreamt of either by a Roman bishop or by
  anybody else. Only this was readily admitted at least by the West
  that Rome was the foremost of all the Apostolic churches, that
  there the Apostolic tradition had been preserved in its purest
  form, and that, therefore, its bishops should have a particularly
  influential voice in all questions that were to be judged of
  by the whole episcopate, and the Roman bishops were previously
  content with taking advantage of this concession in the largest
  measure possible.[96]


                § 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.[97]

  As an indispensable means to participation in salvation and as
a condition of reception into the communion of the church, baptism
was practised from the earliest times. Infant baptism, though not
universally adopted, was yet in theory almost universally admitted to
be proper. Tertullian alone is found opposing it. All adults who desired
baptism had, as Catechumens, to pass through a course of training under
a Christian teacher. Many, however, voluntarily and purposely postponed
their baptism, frequently even to a deathbed, in order that all the
sins of their lives might be certainly removed by baptismal grace. After
a full course of instruction had been passed through, the Catechumens
prepared themselves for baptism by prayer and fasting, and before the
administration of the sacred ordinance they were required to renounce
the devil and all his works (_Abrenuntiare diabolo et pompæ et angelis
ejus_) and to recite a confession of their faith. The controversy as to
whether baptism administered by heretics should be regarded as valid was
conducted with great bitterness during the 3rd century.

  § 35.1. =The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.=--After a
  complete exposition of the evangelical moral code in chap. 1-6,
  the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ proceeds thus: Ταῦτα πάντα
  προειπόντες βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, etc. At this time, therefore,
  besides the necessarily presupposed acquaintance with the chief
  points in the gospel history, the initiation into the moral
  doctrine of the gospel of the person receiving baptism was
  regarded as most essential in the baptismal instruction. In this
  passage there is no mention of a doctrinal course of teaching
  based upon a symbol. But what here is still wanting is given in
  a summary way in chaps. 7 ff. in the instructions about baptism
  and the Lord’s supper attached to the baptismal formula and the
  eucharistic prayers. This therefore was reserved for that worship
  from which the candidates for baptism and the newly baptized had
  to gather their faith and hope as to the future completion of the
  kingdom of God. First the struggle against Gnosticism obliged the
  church to put more to the front the doctrines of faith which were
  thereby more fully developed, and to concern itself with these
  questions even in the instruction of the Catechumens. The custom,
  which the Didache and Justin Martyr show to have been prevalent
  in post-Apostolic times, of the baptiser together with others
  voluntarily offering themselves taking part with the candidate
  for baptism in completing the preparation for the holy ordinance
  by observing a two days’ fast, seems soon, so far as the baptiser
  and the others were concerned, to have fallen into desuetude,
  and is never again mentioned.--Since the development of the
  Old Catholic church the preparation of candidates for baptism
  has been divided into two portions of very unequal duration,
  namely, that of instruction, for which on an average a period
  of two years was required, and that of immediate preparation by
  prayer and fasting after the instructions had been completed.
  During the former period the aspirants were called κατηχοῦμενοι,
  _Catechumeni_; during the latter, φωτιζόμενοι, _Competentes_.
  As to their participation in the public divine service, the
  Catechumens were first of all as ἀκροώμενοι admitted only to the
  hearing of the sermon, and had thus no essential privileges over
  the unbelievers. They first came into closer connection with
  the church only when it was permitted them to take part in
  the devotional exercises, yet only in those portions which had
  reference to themselves, kneeling as γονυκλίνοντες, while also
  the congregation prayed kneeling. Only in cases of dangerous
  illness could baptism be given before the Catechumen had
  completed his full course (_Baptismus Clinicorum_). The Council
  of Neo-Cæsarea soon after A.D. 314 ordained that a Catechumen
  who as a γονυκλίνων had been guilty of an open sin, should be
  put back to the first stage of the Catechumenate, namely, to that
  of the ἀκροᾶσθαι, and if he then again sinned he should be cast
  off altogether; and the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325
  demanded that offending (παραπέσοντες) Catechumens should remain
  ἀκροώμενοι for three years and only then should be allowed to
  take part in the devotional service of the church.[98]

  § 35.2. =The Baptismal Formula.=--In close connection with the
  words of institution of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19) and hence in
  a trinitarian framework, an outline of the doctrine common to all
  the churches, introduced first of all as a confession of faith
  professed by candidates for baptism, obtained currency at a very
  early date. Only a few unimportant modifications were afterwards
  made upon it, and amid all the varieties of provincial and local
  conditions, the formula remained essentially the same. Hence it
  could always be properly characterized with Irenæus as ἀκλινής,
  and with Tertullian as _immobilis et irreformabilis_. As a token
  of membership in the Catholic church it is called the Baptismal
  Formula or =Symbolum=. After the introduction of the _Disciplina
  arcani_ (§ 36, 4) it was included in that, and hence was kept
  secret from heathens and even from catechumens, and first
  communicated to the _competentes_. As the “unalterable and
  inflexible” test and standard of the faith and doctrine, as
  well as an intellectual bond of union between churches scattered
  over all the earth, it was called =Regula fidei= and Κανὼν τῆς
  ἀληθείας. That we never find it quoted in the Old Catholic Age,
  is to be explained from its inclusion in the _disciplina arcani_
  and by this also, that the ancient church in common with Jeremiah
  (xxxi. 33), laid great stress upon its being engraven not with
  pen and ink on paper, but with the pen of the Holy Spirit on the
  hearts of believers. Instead then of literal quotation we find
  among the fathers of the Old Catholic Age (Irenæus, Tertullian,
  Origen, Novatian, etc.) only paraphrastic and explanatory
  references to it which, seeing that no sort of official sanction
  was accorded them in the church, are erroneously spoken of
  as _Regulæ fidei_. These paraphrases, however, are valuable
  as affording information about the creed of the early church,
  because what is found the same in them all must be regarded as an
  integral part of the original document. In harmony with this is
  the testimony of Rufinus, about A.D. 390, who in his _Expositio
  Symb. apost._ produces three different recensions, namely, the
  Roman, the Aquileian and the Oriental. The oldest and simplest
  was that used in Rome, traces of which may be found as early
  as the middle of the 2nd century. In the time of Rufinus there
  was a tradition that this Roman creed had been composed by the
  XII. Apostles in Jerusalem at the time of their scattering, as
  a universal rule of faith, and had been brought to Rome by Peter.
  It is not quite the same as that known among us as the =Apostles’
  Creed=. It wants the phrases “Creator of heaven and earth,”
  “suffered, dead, descended into hell,” “catholic, communion of
  saints, eternal life.” The creed of Aquileia adopted the clause
  “_Descendit ad infera_,” and intensified the clause _Carnis
  resurrectio_ by the addition of “_hujus_” and the phrase _Deus
  pater omnipotens_ by the addition of the anti-Patripassian
  predicate (§ 33, 4) _invisibilis et impassibilis_.

  § 35.3. =The Administration of Baptism.=--According to the
  showing of the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ baptism was
  ordinarily administered by a thrice-repeated immersion in flowing
  water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  If there be no flowing water at hand, any other kind, even warm
  water, may be used, and in case of necessity sprinkling may be
  substituted for the thrice-repeated immersion. At a later time
  sprinkling was limited to the baptism of the sick, _Baptismus
  clinicorum_. We hear nothing of a consecration of the water to
  its holy use, nor is there any mention of the renunciation and
  exorcism which became customary first in the 3rd century through
  the use of a form of adjuration previously employed only in cases
  of possession. Upon immersion followed an anointing, χρίσμα
  (still unknown to the Didache), as a symbol of consecration to a
  spiritual priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9), and then, in accordance with
  Acts viii. 16 f., the laying on of hands as the vehicle for the
  communication of the Holy Spirit. Soon the immersion came to be
  regarded as the negative part of the ordinance, the putting away
  of sin, and the anointing with the laying on of hands as the
  positive part, the communication of the Spirit. In the Eastern
  church presbyters and deacons were permitted to dispense baptism
  including also the anointing. Both, therefore, continued there
  unseparated. In the West, however, the bishops claimed the laying
  on of hands as their exclusive right, referring in support of
  their claim to Acts viii. Where then the bishop did not himself
  dispense the baptism, the laying on of hands as well as the
  chrismatic anointing was given separately and in addition by him
  as =Confirmation=, _Confirmatio_, _Consignatio_, which separation,
  even when the baptism was administered by a bishop, soon became
  the usual and legal practice. Nevertheless even in the Roman
  church there was at the baptism an anointing with oil which had
  canonical sanction and was designated _chrism_, without prejudice
  to confirmation as an independent act at a later time. The usual
  seasons for administering baptism were Easter, especially the
  Sabbath of Passion week, baptism into the death of Christ,
  Rom. vi. 3, and Pentecost, and in the East also the Epiphany.
  The place for the administration of baptism was regarded as
  immaterial. With infant baptism was introduced the custom of
  having sponsors, ἀνάδοχοι, _sponsores_, who as sureties repeated
  the confession of faith in the name of the unconscious infant
  receiving the baptism.--Continuation, § 58, 1.

  § 35.4. =The Doctrine of Baptism.=--The Epistle of Barnabas says:
  Ἀναβαίνομεν καρποφοροῦντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. Hermas says: _Ascendunt
  vitæ assignati_. With Justin the water of baptism is a ὕδωρ τῆς
  ζωῆς, ἐξ οὗ ἀναγεννήθημεν, According to Irenæus it effects a
  ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν. Tertullian says: _Supervenit spiritus de
  cœlis,--caro spiritualiter mundatur_. Cyprian speaks of an _unda
  genitalis_, of a _nativitas secunda in novum hominem_. Firmilian
  says: _Nativitas, quæ est in baptismo, filios Dei generat_.
  Origen calls baptism χαρισμάτων θείων ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγήν.--Of the
  bloody baptism of martyrdom Tertullian exclaims: _Lavacrum non
  acceptum repræsentat et perditum reddit_. Hermes and Clement of
  Alexandria maintain that there will be in Hades a preaching and
  a baptism for the sake of pious Gentiles and Jews.

  § 35.5. =The Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism.=--The church of
  Asia Minor and Africa denied the validity of baptism administered
  by heretics; but the Roman church received heretics returning to
  the fold of the Catholic church, if only they had been baptized
  in the name of Christ or of the Holy Trinity, without a second
  baptism, simply laying on the hands as in the case of penitents.
  Stephen of Rome would tolerate no other than the Roman custom and
  hastened to break off church fellowship with those of Asia Minor
  (A.D. 253). Cyprian of Carthage whose ideal of the unity of that
  church in which alone salvation was to be obtained seemed to be
  overthrown by the Roman practice, and Firmilian of Cæsarea in
  Cappadocia, were the most vigorous supporters of the view
  condemned by Rome. Three Carthaginian Synods, the last and most
  important in A.D. 256, decided unequivocally in their favour.
  Dionysius of Alexandria sought to effect a reconciliation by
  writing a tenderly affectionate address to Stephen. To this end
  even more effectively wrought the Valerian persecution, which
  soon afterwards broke out, during which Stephen himself suffered
  martyrdom (A.D. 257). Thus the controversy reached no conclusion.
  The Roman practice, however, continued to receive more and more
  acceptance, and was confirmed by the first Œcumenical Council at
  Nicæa in A.D. 325, with the exclusion only of the Samosatians (§
  33, 8); likewise also at the Council at Constantinople in A.D.
  381, with the exclusion of the Montanists (§ 40, 1), the
  Eunomians (§ 50, 3) and the Sabellians (§ 33, 7). These
  exceptions, therefore, referred mostly to the Unitarian heretics,
  the Montanists being excluded on account of their doctrine of the
  Paraclete. Augustine’s successful polemic against the Donatists
  (§ 63, 1), in his treatise in seven books _De baptismo_ first
  overcame all objections hitherto waged against the validity of
  baptism administered by heretics derived from the objectivity of
  the sacrament, and henceforth all that was required was that it
  should be given in the name of the three-one God.


           § 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.[99]

  There was a tendency from the 2nd century onwards more and more to
dissolve the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the evening _Agape_
(§ 17, 7). Trajan’s strict prohibition of secret societies, _hetæræ_
(§ 22, 2) seems to have given the first occasion for the separation
of these two and for the temporary suppression of the love-feasts.
The Lord’s Supper was now observed during the Sunday forenoon service
and the mode of its observance is described even by Justin Martyr. In
consideration of the requirements of the Catechumens the service was
divided into two parts, a _homiletical_ and a _sacramental_, and from
the latter all unbaptized persons, as well as all under discipline
and those possessed of evil spirits, were excluded. Each part of the
service was regularly closed by a concluding benediction, and in the
West bore the designations respectively of _Missa catechumenorum_
and _Missa fidelium_, while in the East they were distinguished as
λειτουργία τῶν κατηχουμένων and λειτουργία τῶν πιστῶν. In connection
with this there grew up a notion that the sacramental action had
a mysterious character, _Disciplina arcani_. Owing to the original
connection of the Supper with the Agape it became customary to
provide the elements used in the ordinance from the voluntary gifts
brought by the members of the church, which were called _Oblationes_,
προσφοραί,--a designation which helped to associate the idea of
sacrifice with the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

  § 36.1. =The Agape.=--That in consequence of the imperial
  edict against secret societies, at least in Asia Minor, the
  much suspected and greatly maligned love-feasts (§ 22) were
  temporarily abandoned, appears from the report of Pliny to
  the Emperor, according to which the Christians of whom he made
  inquiries assured him that they had given up the _mos coeundi
  ad capiendum cibum promiscuum_. But in Africa they were still
  in use or had been revived in the time of Tertullian, who in his
  _Apology_ makes mention very approvingly of them, although at
  a later period, after he had joined the Montanists, he lashes
  them in his book _De Jejuniis_ with the most stinging sarcasm.
  Clement of Alexandria too is aware of flagrant abuses committed
  in connection with those feasts. They continued longest to be
  observed in connection with the services in commemoration of
  the dead and on the festivals of martyrs. The Council of Laodicæa,
  about the middle of the 4th century, forbade the holding of these
  in the churches and the Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 renewed
  this prohibition. After this we find no further mention of them.

  § 36.2. =The Missa Catechumenorum.=--The reading of scripture
  (ἀνάγνωσις, _Lectio_,--comp. § 36, 7) formed the chief exercise
  during this part of the service. There was unrestricted liberty
  as to the choice of the portions to be read. It was the duty of
  the Readers, Ἀναγνώσται, to perform this part of the worship,
  but frequently Evangelists on the invitation of the Deacons
  would read, and the whole congregation showed their reverence
  by standing up. At the close of the reading an expository and
  practical address (ὁμιλία, λόγος, _Sermo_, _Tractatus_) was given
  by the bishop or in his absence by a presbyter or deacon, or even
  by a Catechist, as in the case of Origen, and soon, especially in
  the Greek church, this assumed the form of an artistic, rhetorical
  discourse. The reading and exposition of God’s word were followed
  by the prayers, to which the people gave responses. These were
  uttered partly by the bishop, partly by the deacons, and were
  extemporary utterances of the heart, though very soon they
  assumed a stereotyped form. The congregation responded to each
  short sentence of the prayer with Κύριε ἐλέησον. In the fully
  developed order of public worship of the 3rd century the prayers
  were arranged to correspond to the different parts of the service,
  for Catechumens, energumens (possessed), and penitents. After
  all these came the common prayer of the church for all sorts of
  callings, conditions, and needs in the life of the brethren.

  § 36.3. =The _Missa Fidelium_.=--The centre of this part of the
  service was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In the time of
  Justin Martyr the liturgy connected therewith was very simple. The
  brotherly kiss followed the common prayer, then the sacramental
  elements were brought in to the ministrant who consecrated
  them by the prayer of praise and thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). The
  people answered Amen, and thereupon the consecrated elements
  were distributed to all those present. From that prayer the whole
  ordinance received the name εὐχαριστία, because its consecrating
  influence made common bread into the bread of the Supper. Much
  more elaborate is the liturgy in the 8th Book of the _Apostolic
  Constitutions_ (§ 43, 4), which may be regarded as a fair sample
  of the worship of the church toward the end of the 3rd century.
  At the close of the sermon during the prayers connected with
  that part of the service began the withdrawal successively of
  the Catechumens, the energumens and the penitents. Then the _Missa
  fidelium_ was commenced with the common intercessory prayer of
  the church. After various collects and responses there followed
  the brotherly kiss, exhortation against participation in unworthy
  pleasures, preparation of the sacramental elements, the sign of
  the cross, the consecration prayer, the words of institution, the
  elevation of the consecrated elements, all accompanied by suitable
  prayers, hymns, doxologies and responses. The bishop or presbyter
  distributed the bread with the words, Σῶμα Χριστοῦ; the deacon
  passed round the cup with the words, Αἷμα Χριστοῦ, ποτήριον ζωῆς.
  Finally the congregation kneeling received the blessing of the
  bishop, and the deacon dismissed them with the words, Ἀπολύεσθε
  ἐν εἰρήνῃ.--The bread was that commonly used, _i.e._, leavened
  bread (κοινὸς ἄρτος); the wine also was, according to the custom
  of time, mixed with water (κρᾶμα), in which Cyprian already
  fancied a symbol of the union of Christ and the church. In the
  African and Eastern churches, founding on John vi. 53, children,
  of course, those who had already been baptised, were allowed to
  partake of the communion. At the close of the service the deacons
  carried the consecrated sacramental elements to the sick and
  imprisoned. In many places a portion of the consecrated bread
  was taken home, that the family might use it at morning prayer
  for the consecration of the new day. No formal act of confession
  preceded the communion. The need of such an act in consequence
  of the existing disciplinary and liturgical ordinance had not yet
  made itself felt.

  § 36.4. =The Disciplina Arcani.=--The notion that the
  sacramental part of the divine service, including in this
  the prayers and hymns connected therewith, the Lord’s prayer,
  administration of baptism and the baptismal formula, as well as
  the anointing and the consecration of the priest, was a _mystery_
  (μυστικὴ λατρεία, τελετή) which was to be kept secret from all
  unbaptised persons (ἀμύητοι) and only to be practised in presence
  of the baptised (συμμύσται), is quite unknown to Justin Martyr
  and also to Irenæus. Justin accordingly describes in his Apology,
  expressly intended for the heathen, in full detail and without
  hesitation, all the parts of the eucharistic service. It was in
  Tertullian’s time that this notion originated, and it had its
  roots in the catechumenate and the consequent partition of the
  service into two parts, from the second of which the unbaptised
  were excluded. The official Roman Catholic theology, on the other
  hand, regards the _disciplina arcani_ as an institution existing
  from the times of the Apostles, and from it accounts for the want
  of patristic support to certain specifically Roman Catholic dogmas
  and forms of worship, in order that they may, in spite of the
  want of such support, maintain that these had a place in primitive
  Christianity.

  § 36.5. =The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.=--Though the idea
  was not sharply and clearly defined, there was yet a widespread
  and profound conviction that the Lord’s Supper was a supremely
  holy mystery, spiritual food indispensable to eternal life,
  that the body and blood of the Lord entered into some mystical
  connection with the bread and wine, and placed the believing
  partaker of them in true and essential fellowship with Christ.
  It was in consequence of the adoption of such modes of expression
  that the pagan calumnies about _Thyestian feasts_ (§ 22) first
  gained currency. Ignatius calls the Lord’s Supper a φάρμακον
  ἀθανασίας, the cup a ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος Χριστοῦ,
  and professes εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος. Justin Martyr
  says: σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. According to Irenæus,
  it is not _communis panis, sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus
  constans, terrena et cœlesti_, and our bodies by means of its
  use become _jam non corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia_.
  Tertullian and Cyprian, too, stoutly maintain this doctrine, but
  incline sometimes to a more symbolical interpretation of it. The
  spiritualistic Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, consider that
  the feeding of the soul with the divine word is the purpose of
  the Lord’s Supper.[100]--Continuation § 58, 2.

  § 36.6. =The Sacrificial Theory.=--When once the sacerdotal
  theory had gained the ascendancy (§ 34, 4) the correlated notion
  of a sacrifice could not much longer be kept in the background.
  And it was just in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that the
  most specious grounds for such a theory were to be found. First
  of all the prayer, which formed so important a part of this
  celebration that the whole service came to be called from it the
  Eucharist, might be regarded as a spiritual sacrifice. Then again
  the gifts brought by the congregation for the dispensation of the
  sacrament were called προσφοραί, _Oblationes_, names which were
  already in familiar use in connection with sacrificial worship.
  And just as the congregation offered their contributions to the
  Supper, so also the priests offered them anew in the sacramental
  action, and also to this priestly act was given the name
  προσφέρειν, ἀναφέρειν. Then again, not only the prayer but the
  Supper itself was designated a θυσία, _Sacrificium_, though at
  first indeed in a non-literal, figurative sense.--Continuation
  § 58, 3.

  § 36.7. =The Use of Scripture.=--In consequence of their
  possessing but few portions of Scripture, the references of the
  Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament books must necessarily be
  only occasional. The synoptic gospels are most frequently quoted,
  though these are referred to only as a whole under the name τὸ
  εὐαγγέλιον. In Justin Martyr the references become more frequent,
  yet even here there are no express citation of passages; only
  once, in the Dialogue, is the Revelation of John named. He
  mentions as his special source for the life and works of Jesus
  the Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. What he borrows from this
  source is for the most part to be found in our Synoptic Gospels;
  but we have not in this sufficient ground for identifying the one
  with the other. On the contrary, we find that the citations of our
  Lord’s words do not correspond to the text of our gospels, but are
  sometimes rather in verbal agreement with the Apocryphal writings,
  and still further, that he adopts Apocryphal accounts of the life
  of Jesus, _e.g._, the birth of Christ in a cave, the coming of
  the Magi from Arabia, the legend that Jesus as a carpenter made
  ploughs and yokes, etc., borrowing them from the Ἀπομνημονεύματα
  τῶν ἀποστόλων. If one further considers Justin’s account of the
  Sunday service as consisting of the reading of the Ἀπομνημονεύματα
  or the writings of the Prophets, and thereafter closed by the
  expository and hortatory address of the president (προεστώς), he
  will be led to the conclusion that his “Apostolic Memoirs” must
  have been a Gospel Harmony for church use, probably on the basis
  of Matthew’s Gospel drawn from our Synoptic Gospels, with the
  addition of some apocryphal and traditional elements. The author
  of the Didache too does not construct his “commands of the Lord
  communicated by the Apostles” directly from our Synoptic Gospels,
  but from a εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ κυρίου which presented a text of
  Matthew enriched by additions from Luke. The Diatessaron of
  Tatian (§ 30, 10) shows that soon after this the gospel of John,
  which was not regarded by Justin or the author of the Didache
  as a source for the evangelical history, although there are not
  wanting in both manifold references to it, came to be regarded
  as a work to be read in combination with these. It was only after
  a New Testament Canon had been in the Old Catholic Age gradually
  established, and from the vast multitude of books on gospel
  history, which even Luke had found existing (i. 1) and which
  had been multiplied to an almost incalculable extent both in the
  interests of heresy and of church doctrine, our four gospels were
  universally recognised as alone affording authentic information
  of the life and doctrines of the Lord, that the eclectic gospels
  hitherto in use had more and more withdrawn from them the favour
  of the church. =Tatian’s Diatessaron= maintained its place longest
  in the Syrian Church. Theodoret, † A.D. 457, testifies that in his
  diocese he had found and caused to be put away about two hundred
  copies. Aphraates (about A.D. 340, § 47, 13) still used it as the
  text of his homilies. At the time of publication of the _Doctrina
  Addæi_ (§ 32, 6) it was still used in the church of Edessa, and
  Ephraim Syrus in A.D. 360 refers to a commentary in the form of
  scholia on it in an Armenian translation, in which the passages
  commented on are literally reproduced, Theodoret’s charge against
  it of cutting out passages referring to the descent of Christ
  after the flesh from David, especially the genealogies of Matthew
  and Luke, is confirmed by these portions thus preserved. Otherwise
  however, it is free from heretical alterations, though not wholly
  without apocryphal additions. All the four gospels are in brief
  summary so skilfully wrought into one another that no joining
  is ever visible. What cannot be incorporated is simply left out,
  and the whole historical and doctrinal material is distributed
  over the one working year of the synoptists.

  § 36.8. =Formation of a New Testament Canon.=--The oldest
  collection of a New Testament Canon known to us was made by the
  Gnostic _Marcion_ (§ 27, 11) about A.D. 150. Some twenty years
  later in the so-called _Muratorian Canon_, a fragment found by
  Muratori in the 18th century with a catalogue in corrupt Latin
  justifying the reception of the New Testament writings received
  in the Roman church. For later times the chief witnesses are
  Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius.
  The Muratorian Canon and Eusebius are witnesses for the fact that
  in the 2nd century, besides the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles
  and the Revelation of John, other so-called Apostolic Epistles
  were read at worship in the churches, for instance, the _1st
  Ep. of Clement of Rome_, _the Ep. of Barnabas_, _the Shepherd
  of Hermas_, in some churches also the apocryphal _Apocalypse
  of Peter_ and _Acts of Paul_, in Corinth, an Ep. of the Roman
  bishop Soter (A.D. 166-174) to that church, and also _Acts of the
  Martyrs_. Montanist as well as Gnostic excesses gave occasion for
  the definite fixing of the New Testament Canon by the Catholic
  church (§ 40). Since the time of Irenæus, the four Gospels, the
  Acts, the 13 Epp. of Paul, the Ep. to the Hebrews (which some
  in the West did not regard as Pauline), 1st Peter, and 1st John,
  along with the Revelation of John, were universally acknowledged.
  Eusebius therefore calls these ὁμολογούμενα. There was still some
  uncertainty as to the Ep. of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John
  and Jude (ἀντιλεγόμενα). The antilegomena of a second class,
  which have no claim to canonicity, although in earlier times they
  were much used in churches just like the canonical scriptures,
  were called by him νόθα, viz. the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of
  Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the
  Didache. He would also very willingly have included among these
  the Revelation of John (§ 33, 9), although he acknowledged
  that elsewhere that is included in the Homologoumena.--=The Old
  Testament Canon= was naturally regarded as already completed. But
  since the Old Testament had come to the Greek and Latin Church
  Teachers in the expanded form of the LXX., they had unhesitatingly
  assumed that its added books were quite as sacred and as fully
  inspired as those of the Hebrew Canon. Melito of Sardis, however,
  about A.D. 170, found it desirable to make a journey of research
  through Palestine in order to determine the limits of the Jewish
  Canon, and then to draw up a list of the Holy Scriptures of the
  Old Testament essentially corresponding therewith. Origen too
  informs us that the Jews, according to the number of letters in
  their alphabet acknowledged only 22 books, which, however, does
  not lead him to condemn this reception of the additional books of
  the church. From the end of the 2nd century, the Western church
  had =Latin Translations= of the biblical books, the origin of
  which is to be sought in North Africa, where in consequence
  of prevailing ignorance of the Greek language the need of
  such translations was most deeply felt. Even so early as the
  beginning of the 5th century we find Jerome († 420) complaining
  of _varietas_ and _vitiositas_ of the _Codices latini_, and
  declaring: _Tot sunt exemplaria_ (=forms of the text) _paene
  quot codices_. Augustine[101] gives preference to the _Itala_
  over all others. The name =Itala= is now loosely given to all
  fragments of Latin translations previous to that of Jerome.--The
  Syriac translation, =the Peshito=, plain or simple (so-called
  because it exactly and without paraphrasing renders the words
  of the Hebrew and Greek originals) belongs to the 3rd century,
  although first expressly referred to by Ephraim. In it 2 Peter,
  2 and 3 John and Jude are not found.

  § 36.9. =The Doctrine of Inspiration.=--In earlier times it
  was usual, after the example of Philo, to regard the prophetic
  inspiration of the sacred writers as purely passive, as ἔκστασις.
  Athenagoras compares the soul of the prophet while prophesying
  to a flute; Justin Martyr in his _Cohort. ad Græc._ to a lyre,
  struck by the Holy Spirit as the _plectrum_, etc. The Montanist
  prophets first brought this theory into disrepute. The Apologist
  Miltiades of Asia Minor was the first Church Teacher who
  vindicated over against the Montanists the proposition: προφήτην
  μὴ δεῖν ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν. The Alexandrians who even admitted
  an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the nobler intellects of
  paganism, greatly modified the previously accepted doctrine
  of inspiration. Origen, for example, teaches a gradual rising
  or falling in the measure of inspiration even in the bible,
  and determines this according to the more or less prominence
  secured by the human individuality of the writers of scripture.

  § 36.10. =Hymnology.=--The _Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere
  secum invicem_ in the report of Pliny (§ 22, 2), may be classed
  with the antiphonal responsive hymns of the church. Tertullian
  bears witness to a rich use of song in family as well as
  congregational worship. So too does Origen. In the composition
  of church hymns the heretics seem for a long while to have kept
  abreast of the Catholics (Bardesanes and Harmonius, § 27, 5),
  but the latter were thereby stirred up to greater exertions.
  The Martyr Athenogenes and the Egyptian bishop Nepos are named
  as authors of church hymns. We have still a hymn εἰς Σωτῆρα by
  Clement of Alexandria. Socrates ascribes to Ignatius, bishop
  of Antioch, the introduction of the alternate-song (between
  different congregational choirs). More credible is Theodoret’s
  statement that the Antiochean monks Flavian and Diodorus had
  imported it, about A.D. 260, from the National Syrian into the
  Greek-Syrian church.--Continuation § 59, 4, 5.


               § 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.[102]

  Sunday as a day of joy was distinguished by standing at prayer,
instead of kneeling as at other times, and also by the prohibition
of fasting. Of the other days of the week, Wednesday, the day on
which the Jewish Council decided to put Jesus to death and Judas had
betrayed him, and Friday, as the day of his death, were consecrated
to the memory of Christ’s suffering; hence the _Feria quarta et sexta_
were celebrated as watch days, _dies stationum_, after the symbolism
of the _Militia christiana_ (Eph. vi. 10-17), by public meetings
of the congregation. As days of the Passion, penitence and fasting
they formed a striking contrast to the Sunday. The chief days of the
Christian festival calendar, which afterwards found richer and more
complete expression in the cycle of the Christian year, were thus
at first associated with the weekly cycle. A long continued and wide
spread controversy as to the proper time for celebrating Easter arose
during the 2nd century.

  § 37.1. =The Festivals of the Christian Year.=--The thought
  of Christ’s suffering and death was so powerful and engrossing
  that even in the weekly cycle one day had not been sufficient.
  Still less could one festal day in the yearly cycle satisfy
  the hearts of believers. Hence a long preparation for the
  festival was arranged, which was finally fixed at forty days,
  and was designated the season _Quadragesima_ (τεσσαρακοστή). Its
  conclusion and acme was the so-called Great Week, beginning with
  the Sunday of the entrance into Jerusalem, culminating in the day
  of the crucifixion, Good Friday, and closing with the day of rest
  in the tomb. This Great Week or Passion Week was regarded as the
  antitype of the Old Testament Passover feast. The Old Catholic
  church did not, however, transfer this name to the festival
  of the resurrection (§ 56, 4). The day of the resurrection
  was rather regarded as the beginning of a new festival cycle
  consecrated to the glorification of the redeemer, viz. the season
  of _Quinquagesima_ (πεντηκοστή), concluding with the festival
  of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the anniversary of the
  founding of the Christian church, which has now come to be known
  _par excellence_ as _Pentecost_. The fifty intervening days were
  simply days of joy. There was daily communion, no fasting, only
  standing and not kneeling at prayer. The fortieth day, the day
  of the _Ascension_, had a special pre-eminence as a day of festal
  celebrations. The festival of Epiphany on 6th January originated
  in the East to celebrate the baptism of Christ in Jordan, as the
  manifestation of his Messianic rank. As yet there is nowhere any
  trace of the Christmas festival.--Continuation, § 56.

  § 37.2. =The Paschal Controversies.=--During the 2nd century,
  there were three different practices prevalent in regard to the
  observance of the Paschal festival. The Ebionite Jewish Christians
  (§ 28, 1) held the Paschal feast on the 14th Nisan according to
  the strict literal interpretation of the Old Testament precepts,
  maintaining also that Christ, who according to the synoptists
  died on the 15th, observed the Passover with his disciples on
  the 14th. Then again the church of Asia Minor followed another
  practice which was traced back to the Apostle John. Those of Asia
  Minor attached themselves indeed in respect of date to the Jewish
  festival, but gave it a Christian meaning. They let the passover
  alone, and pronounced the memorial of Christ’s death to be the
  principal thing in the festival. According to their view, based
  upon the fourth Gospel, Christ died upon the 14th Nisan, so that
  He had not during the last year of His life observed a regular
  Passover. On the 14th Nisan, therefore, they celebrated their
  Paschal festival, ending their fast at the moment of Christ’s
  death, three o’clock in the afternoon, and then, instead of the
  Jewish Passover, having an Agape with the Lord’s Supper. Those who
  adopted either of those two forms were at a later period called
  _Quartodecimans_ or _Tessareskaidekatites_. Different from both
  of these was a third practice followed in all the West, as also
  in Egypt, Palestine, Pontus and Greece, which detached itself
  still further from the Jewish Passover. This Western usage
  disregarded the day of the month in order to secure the observance
  of the great resurrection festival on the first day of the week.
  The πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, then, if the 14th did not happen to be a
  Friday, was always celebrated on the first Friday after the 14th,
  and the Easter festival with the observance of the Lord’s Supper
  on the immediately following Sunday. The Westerns regarded the
  day of Christ’s death as properly a day of mourning, and only
  at the end of the pre-Easter fast on the day of the Resurrection
  introduced the celebration of the Agape and the Lord’s Supper.
  These divergent practices first awakened attention on the
  appearing of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at Rome in A.D. 155.
  The Roman bishop Anicetus referred to the tradition of the Roman
  Church; Polycarp laid stress upon the fact that he himself had
  celebrated the Paschal festival after the manner followed in
  Asia Minor along with the Apostle John. No common agreement was
  reached at this time; but, in token of their undisturbed church
  fellowship, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to dispense the communion
  in his church. Some fifteen years later a party, not distinctly
  particularised, obtained at Laodicea in Phrygia sanction for
  the Ebionite practice with strict observance of the time of
  the Passover, and awakened thereby a lively controversy in the
  church of Asia Minor, in which opposite sides were taken by the
  Apologists, Apollinaris and Melito (§ 30, 7). The dispute assumed
  more serious dimensions about A.D. 196 through the passionate
  proceedings of the Roman bishop Victor. Roused probably by the
  agitation of a Quartodeciman named Blastus then in Rome, he urged
  upon the most distinguished bishops of the East and West the
  need of holding a Synod to secure the unequivocal vindication
  of the Roman practice. On this account many Synods were held,
  which almost invariably gave a favourable verdict. Only those
  of Asia Minor with Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus at their head,
  entered a vigorous protest against the pretensions of Rome, and
  notwithstanding all the Roman threatenings determined to stand
  by their own well established custom. Victor now went the length
  of breaking off church fellowship with them, but this extreme
  procedure met with little favour. Even Irenæus expressed himself
  to the Gallican bishops as opposed to it.--Continuation § 56, 3.

  § 37.3. =The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting.=--The
  Didache gives evidence that even at so early a date, the regular
  fasts were religiously observed on the _Dies stationum_ by
  expressly forbidding fasting “with hypocrites” (Jews and Jewish
  Christians, Luke xviii. 12) on Monday and Thursday, instead of
  the Christian practice of so observing Wednesday and Friday. The
  usual fast continued as a rule only till three o’clock in the
  afternoon (Semijejunia, Acts x. 9, 30; iii. 1). In Passion week
  the Saturday night, which, at other times, just like the Sunday,
  was excluded from the fasting period, as part of the day during
  which Christ lay buried, was included in the forty-hours’ fast,
  representing the period during which Christ lay in the grave.
  This was afterwards gradually lengthened out into the forty-days’
  fast of Lent (Exod. xxxiv. 28; 1 Kings xix. 8; Matt. iv. 2), in
  which, however, the _jejunium_ proper was limited to the _Dies
  Stationum_, and for the rest of the days only the ξηροφαγίαι,
  first forbidden by the Montanists (§ 40, 4), _i.e._ all fattening
  foods, such as flesh, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, etc., were
  abstained from.--On fasting preparatory to baptism, see § 35, 1.
  The Didache, c. i. 3, adds to the gospel injunction that we should
  pray for our persecutors (Matt. v. 44) the further counsel that
  we should fast for them. The meaning of the writer seems to be
  that we should strengthen our prayers for persecutors by fasting.
  Hermas, on the other hand, recommends fasting in order that we may
  thereby spare something for the poor; and Origen says that he read
  _in quodam libello_ as _ab apostolis dictum: Beatus est, qui etiam
  jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem_.


            § 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS.

  The earliest certain traces of special buildings for divine worship
which had been held previously in private houses of Christians are met
with in Tertullian about the end of the 2nd century. In Diocletian’s
time Nicomedia became a royal residence and hard by the emperor’s
palace a beautiful church proudly reared its head (§ 22, 6), and even
in the beginning of the 3rd century Rome had forty churches. We know
little about the form and arrangement of these churches. Tertullian
and Cyprian speak of an altar or table for the preparation of the
Lord’s supper and a desk for the reading, and in the _Apostolic
Constitutions_ it is required that the building should be oblong in
shape. The wide-spread tradition that in times of sore persecution
the worshippers betook themselves to the Catacombs is evidently
inconsistent with the limited space which these afforded. On the
other hand, the painter whose works, by a decree of a Spanish Council
in A.D. 306, were banished from the churches, found here a suitable
place for the practice of sacred art.

  § 38.1. =The Catacombs.=--The Christian burying places were
  generally called κοιμητήρια, _Dormitoria_. They were laid out
  sometimes in the open fields (_Areæ_), sometimes, where the
  district was suitable for that, hewn out in the rock (κρύπται,
  crypts). This latter term was, by the middle of the 4th century,
  quite interchangeable with the name _Catacumbæ_, (κατὰ κύμβας=in
  the caves). The custom of laying the dead in natural or rock-hewn
  caves was familiar to pagan antiquity, especially in the East.
  But the recesses used for this purpose were only private or family
  vaults. Their growth into catacombs or subterranean necropolises
  for larger companies bound together by their one religion without
  distinctions of rank (Gal. iii. 28), first arose on Christian
  soil from a consciousness that their fellowship transcended death
  and the grave. For the accomplishment of this difficult and costly
  undertaking, Christian burial societies were formed after the
  pattern of similar institutions of paganism (§ 17, 3). Specially
  numerous and extensive necropolises have been found laid out in
  the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. But also in Malta, in Naples,
  Syracuse, Palermo, and other cities, this mode of sepulchre
  found favour. The Roman catacombs, of which in the hilly district
  round about the eternal city fifty-eight have been counted in
  fourteen different highways, are almost all laid out in the white
  porous tufa stone which is there so abundant, and useful neither
  for building nor for mortar. It is thus apparent that these are
  neither wrought-out quarries nor gravel pits (_Arenariæ_), but
  were set in order from the first as cemeteries. A few _Arenariæ_
  may indeed have been used as catacombs, but then the sides with
  the burial niches consist of regularly built walls. The Roman
  Catacombs in the tufa stone form labyrinthine, twisting, steep
  galleries only 3 or 4 feet broad, with rectangular corners caused
  by countless intersections. Their perpendicular sides varied
  greatly in height and in them the burial niches, _Loculi_, were
  hewn out one above the other, and on the reception of the body
  were built up or hermetically sealed with a stone slab bearing
  an inscription and a Christian symbol. The wealthy laid their
  dead in costly marble sarcophagi or stone coffins ornamented with
  bas-reliefs. The walls too and the low-arched roofs were adorned
  with symbols and pictures of scripture scenes. From the principal
  passages many side paths branched off to so-called burial
  chambers, _Cubicula_, which were furnished with shafts opening
  up to the surface and affording air and light, _Luminaria_. In
  many of these chambers, sometimes even in the passages, instead
  of simple _Loculi_ we meet with the so-called _Arcosolium_ as the
  more usual form; one or more coffin-shaped grooves hewn out in the
  rocky wall are covered with an altar-shaped marble plate, and over
  this plate, _Mensa_, is a semicircular niche hewn out spreading
  over it in its whole extent. These chambers are often held
  in reverence as “catacomb churches,” but they are so small in
  size that they could only accommodate a very limited number,
  such as might gather perhaps at the commemoration of a martyr or
  the members of a single family. And even where two or three such
  chambers adjoin one another, connected together by doors and
  having a common lighting shaft, accommodating at furthest about
  twenty people, they could not be regarded as meeting-places for
  public congregations properly so called.--Where the deposit of
  tufa stone was sufficiently large, there were several stories
  (_Piani_), as many as four or five connected by stairs, laid
  out one above the other in galleries and chambers. According to
  _de Rossi’s_[103] moderate calculation there have been opened
  altogether up to this time so many passages in the catacombs
  that if they were put in a line they would form a street of
  120 geographical miles. Their oldest inscriptions or epitaphs date
  from the first years of the second century. After the destruction
  of Rome by the hordes of Alaric in A.D. 410, the custom of burying
  in them almost entirely ceased. Thereafter they were used only
  as places of pilgrimage and spots where martyr’s relics were
  worshipped. From this time the most of the so-called _Graffiti_,
  _i.e._ scribblings of visitors on the walls, consisting of pious
  wishes and prayers, had their origin. The marauding expedition of
  the Longobard Aistulf into Roman territory in A.D. 756, in which
  even the catacombs were stripped of their treasures, led Pope
  Paul I. to transfer the relics of all notable martyrs to their
  Roman churches and cloisters. Then pilgrimages to the catacombs
  ceased, their entrances got blocked up, and the few which in later
  times were still accessible, were only sought out by a few novelty
  hunting strangers. Thus the whole affair was nigh forgotten until
  in A.D. 1578 a new and lively interest was awakened by the chance
  opening up again of one of those closed passages. Ant. Bosio from
  A.D. 1593 till his death in A.D. 1629, often at the risk of his
  life, devoted all his time and energies to their exploration. But
  great as his discoveries were, they have been completely outdone
  by the researches of the Roman nobleman, Giov. Battista de Rossi,
  who, working unweariedly at his task since A.D. 1849 till the
  present time, is recognised as the great master of the subject,
  although even his investigations are often too much dominated
  by Roman Catholic prejudices and by undue regard for traditional
  views.[104]

  § 38.2. =The Antiquities of the Catacombs.=--The custom widely
  spread in ancient times and originating in piety or superstition
  of placing in the tombs the utensils that had been used by
  the deceased during life was continued, as the contents of
  many burial niches show among the early Christians. Children’s
  toys were placed beside them in the grave, and the clothes,
  jewels, ornaments, amulets, etc., of grown up people. Quite a
  special interest attaches to the so-called Blood Vases, _Phiolæ
  rubricatæ_, which have been found in or near many of these niches,
  _i.e._ crystal, rarely earthenware, vessels with Christian symbols
  figured on a red ground. The _Congregation of rites and relics_
  in A.D. 1668, asserted that they were blood-vessels, in which the
  blood of the martyrs had been preserved and stood alongside of
  their bones; and the existence of such jars, as well as every
  pictorial representation of the palm branch (Rev. vii. 9),
  was supposed to afford an indubitable proof that the niches
  in question contained the bones of martyrs. But the Reformed
  theologian Basnage shows that this assumption is quite untenable,
  and he has explained the red ground from the dregs of the red
  sacramental wine which may have been placed in the burial niches
  as a protection against demoniacal intrusion. Even many good
  Roman Catholic archæologists, Mabillon, Papebroch, Tillemont,
  Muratori, etc., contest or express doubts as to the decree of the
  _Congregation_. At the instigation probably of the Belgian Jesuit
  Vict. de Buck, Pius IX. in A.D. 1863 confirmed and renewed the
  old decree, and among others, Xav. Kraus has appeared as its
  defender. But a great multitude of unquestionable facts contradict
  the official decree of the church; _e.g._ the total absence
  of any support to this view in tradition, the silence of such
  inscriptions as relate to the martyrs, above all the immense
  number of these jars, their being found frequently alongside the
  bones of children of seven years old, the remarkable frequency
  of them in the times of Constantine and his successors which were
  free from persecution, the absence of the red dregs in many jars,
  etc. Since dregs of wine, owing to their having the vegetable
  property of combinableness could scarcely be discernible down
  to the present day, it has recently been suggested that the red
  colour may have been produced by a mineral-chemical process as
  oxide of iron.

  § 38.3. =Pictorial Art and the Catacombs.=--Many of the earliest
  Christians may have inherited a certain dislike of the pictorial
  arts from Judaism, and may have been confirmed therein by their
  abhorrence of the frivolous and godless abuse of art in heathenism.
  But this aversion which in a Tertullian grew from a Montanistic
  rigorism into a fanatical hatred of art, is never met with as a
  constituent characteristic of Christianity. Much rather the great
  abundance of paintings on the walls of the Roman and Neapolitan
  catacombs, of which many, and these not the meanest, belong
  to the 2nd century, some indeed perhaps to the last decades of
  the 1st century, serves to show how general and lively was the
  artistic sense among the earliest Christians at least in the
  larger and wealthier communities. Yet from its circumstances the
  Christian church in its appreciation of art was almost necessarily
  limited on two sides; for, on the one hand, no paintings were
  tolerated in the churches, and on the other hand, even in private
  houses and catacombs they were restricted almost exclusively to
  symbolico-allegorical or typical representations. The 36th Canon
  of the Council of Elvira in A.D. 306 is a witness for the first
  statement when it says: _Placuit picturas in ecclesia non esse
  debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur_.
  The plain words of the Canon forbid any other interpretation
  than this: From the churches, as places where public worship is
  regularly held, all pictorial representations must be banished,
  in order to make certain that in and under them there might not
  creep in those images, forbidden in the decalogue, of Him who
  is the object of worship and adoration. The Council thus assumed
  practically the same standpoint as the Reformed church in the
  16th century did in opposition to the practice of the Roman
  Catholic and Lutheran churches. It cannot, however, be maintained
  that the Canon of this rigorous Council (§ 45, 2) found general
  acceptance and enforcement outside of Spain--Proof of the
  second limitation is as convincingly afforded by what we find
  in the catacombs. On the positive side, it has its roots in the
  fondness which prevailed during these times for the mystical and
  allegorical interpretation of scripture; and on the negative side,
  in the endeavour, partly in respect for the prohibition of images
  contained in the decalogue, partly, and perhaps mainly, in the
  interests of the so-called _Disciplina arcani_, fostered under
  pressure of persecution, to represent everything that pertained
  to the mysteries of the Christian faith as a matter which only
  Christians have a right fully to understand. From the prominence
  given to the point last referred to it may be explained how
  amid the revolution that took place under Constantine the age of
  Symbolism and Allegory in the history of Christian art also passed
  away, and henceforth painters applied themselves pre-eminently to
  realistic historical representations.

    § 38.4. The pictorial and artistic representations of
    the pre-Constantine age may be divided into the six following
    groups:--

    a. =Significant Symbols.=--To these belong especially _the
       cross_,[105] though, for fear of the reproaches of Jews
       and heathens (§ 23, 2), not yet in its own proper form but
       only in a form that indicated what was meant, namely in
       the form of the Greek Τ, very frequently in later times in
       the monogram of the name of Christ, _i.e._ in a variously
       constructed combination of its first two letters Χ and Ρ,
       while the Χ, as _crux dissimulatæ_, has very often on
       either side the letters α and ω.

    b. =Allegorical Figures.=--In the 4th century a particularly
       favourite figure was that of the _Fish_, the name of
       which, ἰχθύς, formed a highly significant monogrammatic
       representation of the sentence, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς
       Σωτήρ, and which pointed strikingly to the new birth from
       the water of baptism. Then there is the _lamb_ or _sheep_,
       as symbol of the soul, which still in this life seeks
       after spiritual pastures; and the _dove_ as symbol of
       the pious believing soul passing into eternal rest, often
       with an _olive branch_ in its mouth (Gen. viii. 11), as
       symbol of the eternal peace won. Also we have the _hart_
       (Ps. xlii. 1), the _eagle_ (Ps. ciii. 5), the _chicken_,
       symbol of Christian growth, the _peacock_, symbol of
       the resurrection on account of the annual renewal of its
       beautiful plumage, the _dolphin_, symbol of hastiness
       or eagerness in the appropriation of salvation, _the
       horse_, symbol of the race unto the goal of eternal life,
       _the hare_, as symbol of the Christian working out his
       salvation with fear and trembling, _the ship_, with
       reference to Noah’s ark as a figure of the church, _the
       anchor_ (Heb. vi. 19), _the lyre_ (Eph. v. 19), _the palm
       branch_ (Rev. vii. 9), _the garland_ (or crown of life,
       Rev. ii. 9), _the lily_ (Matt. vi. 28), _the balances_,
       symbol of divine righteousness, _fishes and bread_,
       symbol of spiritual nourishment with reference to Christ’s
       miracle of feeding in the wilderness, etc.

    c. =Parabolic Figures.=--These are illustrations borrowed from
       the parables of the Gospels. To these belong conspicuously
       the figure of the _Good Shepherd_, who bears on His
       shoulder the lost sheep that He had found (Luke xv. 5),
       the _Vine Stock_ (John xv.), the _Sower_ (Matt. xiii. 3),
       the _Marriage Feast_ (Matt. xxii.), the _Ten Virgins_
       (Matt. xxv.), etc.

    d. =Historical Pictures of O. T. Types.=--Among these we
       have Adam and Eve, the Rivers of Paradise (as types of
       the four evangelists), Abel and Cain, Noah in the Ark, the
       Sacrifice of Isaac, Scenes from Joseph’s History, Moses at
       the Burning Bush, the Passage of the Red Sea, the Falling
       of the Manna, the Water out of the Rock, History of Job,
       Samson with the Gates of Gaza (the gates of Hell), David’s
       Victory over Goliath, Elijah’s Ascension, Scenes from the
       History of Jonah and Tobit, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, the
       Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, etc. Also typical
       material from heathen mythology had a place assigned them,
       such as the legends of Hercules, Theseus, and especially
       of Orpheus who by his music bewitched the raging elements
       and tamed the wild beasts, descended into the lower world
       and met his death through the infuriated women of his own
       race.

    e. =Figures from the Gospel History.=--These, _e.g._ the
       Visit of the Wise Men from the East, and the Resurrection
       of Lazarus, are throughout this period still exceedingly
       rare. We do not find a single representation of the
       Passion of our Lord, nor any of the sufferings of Christian
       martyrs. Pictorial representations of the person of Christ,
       as a beardless youth with a friendly mild expression,
       are met with in the catacombs from the first half of the
       2nd century, but without any claim to supply the likeness
       of a portrait, such as might be claimed for the figures of
       Christ in the temple of the Carpocratians (§ 27, 8) and in
       the Lararium of the Emperor Alexander Severus (§ 22, 4).
       Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, in accordance with
       the literal interpretation of Isa. liii. 2, 3, thought
       that Christ had an unattractive face; the post-Constantine
       fathers, on the contrary, resting upon Ps. xlv. 3 and
       John i. 14, thought of Him as beautiful and gracious.

    f. =Liturgical Figures.=--These were connected only with the
       ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.


              § 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE.[106]

  When the chaff had been so relentlessly severed from the wheat
by the persecutions of that age, a moral earnestness and a power of
denying the world and self must have been developed, sustained by
the divine power of the gospel and furthered by a strict and rigorous
application of church discipline to the Christian life, such as the
world had never seen before. What most excited and deserved wonder
in the sphere of heathendom, hitherto accustomed only to the reign
of selfishness, was the brotherly love of the Christians, their
systematic care of the poor and sick, the widespread hospitality,
the sanctity of marriage, the delight in martyrdom, etc. Marriages
with Jews, heathens and heretics were disapproved, frequently even the
celebration of a second marriage after the death of the first wife was
disallowed. Public amusements, dances, and theatres were avoided by
Christians as _Pompa diaboli_. They thought of the Christian life,
in accordance with Eph. vi. 10 ff., as _Militia Christi_. But even
in the Post-Apostolic Age we come upon indications of a tendency to
turn from the evangelical spirituality, freedom and simplicity of the
Apostolic Age toward a pseudo-catholic externalism and legalism in the
fundamental views taken of ethical problems, and at the same time and
in the same way in the departments of the church constitution (§ 34),
worship (§ 36) and exposition of doctrine (§ 30, 2). The teachers of
the church do still indeed maintain the necessity of a disposition
corresponding to the outward works, but by an over-estimation of
these they already prepare the way for the doctrine of merit and the
_opus operatum_, _i.e._ the meritoriousness of works in themselves.
Even the _Epistle of Barnabas_ and the _Didache_ reckon almsgiving
as an atonement for sins. Still more conspicuously is this tendency
exhibited by _Cyprian_ (_De Opere et eleemosynis_) and even in
the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (§ 30, 4) we find the beginnings of the
later distinction, based upon 1 Cor. vii. 25, 26; Matt. xxv. 21, and
Luke xviii. 10, between the divine commands, _Mandata_ or _Præcepta_,
which are binding upon all Christians, and the evangelical counsels,
_Consilia evangelica_, the non-performance of which is no sin, but the
doing of which secures a claim to merit and more full divine approval.
Among the Alexandrian theologians, too, under the influence of the
Greek philosophy a very similar idea was developed in the distinction
between higher and lower morality, after the former of which the
Christian sage (ὁ γνωστικός) is required to shine, while the ordinary
Christian may rest satisfied with the latter. On such a basis a
special order of Ascetics very early made its appearance in the
churches. Those who went the length of renouncing the world and
going out into the wilderness were called Anchorets. This order
first assumed considerable dimensions in the 4th century (§ 44).

  § 39.1. =Christian Morals and Manners.=--The Christian spirit
  pervaded the domestic and civil life and here formed for itself
  a code of Christian morals. It expressed itself in the family
  devotions and family communions (§ 36, 3), in putting the sign
  of the cross upon all callings in life, in the Christian symbols
  (§ 38, 3) with which dwellings, garments, walls, lamps, cups,
  glasses, rings, etc. were adorned. As to private worship the
  Didache requires without fixing the hours that the head of the
  household shall have prayers three times a day (Dan. vi. 30),
  meaning probably, as with Origen, morning, noon, and night.
  Tertullian specifies the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours as the hours
  of prayer, and distinctly demands a separate morning and evening
  prayer.--The concluding of marriage according to the then existing
  Roman law had to be formally carried through by the expressed
  agreement of the parties in the presence of witnesses, and this
  on the part of the church was regarded as valid. The Christian
  custom required that there should be a previous making of it
  known, _Professio_, to the bishop, and a subsequent going to the
  church of the newly married pair in order that, amid the church’s
  intercessions and the priestly benediction, a religious sanction
  might be given to their marriage covenant, by the oblation
  and common participation of the Lord’s Supper at the close of
  the public services. Tertullian’s Montanistic rigorism shows
  itself in regarding marriages where these are omitted, _occultæ
  conjunctiones_, as no better than _mœchia_ and _fornicatio_. The
  crowning of the two betrothed ones and the veiling of the bride
  were still disallowed as heathenish practices; but the use of the
  wedding ring was sanctioned at an early date and had a Christian
  significance attached to it. The burning of dead bodies prevalent
  among the heathens reminded them of hell fire; the Christians
  therefore preferred the Jewish custom of burial and referred in
  support to 1 Cor. xv. 36. The day of the deaths of their deceased
  members were celebrated in the Christian families by prayer and
  oblations in testimony of their fellowship remaining unbroken by
  death and the grave.--Continuation § 61, 2, 3.

  § 39.2. =The Penitential Discipline.=--According to the
  Apostolic ordinance (§ 17, 8) notorious sinners were excluded
  from the fellowship of the church, _Excommunicatio_, and only
  after prolonged trial of their penitence, _Exomologesis_,
  were they received back again, _Reconciliatio_. In the time
  of Cyprian, about A.D. 250, there was already a well defined
  order of procedure in this matter of restoring the lapsed which
  continued in force until the 5th century. Penance, _Pœnitentia_,
  must extend through four stages, each of which according to
  circumstances might require one or more years. During the first
  stage, the πρόσκλαυσις, _Fletio_, the penitents, standing at
  the church doors in mourning dress, made supplication to the
  clergy and the congregation for restoration; in the second,
  the ἀκρόασις, _Auditio_, they were admitted again to the reading
  of the scriptures and the sermon, but still kept in a separate
  place; in the third, ὑπόπτωσις, _Substratio_, they were allowed
  to kneel at prayer; and finally, in the fourth, σύστασις,
  _Consistentia_, they took part again in the whole of the public
  services, with the exception of the communion which they were
  only allowed to look at standing. Then they received Absolution
  and Reconciliation (=_pacem dare_) in presence of the assembled
  and acquiescing congregation by the imposition of the hands
  of the bishop and the whole of the clergy, together with
  the brotherly kiss and the partaking of the communion. This
  procedure was directed against open and demonstrable sins
  of a serious nature against the two tables of the decalogue,
  against so called _deadly sins_, _Peccata_ or _crimina mortalia_,
  1 John v. 16. Excommunication was called forth, on the one
  side, against idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy from the faith and
  abjuration thereof; on the other, against murder, adultery and
  fornication, theft and lying, perfidy and false swearing. Whether
  reconciliation was permissible in the case of any mortal sin at
  all, and if so, what particular sins might thus be treated, were
  questions upon which teachers of the church were much divided
  during the 3rd century. But only the Montanists and Novatians
  (§§ 40, 41) denied the permissibility utterly and that in
  opposition to the prevailing practice of the church, which
  refused reconciliation absolutely only in cases of idolatry
  and murder, and sometimes also in the case of adultery.
  Even Cyprian at first held firmly by the principle that all
  mortal sins committed “against God” must be wholly excluded
  from the range of penitential discipline, but amid the horrors
  of the Decian persecution, which left behind it whole crowds
  of fallen ones, _Lapsi_ (§ 22, 5), he was induced by the
  passionate entreaties of the church to make the concession that
  reconciliation should be granted to the _Libellatici_ after a
  full penitential course, but to the _Sacrificati_ only when in
  danger of death. All the teachers of the church, however, agree
  in holding that it can be granted only once in this life, and
  those who again fall away are cut off absolutely. But excessive
  strictness in the treatment of the penitents called forth the
  contrary extreme of undue laxity (§ 41, 2). The _Confessors_
  frequently used their right of demanding the restoration of the
  fallen by means of letters of recommendation, _Libelli pacis_,
  to such an extent as to seriously interfere with a wholesome
  discipline.[107]--Continuation § 61, 1.

  § 39.3. =Asceticism.=--The Ascetism (_Continentia_, ἐγκρατεία)
  of heathenism and Judaism, of Pythagoreanism and Essenism,
  resting on dualistic and pseudo-spiritualistic views, is
  confronted in Christianity with the proposition: Πάντα ὑμῶν
  ἐστιν (1 Cor. iii. 21; vi. 12). Christianity, however, also
  recognised the ethical value and relative wholesomeness of a
  moderate asceticism in proportion to individual temperament,
  needs and circumstances (Matt. ix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 5-7), without
  demanding it or regarding it as something meritorious. This
  evangelical moderation we also find still in the 2nd century,
  _e.g._ in Ignatius. But very soon a gradual exaggeration becomes
  apparent and an ever-advancing over estimation of asceticism as a
  higher degree of morality with claims to be considered peculiarly
  meritorious. The negative requirements of asceticism are directed
  first of all to frequent and rigid fasts and to celibacy or
  abstinence from marital intercourse; its positive requirements,
  to the exercise of the spiritual life in prayer and meditation.
  The most of the =Ascetics=, too, in accordance with Luke xviii. 24,
  voluntarily divested themselves of their possessions. The number
  of them, men and women, increased, and even in the first half
  of the 2nd century, they formed a distinct order in the church,
  though they were not yet bound to observe this mode of life by any
  irrevocable vows. The idea that the clergy were in a special sense
  called to an ascetic life resulted in their being designated the
  κλῆρος Θεοῦ. Owing to the interpretation given to 1 Tim. iii. 2,
  second marriages were in the 2nd century prohibited among the
  clergy, and in the 3rd century it was regarded as improper for
  them after ordination to continue marital intercourse. But it was
  first at the Council of Elvira, in A.D. 306, that this opinion was
  elevated into a law, though it could not even then be rigorously
  enforced (§ 45, 2).--The immoral practice of ascetics or clerics
  having with them virgins devoted to God’s service as _Sorores_,
  ἀδελφαί on the ground of 1 Cor. ix. 5, with whom they were united
  in spiritual love, in order to show their superiority to the
  temptations of the flesh, seems to have been introduced as early
  as the 2nd century. In the middle of the 3rd century it was
  already widespread. Cyprian repeatedly inveighs against it.
  We learn from him that the so-called _Sorores_ slept with the
  Ascetics in one bed and surrendered themselves to the tenderest
  caresses. For proof of the purity of their relations they referred
  to the examinations of midwives. Among bishops, Paul of Samosata
  in Antioch (§ 33, 8) seems to have been the first who favoured
  this evil custom by his own example. The popular wit of the
  Antiochenes [Antiocheans] invented for the more than doubtful
  relationship the name of the γυναίκες συνεισάκτοι, _Subintroductæ_,
  _Agapetæ_, _Extreneæ_. Bishops and Councils sent forth strict
  decrees against the practice.--The most remarkable among the
  celebrated ascetics of the age was =Hieracas=, who lived at
  Leontopolis in Egypt toward the end of the 3rd and beginning of
  the 4th century and died there when ninety years old. A pupil
  of Origen, he was distinguished for great learning, favoured
  the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, a spiritualistic
  dogmatics and strict asceticism. Besides this he was a physician,
  astronomer and writer of hymns, could repeat by heart almost all
  the Old and New Testaments, wrote commentaries in Greek and Coptic,
  and gathered round him a numerous society of men and women, who
  accepted his ascetical principles and heterodox views. Founding
  upon Matt. xix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. and Heb. xii. 14, he maintained
  that celibacy was the only perfectly sure way to blessedness
  and commended this doctrine as the essential advance from the
  Old Testament to the New Testament morality. He even denied
  salvation to Christian children dying in infancy because they had
  not yet fought against sensuality, referring to 2 Tim. ii. 5. Of
  a sensible paradise he would hear nothing, and just as little of
  a bodily resurrection; for the one he interprets allegorically
  and the other spiritually. Epiphanius, to whom we owe any precise
  information that we have about him, is the first to assign him
  and his followers a place in the list of heretics.

    § 39.4. =Paul of Thebes.=--The withdrawal of particular
  ascetics from ascetical motives into the wilderness, which was
  a favourite craze for a while, may have been suggested by Old
  and New Testament examples, _e.g._ 1 Kings xvii. 3; xix. 4;
  Luke i. 80; iv. 1; but it was more frequently the result of sore
  persecution. Of a regular professional institution of anchorets
  with life-long vows there does not yet appear any authentic trace.
  According to Jerome’s _Vita Pauli monachi_ a certain =Paul of
  Thebes= in Egypt, about A.D. 250, during the Decian persecution,
  betook himself, when sixteen years old, to the wilderness, and
  there forgotten by all the world but daily fed by a raven with
  half a loaf (1 Kings xvii. 4), he lived for ninety-seven years
  in a cave in a rock, until St. Anthony (§ 44, 1), directed
  to him by divine revelation and led to him first by a centaur,
  half man, half horse, then by a fawn, and finally by a she-wolf,
  came upon him happily just when the raven had brought him as
  it never did before a whole loaf. He was just in time to be
  an eye-witness, not indeed of his death, but rather of his
  subsequent ascension into heaven, accompanied by angels, prophets
  and apostles, and to arrange for the burial of his mortal remains,
  for the reception of which two lions, uttering heart-breaking
  groans, dug a grave with their claws. These lions after earnestly
  seeking and obtaining a blessing from St. Anthony, returned back
  to their lair.--Contemporaries of the author, as indeed he himself
  tells, declared that the whole story was a tissue of lies. Church
  history, however, until quite recently, has invariably maintained
  that there must have been some historical foundation, though it
  might be very slight, for such a superstructure. But seeing that
  no single writer before Jerome seems to know even the name of Paul
  of Thebes and also that the _Vita Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius
  knows nothing at all of such a wonderful expedition of the saint,
  Weingarten (§ 44) has denied that there ever existed such a man
  as this Paul, and has pronounced the story of Jerome to be a
  monkish Robinson Crusoe, such as the popular taste then favoured,
  which the author put forth as true history _ad majorem monachatus
  gloriam_. We may simply apply to this book itself what Jerome
  at a later period confessed about his epistles of that same
  date _ad Heliodorum:--sed in illo opere pio ætate tunc lusimus
  et celentibus adhuc Rhetorum studiis atque doctrinis quædam
  scholastico flore depinximus_.

  § 39.5. =Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs.=--In very early
  times a martyr death was prized as a sin-atoning _Lavacrum
  sanguinis_, which might even abundantly compensate for the want
  of water baptism. The day of the martyr’s death which was
  regarded as the day of his birth into a higher life, γενέθλια,
  _Natalitia martyrum_, was celebrated at his grave by prayers,
  oblations and administration of the Lord’s Supper as a testimony
  to the continuance of that fellowship with them in the Lord that
  had been begun here below. Their bones were therefore gathered
  with the greatest care and solemnly buried; so _e.g._ Polycarp’s
  bones at Smyrna (§ 22, 2), as τιμιώτερα λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ
  δωκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον, so that at the spot where they were
  laid the brethren might be able to celebrate his γενέθλιον ἐν
  ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ, εἴς τε τῶν προηθληκότων μνήμην καὶ τῶν
  μελλόντων τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν. Of miracles wrought by means of
  the relics, however, we as yet find no mention. The _Graffiti_
  on the walls of the catacombs seem to represent the beginning
  of the invocation of martyrs. In these the pious visitors seek
  for themselves and those belonging to them an interest in the
  martyr’s intercessions. Some of those scribblings may belong
  to the end of our period; at least the expression “_Otia petite
  pro_,” etc. in one of them seem to point to a time when they
  were still undergoing persecution. The greatest reverence, too,
  was shown to the _Confessors_ all through their lives, and great
  influence was assigned them in regard to all church affairs,
  _e.g._ in the election of bishops, the restoration of the fallen,
  etc.--Continuation, § 57.

  § 39.6. =Superstition.=--Just as in later times every great
  Christian missionary enterprise has seen religious ideas
  transferred from the old heathenism into the young Christianity,
  and, consciously or unconsciously, secretly or openly, acquiesced
  in or contended against, securing for themselves a footing, so
  also the Church of the first centuries did not succeed in keeping
  itself free from such intrusions. A superstition forcing its
  entrance in this way can either be taken over _nude crude_ in its
  genuinely pagan form and, in spite of its palpable inconsistency
  with the Christian faith, may nevertheless assert itself side
  by side with it, or it may divest itself of that old pagan form,
  and so unobserved and uncontested gain an entrance with its not
  altogether extinguished heathenish spirit into new Christian
  views and institutions and thus all the more dangerously make its
  way among them. It is especially the magico-theurgical element
  present in all heathen religions, which even at this early period
  stole into the Christian life and the services of the church
  and especially into the sacraments and things pertaining thereto
  (§ 58), while it assumed new forms in the veneration of martyrs
  and the worship of relics. One can scarcely indeed accept as a
  convincing proof of this the statement of the Emperor Hadrian
  in his correspondence regarding the religious condition of
  Alexandria as given by the historian Vopiscus: _Illic qui
  Serāpem colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se
  Christi episcopos dicunt; nemo illic archisynagogus Judæorum,
  nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus,
  non haruspex, non aliptes_. This statement bears on its face
  too evidently the character of superficial observation, of vague
  hearsay and confused massing together of sundry reports. What
  he says of the worship of Serapis, may have had some support
  from the conduct of many Christians in the ascetic order, the
  designating of their presbyters _aliptæ_ may have been suggested
  by the chrism in baptism and the anointing at the consecration
  of the clergy, perhaps also in the anointing of the sick
  (Matt. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14); so too the characterizing of them
  as _mathematici_ may have arisen from their determining the date
  of Easter by means of astronomical observations (§ 37, 2; 56, 3),
  though it could not be specially wonderful if there actually
  were Christian scholars among the Alexandrian clergy skilled
  in astronomy, notwithstanding the frequent alliance of this
  science with astrology. But much more significant is the gross
  superstition which in many ways shows itself in so highly
  cultured a Christian as Julius Africanus in his _Cestæ_ (§ 31, 8).
  In criticising it, however, we should bear in mind that this book
  was written in the age of Alexander Severus, in which, on the one
  hand, a wonderful mixture of religion and theurgical superstition
  had a wonderful fascination for men, while on the Christian side
  the whirlwind of persecution had not for a long time blown its
  purifying breeze. The catacombs, too, afford some evidences of a
  mode of respect for the departed that was borrowed from heathen
  practices, but these on the whole are wonderfully free from
  traces of superstition.


               § 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION.[108]

  Earnest and strict as the moral, religious and ascetical requirements
of the church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries generally were in regard
to the life and morals of its members, and rigidly as these principles
were carried out in its penitential discipline, there yet appeared
even at this early date, in consequence of various instances of the
relaxation of such strictness, certain eager spirits who clamoured
for a restoration or even an intensification of the earlier rules of
discipline. Such a movement secured for itself a footing about the
middle of the 2nd century in Montanism, a growth of Phrygian soil, which
without traversing in any way the doctrine of the church, undertook
a thorough reformation of the ecclesiastical constitution on the
practical side. Montanism, in opposition to the eclecticism of heretical
Gnosticism, showed the attitude of Christianity to heathenism to be
exclusive; against the spiritualizing and allegorizing tendencies of the
church Gnosticism it opposed the realism and literalism of the doctrines
and facts of the scripture revelation; against what seemed the excessive
secularization of the church it presented a model of church discipline
such as the nearness of the Lord’s coming demanded; against hierarchical
tendencies that were always being more and more emphasized it maintained
the rights of the laity and the membership of the church; while in order
to secure the establishment of all these reforms it proclaimed that a
prophetically inspired spiritual church had succeeded to Apostolic
Christianity.

  § 40.1. =Montanism in Asia Minor.=--According to Epiphanius as
  early as A.D. 156, according to Eusebius in A.D. 172, according
  to Jerome in A.D. 171, a certain Montanus appeared as a prophet
  and church reformer at Pepuza in Phrygia. He was formerly a
  heathen priest and was only shortly before known as a Christian.
  He had visions, preached while unconscious in ecstasy of the
  immediate coming again of Christ (_Parousia_), fulminated against
  the advancing secularisation of the church, and, as the supposed
  organ of the _Paraclete_ promised by Christ (John xiv. 16)
  presented in their most vigorous form the church’s demands in
  respect of morals and discipline. A couple of excited women
  _Prisca_ and _Maximilla_ were affected by the same extravagant
  spirit by which he was animated, fell into a somnambulistic
  condition and prophesied as he had done. On the death of
  Maximilla about A.D. 180, Montanus and Prisca having died
  before this, the supposed prophetic gift among them seems to
  have been quenched. At least an anonymous writer quoted in
  Eusebius (according to Jerome it was Rhodon, § 27, 12), in
  his controversial treatise published thirteen years afterwards,
  states that the voices of the prophets were then silent. So
  indeed she herself had declared: Μεθ’ ἐμὲ προφῆτης οὐκέτι ἔσται,
  ἀλλὰ συντέλεια. The Montanist prophecies occasioned a mighty
  commotion in the whole church of Asia Minor. Many earnest
  Christians threw themselves eagerly into the movement. Even
  among the bishops they found here and there favour or else mild
  criticism, while others combated them passionately, some going
  so far as to regard the prophesying women as possessed ones and
  calling exorcism to their aid. By the end of the year 170 several
  synods, the first synods regularly convened, had been held
  against them, the final result of which was their exclusion from
  the catholic church. Montanus now organized his followers into an
  independent community. After his death, his most zealous follower,
  Alcibiades, undertook its direction. It was also not without
  literary defenders. Themison, Alcibiades’ successor, issued “in
  imitation of the Apostle” (John?) a Καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή, and the
  utterances of the prophets were collected and circulated as
  holy scripture. On the other hand during this same year 170 they
  were attacked by the eminent apologists Claudius Apollinaris
  and Miltiades (§ 36, 9) probably also by Melito. Their radical
  opponents were the so-called _Alogi_ (§ 33, 2). Among their later
  antagonists, who assumed more and more a passionately embittered
  tone, the most important according to Eusebius were one
  Apollinaris, whom Tertullian combats in the VII. Bk. of his
  work, _De ecstasi_, and Serapion. At a Synod at Iconium about
  the middle of the 3rd century at which also Firmilian of Cæsarea
  (§ 35, 5) was present and voted, the baptism of the Montanists,
  although their trinitarian orthodoxy could not be questioned,
  was pronounced to be like heretical baptism null, because
  administered _extra ecclesiam_, and a second baptism declared
  necessary on admission to the Catholic church. And although at the
  Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 and of Constantinople in A.D. 381,
  the validity of heretics’ baptism was admitted if given orderly
  in the name of the Holy Trinity, the baptism of the Montanists was
  excluded because it was thought that the Paraclete of Montanism
  could not be recognised as the Holy Spirit of the church.--Already
  in the time of Constantine the Great the Montanists were spreading
  out from Phrygia over all the neighbouring provinces, and were
  called from the place where they originated Κατάφρυγες and
  Pepuziani. The Emperor now forbade them holding any public
  assemblies for worship and ordered that all places for public
  service should be taken from them and given over to the Catholic
  church. Far stricter laws than even these were enforced against
  them by later emperors down to the 5th century, _e.g._ prohibition
  of all Montanist writings, deprivation of almost all civil rights,
  banishment of their clergy to the mines, etc. Thus they could only
  prolong a miserable existence in secret, and by the beginning of
  the sixth century every trace of them had disappeared.

  § 40.2. =Montanism at Rome.=--The movement called forth by
  Montanism in the East spread by and by also into the West. When
  the first news reached Gaul of the synodal proceedings in Asia
  Minor that had rent the church, the Confessors imprisoned at
  Lyons and Vienne during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, of
  whom more than one belonged to a colony that had emigrated from
  Phrygia to Gaul, were displeased, and, along with their report
  of the persecution they had endured (§ 32, 8), addressed a letter
  to those of Asia Minor, not given by Eusebius, but reckoned pious
  and orthodox, exhorting to peace and the preservation of unity.
  At the same time (A.D. 177) they sent the Presbyter Irenæus to
  Rome in order to win from Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 174-189), who
  was opposed to Montanism, a mild and pacific sentence. Owing,
  however, to the arrival of Praxeas, a Confessor of Asia Minor and
  a bitter opponent of Montanism, a formal condemnation was at last
  obtained (§ 33, 4). Tertullian relates that the Roman bishop, at
  the instigation of Praxeas, revoked the letters of peace which
  had been already prepared in opposition to his predecessors.
  It is matter of controversy whether by this unnamed bishop
  Eleutherus is meant, who then was first inclined to a peaceable
  decision by Irenæus and thereafter by the picture of Montanist
  extravagances given by Praxeas was led again to form another
  opinion; or that it was, what seems from the chronological
  references most probable, his successor Victor (A.D. 189-199), in
  which case Eleutherus is represented as having hardened himself
  against Montanism in spite of the entreaties of Irenæus, while
  Victor was the first who for a season had been brought to think
  otherwise.--Yet even after their condemnation a small body of
  Montanists continued to exist in Rome, whose mouthpiece during
  the time of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217) was Proclus, whom
  the Roman Caius (§ 31, 7) opposed by word and writing.

  § 40.3. =Montanism in Proconsular Africa.=--When and how
  Montanism gained a footing in North Africa is unknown, but
  very probably it spread thither from Rome. The movement issuing
  therefrom first attracted attention when Tertullian, about
  A.D. 201 or 202, returned from Rome to Carthage, and with the
  whole energy of his character decided in its favour, and devoted
  his rich intellectual gifts to its advocacy. That the Montanist
  party in Africa at that time still continued in connection with
  the Catholic church is witnessed to by the Acts of the Martyrs
  Perpetua and Felicitas (§ 32, 8), composed some time after this,
  which bear upon them almost all the characteristic marks of
  Montanism, while a vision communicated there shows that division
  was already threatened. The bishop and clergy together with the
  majority of the membership were decided opponents of the new
  ecstatic-visionary prophecy already under ecclesiastical ban in
  Asia Minor. They had not yet, however, come to an open breach
  with it, which was probably brought about in A.D. 206 when quiet
  had been again restored after the cessation of the persecution
  begun about A.D. 202 by Septimius Severus. Tertullian had stood
  at the head of the sundered party as leader of their sectarian
  services, and defended their prophesyings and rigorism in
  numerous apologetico-polemical writings with excessive bitterness
  and passion, applying them with consistent stringency to all the
  relations of life, especially on the ethical side. From the high
  esteem in which, notwithstanding his Montanist eccentricities,
  Tertullian’s writings continued to be held in Africa, _e.g._
  by Cyprian (§ 31, 11), and generally throughout the West, the
  tendency defended by him was not regarded in the church there as
  in the East as thoroughly heretical, but only as a separatistic
  overstraining of views allowed by the church. This mild estimate
  could all the easier win favour, since to all appearance the
  extravagant visionary prophesying, which caused most offence, had
  been in these parts very soon extinguished.--Augustine reports
  that a small body of “Tertullianists” continued in Carthage
  down to his time († 430), and had by him been induced to return
  to the Catholic church; and besides this, he also tells us
  that Tertullian had subsequently separated himself from the
  “Cataphrygians,” _i.e._ from the communion of the Montanists of
  Asia Minor, whose excesses were only then perhaps made known to
  him.

  § 40.4. =The Fundamental Principle of Montanism.=--Montanism
  arose out of a theory of a divinely educative revelation
  proceeding by advancing stages, not finding its conclusion in
  Christ and the Apostles, but in the age of the Paraclete which
  began with Montanus and in him reached its highest development.
  The times of the law and the prophets in the Old Covenant is
  the childhood of the kingdom of God; in the gospel it appears in
  its youth; and by the Montanist shedding forth of the Spirit it
  reaches the maturity of manhood. Its absolute perfection will be
  attained in the millennium introduced by the approaching Parousia
  and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem at Pepuza (Rev. xx. 21).
  The Montanist prophecy did not enrich or expand but only
  maintained and established against the heretics, the system of
  Christian doctrine already exclusively revealed in the times of
  Christ. Montanism regarded as its special task a reformation of
  Christian life and Church discipline highly necessary in view of
  the approaching Parousia. The defects that had been borne with
  during the earlier stages of revelation were to be repaired or
  removed by the _Mandata_ of the Paraclete. The following are some
  of the chief of these prescriptions: Second marriage is adultery;
  Fasting must be practised with greater strictness; On _dies
  stationum_ (§ 37, 3) nothing should be eaten until evening, and
  twice a year for a whole week only water and bread (ξηροφαγίαι);
  The excommunicated must remain their whole lifetime in _status
  pœnitentiæ_; Martyrdom should be courted, to withdraw in any way
  from persecution is apostasy and denial of the faith; Virgins
  should take part in the worship of God only when veiled; Women
  generally must put away all finery and ornaments; secular science
  and art, all worldly enjoyments, even those that seem innocent,
  are only snares of the devil, etc. An anti-hierarchical tendency
  early showed itself in Montanism from the circumstance that
  it arrogated to itself a new and high authority to which
  the hierarchical organs of the church refused to submit
  themselves. Yet even Montanism, after repudiating it, for its
  own self-preservation was obliged to give itself an official
  congregational organization, which, according to Jerome, had
  as its head a patriarch resident at Pepuza, and, according to
  Epiphanius, founding on Gal. iii. 28, gave even women admission
  into ecclesiastical offices. Its worship was distinguished
  only by the space given to the prophesyings of its prophets and
  prophetesses. Epiphanius notes this as a special characteristic
  of the sect, that often in their assemblies seven white-robed
  virgins with torches made their appearance prophesying; evidently,
  as the number seven itself shows, as representatives of the seven
  spirits of God (Rev. iv. 5, etc.), and not of the ten virgins
  who wait for the coming of the Lord. According to Philaster they
  allowed even unbaptized persons to attend all their services and
  were in the habit of baptizing even the dead, as is elsewhere
  told also of certain Gnostic sects. Epiphanius too speaks of a
  Montanist party which celebrated the Lord’s Supper with bread and
  cheese, _Artotyrites_, according to Augustine, because the first
  men had presented offerings of the fruits of the earth and sheep.

  § 40.5. =The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church.=--The
  derivation of Montanism from Ebionism, contended for by Schwegler,
  has nothing in its favour and much against it. To disprove this
  notion it is enough to refer to the Montanist fundamental idea
  of a higher stage of revelation above Moses and the prophets as
  well as above the Messiah and His Apostles. Neither can we agree
  with Neander in regarding the peculiar character of the Phrygian
  people, as exhibited in their extravagant and fanatical worship
  of Cybele, as affording a starting point for the Montanist
  movement, but at most as a predisposition which rendered the
  inhabitants of this province peculiarly susceptible in presence
  of such a movement. The origin of Montanism is rather to be
  sought purely among the specifically Catholic conditions and
  conflicts within the church of Asia which at that time was
  pre-eminently gifted and active. In regard to dogma Montanism
  occupied precisely the same ground as the Catholic church;
  even upon the trinitarian controversies of the age it took up
  no sectarian position but went with the stream of the general
  development. Not on the dogmatical but purely on the practical
  side, namely, on that of the Christian life and ecclesiastical
  constitution, discipline and morals, lay the problems which by
  the action of the Montanists were brought into conflict. But
  even upon this side Montanism, with all its eccentricities, did
  not assume the attitude of an isolated separatistic sect, but
  rather as a quickening and intensifying of views and principles
  which from of old had obtained the recognition and sanction of
  the church,--views which on the wider spread of Christianity
  had already begun to be in every respect toned down or even
  obliterated, and just in this way called forth that reaction of
  enthusiasm which we meet with in Montanism. From the Apostles’
  time the expectation of the early return of the Lord had stood
  in the foreground of Christian faith, hope and yearning, and
  this expectation continued still to be heartily entertained.
  Nevertheless the fulfilment had now been so long delayed that men
  were beginning to put this coming into an indefinitely distant
  future (2 Pet. iii. 4). Hence it happened that even the leaders
  of the church, in building up its hierarchical constitution and
  adjusting it to the social circumstances and conditions of life
  by which they were surrounded, made their arrangements more and
  more deliberately in view of a longer continuance of the present
  state of things, and thus the primitive Christian hope of an
  early Parousia, though not expressly denied, seemed practically
  to have been set aside. Hence the Montanist revivalists
  proclaimed this hope as most certain, giving a guarantee for it
  by means of a new divine revelation. Similarly too the moral,
  ascetic and disciplinary rigorism of the Montanist prophecy is
  to be estimated as a vigorous reaction against the mild practice
  prevailing in the church with its tendency to make concessions
  to human weakness, in favour of the strict exercise of church
  discipline in view of the nearness of the Parousia. Montanism
  could also justify the reappearance of prophetic gifts among
  its founders by referring to the historical tradition which from
  the Apostolic Age (Acts xi. 27 f.; xxi. 9) presented to view a
  series of famous prophets and prophetesses, endowed with ecstatic
  visionary powers. The exclusion of Montanism from the Catholic
  Church could not, therefore, have been occasioned either by its
  proclaiming an early Parousia or by its rigorism, or finally,
  even by its prophetic claims, but purely by its doctrine of the
  Paraclete. Under the pretence of instituting a new and higher
  stage of revelation, it had really undertaken to correct the
  moral and religious doctrines of Christ and the Apostles as
  defective and incomplete, and had thereby proved itself to the
  representatives of the church to be undoubtedly a pseudo-prophecy.
  The spiritual pride with which the Montanists proclaimed
  themselves to be the privileged people of the Holy Spirit,
  Πνευματικοὶ, _Spirituales_ and characterized the Catholics as,
  on the contrary, Ψυχικοὶ, _Carnales_, as also the assumption
  that chose their own obscure Pepuza for the site of the heavenly
  Jerusalem, and the manifold extravagances committed by their
  prophets and prophetesses in their ecstatic trances, must
  have greatly tended to create an aversion to every form of
  spiritualistic manifestation. The origin of Montanism, the
  contesting of it and its final expulsion, constitute indeed a
  highly significant crisis in the historical development of the
  church, conditioned not so much by a separatistic sectarian
  tendency, but rather by the struggle of two tendencies existing
  within the church, in which the tendency represented by Montanism
  and honestly endeavouring the salvation of the church, went
  under, while that which was victorious would have put an end
  to all enthusiasm. The expulsion of Montanism from the church
  contributed greatly to freeing the church from the reproach
  so often advanced against it of being a narrow sect, made its
  consenting to the terms, demands and conditions of everyday
  life in the world easier, gave a freer course and more powerful
  impulse to its development in constitution and worship dependent
  upon these, as well as in the further building up of its
  practical and scientific endeavours, and generally advanced
  greatly its expansion and transformation from a sectarian close
  association into a universal church opening itself up more and
  more to embrace all the interests of the culture of the age;--a
  transformation which indeed in many respects involved a
  secularizing of the church and imparted to its spiritual
  functions too much of an official and superficial character.


             § 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH.

  Even after the ecclesiastical sentence had gone forth against
Montanism, the rigoristic penitential discipline in a form more or less
severe still found its representatives within the Catholic church. As
compared with the advocates of a milder procedure these were indeed
generally in the minority, but this made them all the more zealously
contend for their opinions and endeavour to secure for them universal
recognition. Out of the contentions occasioned thereby, augmented by
the rivalry of presbyter and episcopus, or episcopus and metropolitan,
several ecclesiastical divisions originated which, in spite of the
pressing need of the time for ecclesiastical unity, were long continued
by ambitious churchmen in order to serve their own selfish ends.

  § 41.1. =The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220.=--On
  what seems to have been the oldest attempt to form a sect at Rome
  over a purely doctrinal question, namely that of the Theodotians,
  about A.D. 210, see § 33, 3.--Much more serious was the schism of
  Hippolytus, which broke out ten years later. In A.D. 217, after
  an eventful and adventurous life, a freedman Callistus was raised
  to the bishopric of Rome, but not without strong opposition on
  the part of the rigorists, at whose head stood the celebrated
  presbyter Hippolytus. They charged the bishop with scoffing at
  all Christian earnestness, conniving at the loosening of all
  church discipline toward the fallen and sinners of all kinds, and
  denounced him especially as a supporter of the Noetian [Noëtian]
  heresy (§ 33, 5). They took great offence also at his previous
  life which his opponent Hippolytus (_Elench._, ix. 11 ff.) thus
  describes: When the slave of a Christian member of the imperial
  household, Callistus with the help of his lord established
  a bank; he failed, took to flight, was brought back, sprang into
  the sea, was taken out again and sent to the treadmill. At the
  intercession of Christian friends he was set free, but failing to
  satisfy his urgent creditors, he despairingly sought a martyr’s
  death, for this end wantonly disturbed the Jewish worship, and
  was on that account scourged and banished to the Sardinian mines.
  At the request of bishop Victor the imperial concubine Marcia
  (§ 22, 3) obtained the freedom of the exiled Christian confessors
  among whom Callistus, although his name had been intentionally
  omitted from the list presented by Victor, was included. After
  Victor’s death he wormed himself into the favour of his weak
  successor Zephyrinus, who placed him at the head of his clergy,
  in consequence of which he was able by intrigues and craft
  to secure for himself the succession to the bishopric.--An
  opportunity of reconciliation was first given, it would seem,
  under Pontianus, the second successor of Callistus, by banishing
  the two rival chiefs to Sardinia. Both parties then united in
  making a unanimous choice in A.D. 235.[109]

  § 41.2. =The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in
  A.D. 250.=--Several presbyters in Carthage were dissatisfied with
  the choice of Cyprian as bishop in A.D. 248 and sought to assert
  their independence. At their head stood Novatus. Taking the
  law into their own hands they chose Felicissimus, the next
  head of the party, as a deacon. When Cyprian during the Decian
  persecution withdrew for a time from Carthage, they charged him
  with dereliction of duty and faint-heartedness. Cyprian, however,
  soon returned, A.D. 251, and now they used his strictness toward
  the _Lapsi_ as a means of creating a feeling against him. He
  expressed himself very decidedly as to the recklessness with
  which many confessors gave without examination _Libelli pacis_
  to the fallen, and called upon these to commit their case to a
  Synod that should be convened after the persecution. A church
  visitation completed the schism; the discontented presbyters
  without more ado received all the fallen and, notwithstanding
  that Cyprian himself on the return of persecution introduced
  a milder practice, they severed themselves from him under an
  opposition bishop Fortunatus. Only by the unwearied exercise of
  wisdom and firmness did Cyprian succeed in putting down the
  schism.[110]

  § 41.3. =The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in
  A.D. 251.=--In this case the rigorist and presbyterial interests
  coincide. After the martyrdom of bishop Fabian under Decian in
  A.D. 250, the Roman bishopric remained vacant for more than a
  year. His successor Cornelius (A.D. 251-253) was an advocate
  of the milder practice. At the head of his rigorist opponents
  stood his unsuccessful rival, Novatian, a learned but ambitious
  presbyter (§ 31, 12). Meanwhile Novatus, excommunicated by Cyprian
  at Carthage, had also made his way to Rome. Notwithstanding his
  having previously maintained contrary principles in the matter
  of church discipline, he attached himself to the party of the
  purists and urged them into schism. They now chose Novatian as
  bishop. Both parties sought to obtain the recognition of the most
  celebrated churches. In doing so Cornelius described his opponent
  in the most violent and bitter manner as a mere intriguer,
  against whose reception into the number of presbyters as one
  who had received clinical baptism (§ 35, 3) and especially
  as an energoumenon under the care of the exorcists, he had
  already protested; further as having extorted a sham episcopal
  consecration from three simple Italian bishops, after he had
  attached them to himself by pretending to be a peacemaker, then
  locking them up and making them drunk, etc. Cyprian, as well as
  Dionysius of Alexandria, expressed himself against Novatian, and
  attacked the principles of his party, namely, that the church has
  no right to give assurance of forgiveness to the fallen or such
  as have broken their baptismal vows by grievous sin (although
  the possibility of finding forgiveness through the mercy of
  God was indeed admitted), and that the church as a communion of
  thoroughly pure members should never endure any impure ones in
  its bosom, nor receive back any excommunicated ones, even after
  a full ecclesiastical course of penitence. The Novatianists had
  therefore called themselves the Καθαροί. The moral earnestness of
  their fundamental principles secured for them even from bishops
  of contrary views an indulgent verdict, and Novatianist churches
  sprang up over almost all the Roman empire. The Œcumenical
  Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 maintained an attitude toward them
  upon the whole friendly, and in the Arian controversy (§ 50) they
  stood faithfully side by side with their ecclesiastical opponents
  in the defence of Nicene orthodoxy, and with them suffered
  persecution from the Arians. Later on, however, the Catholic
  church without more ado treated them as heretics. Theodosius
  the Great sympathizing with them because of such unfair treatment,
  took them under his protection; but Honorius soon again withdrew
  these privileges from them. Remnants of the party continued
  nevertheless to exist down to the 6th century.[111]

  § 41.4. =The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306.=--Meletius,
  bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid, a representative of the
  rigorist party, during the Diocletian persecution claimed to
  confer ordinations and otherwise infringed upon the metropolitan
  rights of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a supporter of the
  milder practice who for the time being lived in retirement. All
  warnings and admonitions were in vain. An Egyptian Synod under
  the presidency of Peter issued a decree of excommunication and
  deposition against him. Then arose the schism, A.D. 306, which
  won the whole of Egypt. The General Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325
  confirmed the Alexandrian bishop in his rights of supremacy
  (§ 46, 3) and offered to all the Meletian bishops an amnesty
  and confirmation in the succession on the death of the catholic
  anti-bishop of their respective dioceses. Many availed themselves
  of this concession, but others persisted in their schismatical
  course and finally attached themselves to the Arian party
  (§ 50, 2).




                            SECOND SECTION.

               The History of the Græco-Roman Church from
                         the 4th-7th centuries.
                             A.D. 323-692.


                          I. CHURCH AND STATE.


     § 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[112]

  After the overthrow of Licinius (§ 22, 7) Constantine identified
himself unreservedly with Christianity, but accepted baptism only
shortly before his death in A.D. 337. He was tolerant toward paganism,
though encouraging its abandonment in all possible ways. His sons,
however, began to put it down by violence. Julian’s short reign was
a historical anomaly which only proved that paganism did not die a
violent death, but rather gradually succumbed to a _Marasmus senilis_.
Succeeding emperors reverted to the policy of persecution and
extermination.--Neoplatonism, notwithstanding the patronage of
Julian and the brilliant reputation of its leading representatives,
could not reach the goal arrived at, but from the ethereal heights of
philosophical speculation sank ever further and further into the misty
region of fantastic superstition (§ 24, 2). The attempts at regeneration
made by the _Hypsistarians_, _Euphemites_, _Cœlicolæ_, in which paganism
strove after a revival by means of a barren Jewish monotheism or an
effete Sabaism, proved miserable failures. The literary conflict between
Christianity and paganism had almost completely altered its tone.

  § 42.1. =The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine.=--That
  Constantine the Great only accepted baptism shortly before his
  death in Nicomedia, from Eusebius, bishop of that place, and a
  well-known leader of the Arian party (§ 50, 1, 2), is put beyond
  question by the evidence of his contemporary Eusebius of Cæsarea
  in his _Vita Const._, of Ambrose, of Jerome in his Chronicle,
  etc. About the end of the 5th century, however, a tradition,
  connecting itself with the fact that a Roman baptistery bore
  the name of Constantine, gained currency in Rome, to the effect
  that Constantine had been baptised at this baptistery more than
  twenty years before his death by Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335).
  According to this purely fabulous legend Constantine, who
  had up to that time been a bitter enemy and persecutor of the
  Christians, became affected with leprosy, for the cure of which
  he was recommended to bathe in a tub filled with the blood
  of an innocent child. Moved by the tears of the mother the
  emperor rejected this means of cure, and under the direction of
  a heavenly vision applied to the Pope, who by Christian baptism
  delivered him from his malady, whereupon all the members of the
  Roman senate still heathens, and all the people were straightway
  converted to Christ, etc. This legend is told in the so-called
  _Decretum Gelasii_ (§ 47, 22), but is first vindicated as
  historically true in the _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6), and
  next in A.D. 729, in Bede’s Chronicle (§ 90, 2). In the notorious
  _Donatio Constantini_ (§ 87, 4) it is unhesitatingly accepted.
  Since then, at first with some exceptions but soon without
  exceptions, all chroniclers of the Middle Ages and likewise since
  the 9th century the _Scriptores hist. Byzant._, have adopted
  it. And although in the 15th century Æneas Sylvius and Nicolaus
  [Nicolas] of Cusa admitted that the legend was without foundation,
  yet in the 16th century in Baronius and Bellarmine, and in
  the 17th in Schelstraate, it found earnest defenders. The
  learned French Benedictines of the 17th century were the first
  to render it utterly incredible even in the Roman Catholic
  church.[113]

  § 42.2. =Constantine the Great and his Sons.=--Constantine’s
  profession of Christianity was not wholly the result of political
  craft, though his use of the name _Pontifex Maximus_ and in
  this capacity the continued exercise of certain pagan practices,
  gave some colour to such an opinion. Outbursts of passion,
  impulsiveness exhibited in deeds of violence and cruelty, as in
  the order for the execution of his eldest son Crispus in A.D. 326
  and his second wife Fausta, are met with even in his later years.
  Soon after receiving baptism he died without having ever attended
  a complete divine service. His toleration of paganism must be
  regarded purely as a piece of statecraft. He only prohibited
  impure rites and assigned to the Christians but a few of the
  temples that had actually been in use. Aversion to the paganism
  still prevalent among the principal families in Rome may partly
  have led him to transfer his residence to Byzantium, since called
  Constantinople, in A.D. 330. His three sons divided the Empire
  among them. Constantius (A.D. 337-361) retained the East, and
  became, after the death of Constantine II. in A.D. 340 and of
  Constans in A.D. 350, sole ruler. All the three sought to put
  down paganism by force. Constantius closed the heathen temples
  and forbade all sacrifices on pain of death. Multitudes of
  heathens went over to Christianity, few probably from conviction.
  Among the nobler pagans there was thus awakened a strong
  aversion to Christianity. Patriotism and manly spirit came to
  be identified with the maintenance of the old religion.[114]

  § 42.3. =Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363).=--The sons of
  Constantine the Great began their reign in A.D. 337 with the
  murder of their male relatives. The brothers Julian and Gallus,
  nephews of Constantine, alone were spared; but in A.D. 345 they
  were banished to a Cappadocian castle where Julian officiated for
  a while as reader in the village church. Having at last obtained
  leave to study in Nicomedia, then in Ephesus, and finally in
  Athens, the chief representatives of paganism fostered in him the
  conviction that he was specially raised up by the gods to restore
  again the old religion of his fathers. As early as A.D. 351
  in Nicomedia he formally though still secretly returned to
  paganism, and at Athens in A.D. 355 he took part in the Eleusinian
  mysteries. Soon thereafter Constantius, harassed by foreign wars,
  assigned to him the command of the army against the Germans. By
  affability, personal courage and high military talent, he soon
  won to himself the enthusiastic attachment of the soldiers.
  Constantius thought to weaken the evident power of his cousin
  which seemed to threaten his authority, by recalling the best
  of the legions, but the legions refused obedience and proclaimed
  Julian emperor. Then the emperor refused to ratify the election
  and treated Julian himself as a rebel. The latter advanced at
  the head of his army by forced marches upon the capital, but
  ere he reached the city, he received the tidings of the opposing
  emperor’s death. Acknowledged now as emperor throughout the
  whole empire without any opposition, Julian proceeded with zeal,
  enthusiasm and vigour to accomplish his long-cherished wish, the
  restoring of the glory of the old national religion. He used no
  violent measures for the subversion and overthrow of Christianity,
  nor did he punish Christian obstinacy with death, except where it
  seemed to him the maintenance of his supremacy required it. But
  he demanded that temples which had been converted into churches
  should be restored to the heathen worship, those destroyed should
  be restored at the cost of the church exchequer and the money for
  the state that had been applied to ecclesiastical purposes had to
  be repaid. He scornfully referred the clergy thus robbed of their
  revenues to the blessedness of evangelical poverty. He also
  fomented as much as possible dissension in the church, favoured
  all sectaries and heretics, excluded Christians from all the
  higher, and afterwards from all the lower, civil and military
  offices, and loaded them on every occasion with reproach and
  shame, and by these means he actually induced many to apostatise.
  In order to discredit Christ’s prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 2, he
  resolved on the restoration of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem,
  but after having been begun it was destroyed by an earthquake. He
  excluded all Christian teachers from the public schools, and also
  forbade them in their own schools from explaining the classical
  writers who were objected to and contested by them only as
  godless; so that Christian boys and youths could obtain a higher
  classical education only in the pagan schools. By petty artifices
  he endeavoured to get Christian soldiers to take part, if
  only even seemingly, in the heathen sacrifices. Indeed at a
  later period in Antioch he was not ashamed to stoop to the mean
  artifice of Galerian (§ 22, 6) of sprinkling with sacrificial
  water the necessaries of life exposed in the public market, etc.
  On the other hand, he strove in every way to elevate and ennoble
  paganism. From Christianity he borrowed Benevolent Institutions,
  Church Discipline, Preaching, Public Service of Song, etc.; he
  gave many distinctions to the heathen priesthood, but required
  of them a strict discipline. He himself sacrificed and preached
  as _Pontifex Maximus_, and led a strictly ascetic, almost a
  cynically simple life. The ineffectiveness of his attempts and
  the daring, often even contemptuous, resistance of many Christian
  zealots embittered him more and more, so that there was now
  danger of bloody persecution when, after a reign of twenty
  months, he was killed from a javelin blow in a battle against the
  Persians in A.D. 363. Shortly before in answer to the scornful
  question of a heathen, “What is your Carpenter’s Son doing now?”
  it had been answered, “He is making a coffin for your emperor.”
  At a later period the story became current that Julian himself,
  when he received the deadly stroke, exclaimed, _Tandem vicisti
  Galilæe_! His military talents and military virtues had shed a
  glory around the throne of the Cæsars such as it had not known
  since the days of Marcus Aurelius, and yet his whole life’s
  struggle was and remained utterly fruitless and vain.[115]

  § 42.4. =The Later Emperors.=--After Julian’s death, Jovian,
  and then on his death in A.D. 364, Valentinian I. († 375),
  were chosen emperors by the army. The latter resigned to his
  brother Valens the empire of the East (A.D. 364-378). His son and
  successor Gratian (A.D. 375-383) at the wish of the army adopted
  his eldest half-brother of four years old, Valentinian II., as
  colleague in the empire of the West, and upon the death of Valens
  resigned the government of the West to the Spaniard Theodosius I.,
  or the Great (A.D. 379-395), who, after the assassination of
  Valentinian II. in A.D. 392, became sole ruler. After his death
  his sons again divided the empire among them: Honorius († 423)
  took the West, Arcadius († 408) the East, and now the partitioned
  empire continued in this condition until the incursions of the
  barbarians had broken up the whole West Roman division (A.D. 476).
  Belisarius and Narses, the victorious generals of Justinian I.,
  were the first to succeed, between A.D. 533-553, in conquering
  again North Africa and all Italy along with its islands. But in
  Italy the Byzantine empire from A.D. 569 was reduced in size from
  time to time by the Longobards, and in Africa from A.D. 665 by
  the Saracens, while even earlier, about A.D. 633, the Saracens
  had secured to themselves Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.--Julian’s
  immediate successors tolerated paganism for a time. It was,
  however, a very temporary respite. No sooner had =Theodosius I.=
  quieted in some measure political disorders, than he proceeded
  in A.D. 382 to accomplish the utter overthrow of paganism.
  The populace and the monks combined in destroying the temples.
  The rhetorician Libanius († 395) then addressed his celebrated
  discourse Περὶ τῶν ἱερῶν to the emperor; but the remaining
  temples were closed and the people were prohibited from visiting
  them. In Alexandria, under the powerful bishop Theophilus, there
  were bloody conflicts, in consequence of which the Christians
  destroyed the beautiful Serapeion in A.D. 391. In vain did
  the pagans look for the falling down of the heavens and the
  destruction of the earth; even the Nile would not once by causing
  blight and barrenness take vengeance on the impious. In the West,
  =Gratian= was the first of the emperors who declined the rank of
  _pontifex maximus_; he also deprived the heathen priests of their
  privileges, removed the foundations of the temple of Fiscus,
  and commanded that the altar of Victory should be taken away
  from the hall of the Senate in Rome. In vain did Symmachus,
  _præfectus urbi_, entreat for its restoration, if not “_numinis_”
  yet “_nominis causa_.” =Valentinian II.=, urged on by Ambrose,
  sent back four times unheard the deputation that came about this
  matter. So soon as =Theodosius I.= became sole ruler the edicts
  were made more severe. On his entrance into Rome in A.D. 394 he
  addressed to the Roman Senate a severe lecture and called them
  to repentance. His sons, Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the
  East, followed the example of their father. Under the successor
  of the latter, =Theodosius II.= (A.D. 408-450), monks with
  imperial authority for the suppression of heathenism traversed
  the provinces, and in A.D. 448, in common with =Valentinian III.=
  (A.D. 425-455), the western emperor, he issued an edict
  which strictly enjoined the burning of all pagan polemical
  writings against Christianity, especially those of Porphyry “the
  crack-brained,” wherever they might be found. This period is
  also marked by deeds of bloody violence. The most horrible of
  these was the murder of the noble pagan philosopher Hypatia,
  the learned daughter of Theon the mathematician, at Alexandria
  in A.D. 415. Officially paganism may be regarded as no longer
  existent. Branded long even before this as the religion of the
  peasants (such is the derivation of the word paganism), it was
  now almost wholly confined to remote rural districts. Its latest
  and solitary stronghold was the University of Athens raised to
  the summit of its fame under Proclus (§ 24, 2). =Justinian I.=
  (A.D. 527-565) decreed the suppression of this school in
  A.D. 529. Its teachers fled into Persia, and there laid the
  first foundations of the later literary period of Islam under the
  ruling family of the Abassidæ at Bagdad (§ 65, 2). This was the
  death hour of heathenism in the Roman empire. The Mainottæ in the
  mountains of the Peloponnesus still maintained their political
  independence and the heathen religion of their fathers down
  to the 9th century. In the Italian islands, too, of Sardinia,
  Corsica, and Sicily, there were still many heathens even in the
  time of Gregory the Great († 604).[116]

  § 42.5. =Heathen Polemics and Apologetics.=--=Julian’s=
  controversial treatise Κατὰ Γαλιλαίων λόγοι, in 3 bks. according
  to Cyril, in 7 bks. according to Jerome, is known only from the
  reply of Cyril of Alexandria (§ 47, 6) which follows it section
  by section, the rest of the answers to it having been entirely
  lost. Of Cyril’s book only the first ten λόγοι have come down to
  us in a complete state, and from these we are able almost wholly
  to restore the first book of Julian’s treatise. Only fragments
  of the second decade of Cyril’s work are extant, and not even
  so much of the third, so that of Julian’s third book we may be
  said to know nothing.[117] Julian represented Christianity as a
  deteriorated Judaism, but Christolatry and the worship of martyrs
  as later falsifications of the doctrine of Christ.--The later
  advocates of heathenism, Libanius and Symmachus, were content
  with claiming toleration and religious freedom. But when from
  the 5th century, under the influence of the barbarians, signs of
  the speedy overthrow of the Roman empire multiplied, the heathen
  polemics assumed a bolder attitude, declaring that this was
  the punishment of heaven for the contempt of the old national
  religion, under which the empire had flourished. Such is the
  standpoint especially of the historians Eunapius and Zosimus. But
  history itself refuted them more successfully than the Christian
  apologists; for even these barbarous peoples passed over in
  due course to Christianity, and vied with the Roman emperors in
  their endeavours to extirpate heathenism. In the 5th century,
  the celebrated Neo-Platonist Proclus wrote “eighteen arguments
  (ἐπιχειρήματα) against the Christians” in vindication of the
  Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the world and in refutation
  of the Christian doctrine of creation. The Christian grammarian
  John Philoponus (§ 47, 11) answered them in an exhaustive and
  elaborate treatise, which again was replied to by the philosopher
  =Simplicius=, one of the best teachers in the pagan University
  of Athens.--The dialogue =Philopatris=, “the Patriot,” included
  among the works of Lucian of Samosata, but certainly not composed
  by him, is a feeble imitation of the famous scoffer, in which the
  writer declares that he can no longer fitly swear at the Olympic
  gods with their many unsavoury loves and objectionable doings,
  and with a satirical reference to Acts xvii. 23 recommends
  for this purpose “the unknown God at Athens,” whom he further
  scurrilously characterizes as ὑψιμέδων θεὸς, υἵος πατρὸς, πνεῦμα
  ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον ἓν ἐκ τριῶν καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία (§ 50, 1, 7).
  Finally he tells of some closely shaven men (§ 45, 1) who were
  treated as liars, because, having in consequence of a ten days’
  fast and singing had a vision foreboding ill to their fatherland,
  their prophecy was utterly discredited by the arrival of an
  account of the emperor’s successes in the war against the
  Persians. The impudence with which the orthodox Christianity
  and the Nicene orthodox formula are sneered at, as well as the
  allusions to the spread of monasticism and a victorious war
  against the Persians, fix the date of the dialogue in the reign
  of Julian, or rather, since the writer would scarcely have had
  Julian’s approval in his scoffing at the gods of Olympus, in
  the time of the Arian Valens (§ 50, 4). But since the overthrow
  of Egypt and Crete is spoken of in this treatise, Niebuhr has
  put its date down to the time of the Emperor Nicephoras Phocas
  (A.D. 963-969), understanding by Persians the Saracens and by
  Scythians the Bulgarians.

  § 42.6. The religion of the =Hypsistarians= in Cappadocia was,
  according to Gregory Nazianzen, whose father had belonged to the
  sect, a blending of Greek paganism with bald Jewish monotheism,
  together with the oriental worship of fire and the heavenly
  bodies, with express opposition to the Christian doctrine
  of the trinity. Of a similar nature were the vagaries of the
  =Euphemites=, “Praise singers,” in Asia, who were also called
  _Messalians_, “Petitioners,” or _Euchites_, and in Africa bore
  the name of =Cœlicolæ=.


         § 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

  As in earlier times the supreme direction of all religious matters
belonged to the Roman Emperor as Pontifex Maximus, so now that
Christianity had become the state religion he claimed for himself
the same position in relation to the church. Even Constantine the
Great regarded himself as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας, and all his
successors exercised the _Jus circa sacra_ as their unquestioned right.
Only the Donatists (§ 63, 1) denied to the state all and any right
over the church. There was no clear consciousness of the limits of this
jurisdiction, but this at least in theory was firmly maintained, that
in all ecclesiastical matters, in worship, discipline and doctrine, the
emperors were not of themselves entitled to issue conclusive decisions.
For this purpose they called Œcumenical Synods, the decrees of which
had legal validity throughout the empire when ratified by the emperor.
But the more the Byzantine empire degenerated and became a centre of
intrigues, the more hurtful did contact with the court become, and
more than once the most glaring heresy for a time prevailed by means
of personal passion, unworthy tricks and open violence, until at last
orthodoxy again secured the ascendency.--From the ordinances issued by
the recognised ecclesiastical and civil authorities upon ecclesiastical
rights, duties and conditions, as well as from the pseudo-epigraphic
apostolic writings already being secretly introduced in this department,
there sprang up during this period a rich and varied literature on canon
law.

  § 43.1. The =Jus circa sacra= gave to the =Emperors= the right of
  legally determining all the relations between church and state,
  but assigned to them also the duty of caring for the preservation
  or restoration of peace and of unity in the church, guarding
  orthodoxy with a strong arm, looking after the interests of
  the church and the clergy, and maintaining the authority of
  ecclesiastical law. Even Constantine the Great excluded all
  heretics from the privileges which he accorded to the church,
  and regarded it as a duty forcibly to prevent their spread.
  The destruction or closing of their churches, prohibition of
  public meetings, banishment of their leaders, afterwards seizure
  of their possessions, were the punishments which the state
  invariably used for their destruction. The first death sentence
  on a heretic was issued and executed so early as A.D. 385 by
  the usurper Maximus (§ 54, 2), but this example was not imitated
  during this period. Constans II. in A.D. 654 gave the first
  example of scourging to the effusion of blood and barbarous
  mutilation upon a persistent opponent of his union system of
  doctrine (§ 52, 8). The fathers of the 4th century were decidedly
  opposed to all compulsion in matters of faith (comp. however
  § 63, 1). The right of determining by imperial edict what was
  to be believed and taught in the empire was first asserted by
  the usurper Basilicus in A.D. 476 (§ 52, 5). The later emperors
  followed this example; most decidedly Justinian I. (§ 52, 6)
  and the court theologians justified such assumptions from
  the emperor’s sacerdotal rank, which was the antitype of that
  of Melchizedec [Melchisedec]. The emperor exercised a direct
  influence upon the choice of bishops especially in the capital
  cities; at a later period the emperor quite arbitrarily appointed
  these and set them aside. The church’s power to afford protection
  secured for it generally a multitude of outward privileges and
  advantages. The state undertook the support of the church partly
  by rich gifts and endowments from state funds, partly by the
  making over of temples and their revenues to the church, and
  Constantine conferred upon the church the right of receiving
  bequests of all kinds. The churches and their officers were
  expressly exempted from all public burdens. The distinct
  judicial authority of the bishops recognised of old was
  formally legitimized by Constantine under the name of _Audentia
  episcopalis_. The clergy themselves were exempted from the
  jurisdiction of civil tribunals and were made subject to an
  ecclesiastical court. The right of asylum was taken from the
  heathen temples and conferred upon the Christian churches. With
  this was connected also the right of episcopal intercession or
  of interference with regard to decisions already come to by the
  civil courts which were thus in some measure subject to clerical
  control.

  § 43.2. =The Institution of Œcumenical Synods.=--The σύνοδοι
  οἰκουμενικαί, _Concilia universalia s. generalia_, owe their
  origin to Constantine the Great (§ 50, 1). The calling of
  councils was an unquestioned right of the crown. A prelate
  chosen by the emperor or the council presided; the presence
  of the imperial commissioner, who opened the Synod by reading
  the imperial edict, was a guarantee for the preservation of
  the rights of the state. The treasury bore the expense of
  board and travelling. The decisions generally were called ὅροι,
  _Definitiones_; if they were resolutions regarding matters of
  faith, δόγματα; if in the form of a confession, σύμβολα; if they
  bore upon the constitution, worship and discipline, κανόνες. On
  doctrinal questions there had to be unanimity; on constitutional
  questions a majority sufficed. Only the bishops had the right
  of voting, but they allowed themselves to be influenced by the
  views of the subordinate clergy. As a sort of substitute for
  the œcumenical councils which could not be suddenly or easily
  convened we have the σύνοδοι ἐνδημοῦσα at Constantinople, which
  were composed of all the bishops who might at the time be present
  in the district. At Alexandria, too, these _endemic_ Synods
  were held. The _Provincial Synods_ were convened twice a year
  under the presidency of the metropolitan; as courts of higher
  instances we have the _Patriarchal_ or _Diocesan Synods_ (comp.
  § 46, 1).[118]

  § 43.3. =Canonical Ordinances.=--As canonical decrees
  acknowledged throughout the whole of the Catholic national
  church or at least throughout the more important ecclesiastical
  districts the following may be named.

    1. The Canons of the Œcumenical Councils.

    2. The Decrees of several important Particular Synods.

    3. The _Epistolæ canonicæ_ of distinguished bishops, especially
       those of the _Sedes apostolicæ_, § 34, preeminently of Rome
       and Alexandria, pertaining to questions which have had a
       determining influence on church practice, which were at a
       later time called at Rome _Epistt. decretales_.

    4. The canonical laws of the emperors, νόμοι (Codex
       Theodosianus in A.D. 440, Codex Justinianæus in A.D. 534,
       Novellæ Justiniani).

  The first systematically arranged collection of the Greek church
  known to us was made by Johannes Scholasticus, then presbyter
  at Antioch, afterwards Patriarch at Constantinople († 578). A
  second collection, also ascribed to him, to which were added
  the canonical νόμοι of Justinian, received the name of the
  _Nomocanon_. In the West all earlier collections were put out
  of sight by the _Codex canonum_ of the Roman abbot Dionysius the
  Little (§ 47, 23), to which were also added the extant _Decretal
  Epistles_ about A.D. 520.

  § 43.4. =Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances.=--Even so early
  as the 2nd and 3rd centuries there sprang up no inconsiderable
  number of writings upon church law, with directions about ethical,
  liturgical and constitutional matters for the instruction of the
  church members as well as the clergy, the moral precepts of which
  are of importance in church procedure as affording a standard
  for discipline. The oldest probably of these has lately been
  made again accessible to us in the Teaching of the XII. Apostles,
  the Didache (§ 30, 7). It designates its contents, even where
  these are taken not from the Old Testament or the “Gospel,” but
  from the so-called church practice, as apostolic, with the honest
  conviction that by means of oral apostolic tradition it may be
  traced back to the immediate appointment of the Lord, without,
  however, pseudepigraphically claiming to have been written by
  the Apostles. Many treatises of the immediately following period,
  no longer known to us or known only by fragments, occupied the
  same standpoint. But even so early as the end of the 3rd century
  pseudepigraphic apostolic fiction makes its appearance in
  the so-called _Apostolic Didascalia_, and some sixty years
  later, it reached its climax in the eight bks. of the so-called
  =Constitutiones Apostolicæ=, Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἀπ. διὰ Κλήμεντος. The
  first six bks. correspond to the previously named _Didascalia_
  expanded and variously altered.[119] It assumes the form of a
  prolix epistolary discourse of the Apostle, communicated through
  Clement of Rome, about everything pertaining to the Christian
  life, the Catholic system of doctrine, liturgical practice and
  hierarchical constitution which may be necessary and useful for
  the laity as well as the clergy to know, with the exclusion,
  however, of everything which belonged to the department of what
  was then regarded as the _Disciplina arcani_ (§ 36, 4). Of older
  writings, so far as known, those principally used are the seven
  Ignatian Epistles (§ 30, 5). It is post-Novatianist (§ 41, 3)
  and belongs to a time pre-Constantine but free from persecution
  (§ 22, 6), and may therefore be placed somewhere between A.D. 260
  and A.D. 302. It was written probably in Syria.--While the first
  six bks. of the Apostolic Constitutions may be compared to the
  Syrian recension as a contemporary rendition of the Didascalia,
  the =seventh book= from an examination of the Didache seems
  a rendition of that little work, in which the assumption of
  apostolic authorship is made, and from which everything offensive
  to the forger and his age is cut out, the old text being
  otherwise literally reproduced, while into it is cleverly
  smuggled from his own resources whatever would contribute to
  the support of his own peculiar views as well as the prevailing
  practice of the church. The Eusebian symbol, which is given in
  the 41st chap., is an anti-Nicene, anti-Marcellianist, Arianizing
  formula, fixing the date of the forgery at the period of the
  Arian controversy, somewhere between A.D. 340 and A.D. 350
  (§ 50, 2).--The =eighth book= is in great part an unmistakeable
  forgery compiled from older sources belonging to the 3rd century,
  some of which are still to be found, and forms a handbook for
  the discharge of clerical, especially episcopal, duties in
  the conducting of worship and other clerical functions, _e.g._
  ordination, baptism, etc., together with the relative liturgical
  formularies, drawn up in a thoroughly legal-like style, in
  which the Apostles one by one give their contribution with the
  formula Διατάσσομαι. The composition is probably ante-Nicene,
  but the date of its incorporation with the other seven books
  is uncertain.--In most, though not in all, MSS. the =Canones
  Apostolorum=, sometimes 50, sometimes 85, in number, are appended
  to the eighth book as its last chapter. Their standpoint is that
  common to the canons of the early councils from which they are
  chiefly borrowed. In respect of contents they treat mainly of
  the moral behaviour and official functions of the clergy. The
  85th contains a Scripture canon of the Old and New Testaments,
  including the two Epp. of the Roman Clement (§ 30, 3), as well
  as the Apost. Constitutions, but omitting the Apocalypse of John
  (comp. § 33, 9). The collection of the apostolic canon cannot
  have been made before the beginning of the 5th century, and most
  likely in Syria. Dionysius the Little admitted only the first 50
  as _Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum_, but Johannes Scholasticus
  quite unhesitatingly ascribes all the 85 to Clement of Rome. The
  Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) acknowledged the
  genuineness of the 85, but rejected the Apostolic Constitutions
  as a heretical forgery which had found no general acceptance in
  the West.--While hitherto it has been surmised that the 7th bk.
  of the Apost. Constit., as an independent and original work,
  should be assigned to another and a much later author than the
  first six bks., Harnack, founding upon his study of the Didache,
  has come to a clear understanding of their mutual relations. He
  shows that the original documents lying at the basis respectively
  of the Didache and the Didascalia are fundamentally distinct in
  respect of composition and character, but the two in the form in
  which they lie before us in the Apost. Constit. are undoubtedly
  the work of one and the same interpolator. We further obtain
  the equally convincing and surprising result that the author of
  this forgery is also identical with the author of the =thirteen
  Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles= (§ 30, 5), and had in the one case and
  in the other the same object in view. Finally, he characterizes
  him as a Syrian cleric well versed in Scripture, especially
  the Old Testament, but also a shrewd worldly politician,
  opposed to all strict asceticism, who sought by his forgeries
  to win apostolic sanction and justification not only for the
  constitutional and liturgical institutions of the church, as well
  as the milder practice of his age, but also for his own semi-Arian
  doctrinal views.

  § 43.5. =The Apostolic Church Ordinances=[120] are, according
  to Harnack’s careful analysis, a compilation executed in a most
  scholarly fashion of extracts from four old writings: the Didache,
  the Ep. of Barnabas, from which the moral precepts are taken,
  a κατάστασις τοῦ κλήρου from the beginning of the 3rd century,
  and a κατάστασις τῆς ἐκκλησίας from the end of the 2nd century,
  with many clumsy alterations and excursuses after the style of
  the church tradition of its own period, the beginning of the
  4th century. Its introduction consists of a formula of greeting
  modelled upon the Ep. of Barnabas from the twelve Apostles who
  are designated by name. The list, which begins with the name of
  John, wants one of the two Jameses and the late chosen Matthias,
  and the number of twelve is made up by the addition of the name
  of Nathanael and that of Cephas in addition to that of Peter.
  Then the Apostles tell that Christ had commanded them to divide
  among them by lot the Eparchies, Episcopates, Presbyterates,
  Diaconates, etc., of all lands, and to send forth οἱ λόγοι into
  the whole οἰκουμένη; then follow these λόγοι, first the moral
  rules, then the constitutional enactments, both being divided
  among the several Apostles (Ἰωάννης εἶπεν, Ματθαίος εἶπεν,
  etc.). The compilation had its origin in Egypt, not, however,
  at Alexandria, where Athanasius was still unacquainted with it,
  or at least did not think it worthy of being mentioned among the
  church manuals (§ 59, 1), while at a later period it was held in
  the highest esteem by the Copts, Ethiopians, Arabians, etc., and
  took the first rank among their books on ecclesiastical procedure.




             II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM.


                      § 44. MONASTICISM.[121]

  Disgusted with worldly pursuits and following an impulse of the
oriental character in favour of the contemplative life, many ascetics
withdrew into deserts and solitudes, there as Anchorets (ἐρεμίται,
μοναχοί, μονάζοντες), amid prayer and labour, privation and self-denial,
wringing out of the wilderness their scanty support, they strove after
holiness of life which they thought they could reach only by forsaking
the accursed world. The place where this extravagant extreme of the
old ascetism arose was the Thebaid in Upper Egypt (§ 39, 3). The first,
and for a long time isolated, examples of such professional abandonment
of the world may be traced back to the 3rd century; but they had wider
spread first in the post-Constantine Age. The example of St. Anthony was
specially influential in leading a number of like-minded men to betake
themselves to isolated dwellings, λαῦραι, in his neighbourhood and to
place themselves under his spiritual direction. In this we have already
the transition from a solitary anchoret life to a communal cœnobite
life (κοινὸς βίος), and this reached maturity when Anthony’s disciple
Pachomius gathered the scattered residents in his district into one
common dwelling, _Claustrum_, _Cœnobium_, _Monasterium_, _Mandra_=fold,
and bound them under a common system of ascetic practice in prayer and
labour, especially basket making and carpet weaving. This arrangement,
without, however, any tendency to displace the anchoret life properly
so-called, won great favour, and this went on for some decades until
first of all in the East, then also in the West about A.D. 370, the land
was covered over with monasteries. The monastic life under its twofold
aspect was now esteemed as βὶος ἀγγελικός (Matt. xxii. 30), φιλοσοφία
ὑψηλή, _melior vita_. Yet even here corruption soon spread. Not merely
the feeling of spiritual need, but ambition, vanity, slothfulness
and especially the desire to avoid military service and villainage,
taxes and imposts, induced men to enter the monasteries. The Emperor
Valens therefore issued an order in A.D. 365 that such men should be
dragged out by force from their retreats. Spiritual vices too were not
wanting--extravagance and fanaticism, spiritual pride, etc. All the
more did the most distinguished bishops, _e.g._ Basil the Great, feel
it their duty to take the monasteries under their special supervision
and care. Under such direction, besides serving their own special
purpose, they became extremely important and beneficial as places of
refuge for the oppressed and persecuted, and as benevolent institutions
for the sick and the poor. Sometimes also by the introduction of
theological studies as seminaries to prepare candidates for the higher
ecclesiastical offices. Other prelates, however, preferred to use their
monks as a trusty horde for the accomplishment of their own ambitious
party ends. The monks were always reckoned among laymen, but were
distinguished from the _Seculares_ as _Religiosi_ or _Conversi_.

  § 44.1. =The Biography of St. Anthony.=--According to the _Vita
  s. Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius, Anthony was sprung from a
  wealthy Coptic family of the country town of Coma in Upper Egypt,
  and was born in A.D. 251. At the age of eighteen he lost his
  parents, and, being powerfully affected by hearing the story of
  the rich young ruler in the gospel read in church, he gave away
  all his goods to the poor and withdrew into the desert (A.D. 285).
  Amid terrible inward struggles, which took the form of daily
  conflicts with demons, who sprang upon him from the sides of his
  cave in the shape of all sort of beasts and strange creatures,
  he spent a long time in a horrible tomb, then twenty years in the
  crumbling ruins of a castle, and finally he chose as his constant
  abode a barren mountain, afterwards called Anthony’s Mount,
  where a well and some date palms afforded him the absolutely
  indispensable support. His clothing, a sheep’s skin and a hairy
  cloak, was on his body day and night, nor did he ever wash
  himself. The fame of his holiness attracted a multitude of
  like-minded ascetics who settled in his neighbourhood and
  put themselves under his spiritual direction. But also men of
  the world of all ranks made pilgrimages to him, seeking and
  finding comfort. Even Constantine and his sons testified in
  correspondence with him their veneration, and he answered “like
  a Christian Diogenes to the Christian Alexander.” Pointing to
  Christ as the only miracle worker, he healed by his prayers
  bodily maladies and by his conversations afflictions of the soul.
  Amid the distress of the persecution of Maximian in A.D. 311 he
  went to Alexandria, but found not the martyrdom which he courted.
  Again, in A.D. 351, during the bitter Arian controversy (§ 50),
  he appeared suddenly in the great capital, this time gazed at
  by Christians and pagans as a divine wonder, and converting
  crowds of the heathen. In his last days he resigned the further
  direction of the society of hermits gathered about him to his
  disciple Pachomius, himself withdrawing along with two companions
  into an unknown solitude, where he, bequeathing to the author his
  sheepskin, died in A.D. 356, in his 105th year, after exacting a
  promise that no one should know the place of his burial.--Until
  the appearance of this book, which was very soon translated into
  Latin by a certain Evagrius, no single writer, neither Lactantius,
  nor Eusebius, nor even Athanasius in any of his other undoubtedly
  genuine writings, mentions the name of this patriarchal monk
  afterwards so highly esteemed, and all later writers draw only
  from this one source. Weingarten has now not only proved that
  this _Vita s. Ant._ is not a biography in the proper sense, but
  a romance with a purpose which was intended “to represent the
  ideal of a monkish life dovetailed into the ecclesiastical system
  and raised notwithstanding all popular and vital elements into
  a spiritual atmosphere,” but has also disproved the Athanasian
  authorship of the book, without, however, seeking to deny the
  historical existence of St. Anthony and his importance in the
  establishment of monasticism, as this is already vouched for
  by the fact that even in the 4th century in the days of Rufinus
  pilgrimages were made to _Mons Antonii_.--The most important
  witness for the Athanasian authorship is Gregory Nazianzen, who
  begins his panegyric on Athanasius delivered in Constantinople
  only a few years after that father’s death, which occurred in
  A.D. 373, with the wish that he could describe brilliantly the
  life of the highly revered man, as he himself had portrayed the
  ideal of monasticism in the person of St. Anthony. But, on the
  other hand, Jerome in his _Vita Pauli_ and Rufinus in his _Hist.
  eremit._ seem not yet to have known the author of the book,
  and the former, first in his _De scriptoribus ecclst._, written
  twenty years later, knows that Athanasius was the author. Internal
  reasons, too, seem with no small weight to tell against the
  authenticity of the book, the biographical contents of which are
  largely intermixed with fabulous and legendary elements.

  § 44.2. =The Origin of Christian Monasticism.=--From the fact
  that not only Lactantius, but also Eusebius, whose history
  reaches down to A.D. 324, have nothing to say of a monasticism
  already developed or then first in process of development, it
  may perhaps be concluded that although in a general way such
  an institution was already in existence, it had not yet become
  known beyond the bounds of the Thebaid where it originated.
  But from the fact that Eusebius, who died in A.D. 340, in his
  _Vita Constantini_ reaching down to A.D. 337, never makes any
  mention of monasticism, we cannot with like probability infer
  a continuance of such ignorance down to the above-mentioned
  year, but must attribute it to the limited range of the book
  in question. In his commentary on Ps. lxviii. 7 and lxxxiv. 4
  he distinctly speaks of a Christian monasticism. The fugitive
  Athanasius, too, so early as A.D. 356 betakes himself to the
  monks of the Thebaid, and stays for a year with them (§ 50, 2, 4),
  which presupposes a certain measure of organization and celebrity
  on the part of the community of that region. In his _Hist.
  Arianorum ad monachos_, written about A.D. 360, he declares that
  already monasticism had spread through all the τόποι or districts
  of Egypt. Of a monasticism outside of Egypt, however, even this
  writing still knows nothing. We shall not, therefore, greatly
  err if we assume that the latter years of Constantine’s reign
  are to be taken as the period of the essential origin of Egyptian
  monasticism; though from this it is not to be concluded that
  the first isolated beginnings of it, which had not yet won
  any special recognition, are not to be assigned to a very much
  earlier period. Even the Old and New Testaments, in the persons
  of Elijah, John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, tell of
  temporary withdrawals, from religious and ascetical motives, into
  the wilderness. But even the life-long professional anchoretism
  and cœnobitism had their precursors in the Indian _gymnosophists_,
  in the East-Asiatic Buddhism and the Egyptian Serapis worship,
  and to a certain extent also in the Essenism of Palestine
  (§ 8, 4). From the place of its origin and the character of
  its development, however, Christian monasticism can have been
  influenced only by the Egyptian Serapis worship, and that in
  a very general sort of way. That this actually was the case,
  Weingarten especially has sought to prove from various analogies
  based upon the learned researches of French Academicians.

  § 44.3. =Oriental Monasticism.=--For centuries Egypt continued
  the central seat and training school of Christian monasticism
  both for the East and for the West. The most celebrated of all
  the Egyptian hermit colonies was that founded by Pachomius,
  formerly perhaps a monk of Serapis, († 348), at Tabennæ, an
  island of the Nile. To the mother monastery were soon attached
  numerous daughter monasteries. Each of these institutions was
  under the direction of a president called the abbot, _Abbas_,
  _i.e._ “father,” or Archimandrite; while all of them together
  were under the superior of the parent monastery. Similar unions
  were established by Ammonius among the Nitrian mountains, and by
  Macarius the Elder (§ 47, 7) in the Scetic desert. Hilarion, a
  disciple of St. Anthony († 371), is celebrated by Jerome as the
  founder of Palestinian monasticism. The _Vita Hilarionis_ of
  the latter, richly adorned with records of adventurous travels
  and wonderful events, most extravagant wonders and demoniacal
  apparitions, like the life of Paul of Thebes (§ 39, 4), has
  been recently shown to be a romance built upon certain genuine
  reminiscences. Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen with
  youthful enthusiasm sought to introduce monasticism into their
  native Asia Minor, while Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste († 380),
  carried it still further east. But though among the Syrian
  discourses of Aphraates (§ 47, 13) there is found one on
  monasticism, which thus would seem to have been introduced into
  Mesopotamia by A.D. 340, this is in contradiction to all other
  witnesses and awakens a suspicion of the ungenuineness of the
  discourse, which is further confirmed by its being wanting
  in the Armenian translation, as well as in the enumeration
  of Gennadius.--The zeal especially of Basil was successful in
  ennobling monasticism and making it fruitful. The monastic rules
  drawn up by him superseded all others in the East, and are to
  this day alone recognised in the orthodox Greek Church. According
  to these every monastery had one or more clerics for conducting
  worship and administering the sacrament. Basil also advanced
  the development and influence of monasticism by setting down
  the monasteries in the neighbourhood of the cities. In the
  5th century two of the noblest, most sensible and talented
  representatives of ancient monasticism did much for its elevation
  and ennobling; namely, Isidore, who died about A.D. 450,
  abbot and priest of a cloister at Pelusium in Egypt, and his
  contemporary Nilus, who lived among the monks of Sinai. The not
  inconsiderable remnants of their numerous letters still extant
  testify to their far-reaching influence, as well as to the noble
  and liberal spirit which they manifested (§ 47, 6, 10).[122] A
  peculiar kind of cœnobite life is found amongst the =Acoimetæ=,
  for whom the Roman Studius founded about A.D. 46O the afterwards
  very celebrated monastery _Studion_ at Constantinople, in which
  as many as a thousand monks are said to have lived together
  at one time. They took their name from the divine service
  uninterruptedly continued in their cloister night and day. From
  the 5th century the legislative Synods undertook the care of the
  monasteries. The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 put them under
  the jurisdiction of the bishop. Returning to the world was at
  first freely permitted, but was always regarded as discreditable
  and demanding submission to penance. From the 6th century,
  however, monastic vows were regarded as of life-long obligation,
  and therefore a regular canonical age was fixed and a long
  novitiate prescribed as a time of testing and consideration.
  About this time, too, besides the _propria professio_, the
  _paterna devotio_ was also regarded as binding in accordance
  with the example of 1 Sam. i. 11.

  § 44.4. =Western Monasticism.=--The West did not at first take
  kindly to the monastic idea, and only the combined exhortations
  of the most respected bishops and teachers of the Church, with
  Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine at their head, secured for it
  acceptance there. The idea that already the universally revered
  Athanasius who from A.D. 341 resided a long time in Rome (§ 50, 2),
  had brought hither the knowledge of Egyptian monasticism and
  first awakened on behalf of it the sympathies of the Westerns,
  is devoid of any sure foundation. Owing, however, to the free
  intercourse which even on the side of the Church existed between
  East and West, it is on the other hand scarcely conceivable that
  the first knowledge of Eastern monasticism should have reached
  Italy through Jerome on his return in A.D. 373 from his Eastern
  travels. But it is certain that Jerome from that time most
  zealously endeavoured to obtain recruits for it in the West,
  applying himself specially to conspicuous pious ladies of Rome
  and earning for this scant thanks from their families. The
  people’s aversion, too, against monasticism was so great that
  even in A.D. 384, when a young female ascetic called Blasilla,
  the daughter of St. Paula, died in Rome as some supposed from
  excessive fasting, an uproar was raised in which the indignant
  populace, as Jerome himself relates, cried out, _Quousque genus
  detestabile monachorum non urbe pellitur? Non lapidibus obruitur?
  non præcipitatur in fluctus?_ But twenty years later Jerome could
  say with exultation, _Crebra virginum monasteria, monachorum,
  innumerabilis multitudo, ut ... quod prius ignominiæ fuerat,
  esset postea gloriæ_. Popular opposition to the monks was longest
  and most virulently shown in North Africa. Even so late as
  about A.D. 450, Salvianus reports the expressions of such hate:
  _Ridebant, ... maledicebant ... insectabantur ... detestabantur
  ... omnia in monacho pœne fecerunt quæ in Salvatorem nostrum
  Judæorum impietas_, etc. Nevertheless monasticism continued
  to spread and therewith also the institution grew in popular
  esteem in the West. Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established it
  in Northern Gaul in A.D. 370; and in Southern Gaul, Honoratus
  [Honorius] about A.D. 400 founded the celebrated monastery of
  Serinum, on the uninhabited island of Lerina, and John Cassianus
  (§ 47, 21), the still more celebrated one at Massilia, now
  Marseilles. The inroads of the invaders well nigh extinguished
  Western monachism. It was Benedict of Nursia who first, in
  A.D. 529, gave to it unity, order, and a settled constitution,
  and made it for many centuries the pioneer of agricultural
  improvement and literary culture throughout the Western empire
  that had been hurled into confusion by the wars of the barbarians
  (§ 85).

  § 44.5. =Institution of Nunneries.=--Virgins devoted to God, who
  repudiated marriage, are spoken of as early as the 2nd century.
  The limitations of their sex forbade them entering on the life
  of anchorets, but all the more heartily did they adopt the idea
  of the cloister life. St. Anthony himself is said to have laid
  its first foundations when he was hastening away into solitude,
  by establishing at Coma for the sake of his sister whom he
  was leaving behind, an association of virgins consecrated unto
  God. Pachomius founded the first female cloister with definite
  rules, the superior of which was his own sister. From that time
  there sprang up a host of women’s cœnobite unions. The lady
  superior was called _Ammas_, “mother;” the members, μοναχαί,
  _sanctimoniales_, _nonnæ_, which was a Coptic word meaning chaste.
  The patroness of female monachism in the West was St. Paula
  of Rome, who was the scholar and friend of Jerome. Accompanied
  by her daughter Eustochium, she followed him to Palestine, and
  founded three nunneries at Bethlehem.

  § 44.6. =Monastic Asceticism.=--Although the founders of the
  Eastern monastic rules subjected themselves to the strictest
  asceticism and performed them to a remarkable extent, especially
  in fasting and enduring privations, yet the degree of asceticism
  which they enjoined upon their monks in fasting, watching, prayer
  and labour, was in general moderate and sensible. Valorous acts
  of self mortification, so very congenial to the oriental spirit,
  are thus met with in the proper monastic life seldomer than among
  ascetics living after their own fancy in deserts and solitudes.
  This accounts for the rare appearance of the =Stylites= or pillar
  saints, by whom expression was given in an outward way to the
  idea of elevation above the earthly and of struggle toward heaven.
  The most celebrated of these was _Simeon Stylites_, who lived in
  the neighbourhood of Antioch for thirty years on a pillar seventy
  feet high, and preached repentance to the people who flocked to
  him from every side. Thousands of Saracens who roamed through
  those regions sought baptism, overcome, according to the legend,
  by the power of his discourse. He died A.D. 459. After him the
  most celebrated pillar saints were one _Daniel_ who died at
  Constantinople in A.D. 489, and a younger _Simeon_ who died at
  Antioch in A.D. 596.

  § 44.7. =Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.=--Even
  after the regulating of monachism by Pachomius and Basil, there
  were still isolated hermit societies which would be bound by no
  rules. Such were the =Sarabaites= in Egypt and the =Remoboth=
  in Syria. Crowds of monks, too, under no rule swarmed about,
  called Βοσκοί, _Pabulatores_ or Grazers, because they supported
  themselves only on herbs and roots. In Italy and Africa from
  the 5th century we hear of so-called =Gyrovagi=, who under the
  pretence of monachism led a useless vagabond life. Monasticism
  assumed a decidedly heretical and schismatical character among
  the Euchites and Eustathianists in the second half of the 4th
  century. The =Euchites=, called also from their mystic dances
  _Messalians or Chorentes_, not to be confounded with the pagan
  Euchites (§ 42, 6), thought that they had reached the ideal of
  perfection, and were therefore raised above observance of the law.
  Under pretext of engaging in constant prayer and being favoured
  with divine visions, they went about begging, because work was
  not seemly for perfect saints. Every man they taught, by reason
  of his descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an
  evil demon who can be overcome only by prayer, and thus evil
  can be torn out by the roots. Then man is in need neither of the
  law, nor of holy scripture, nor of the sacraments, and may be
  unconditionally left to himself, and may even do that which to
  a legal man would be sinful. The mystic union of God and man they
  represented by lascivious acts of sensual love. They understood
  the gospel history only as an allegory and considered fire the
  creative light of the universe. By craft and espionage Bishop
  Flavian of Antioch, in A.D. 381, came to know their secret
  principles and proceedings. But notwithstanding the persecution
  now directed against them, they continued in existence till the
  6th century. The =Eustathianists= took their name from Eustathius,
  Bishop of Sebaste, the founder of monasticism in the eastern
  provinces of the empire. Their fanatical contempt of marriage
  went so far that they regarded fellowship with the married impure
  and held divine service by themselves alone. They repudiated the
  Church fasts and instead ordained fasts on Sundays and festival
  days, and wholly abstained from eating flesh. The women dressed
  in men’s clothes. From the rich they demanded the surrender of
  all their goods. Servants forsook their masters, wives their
  husbands, in order to attach themselves to the associations
  of these saints. But the resolute interference of the Synod of
  Gangra in Paphlagonia, between A.D. 360 and A.D. 370, checked
  their further spread.--More closely related to the old ascetic
  order than to the newly organized monasticism was a sect which,
  according to Augustine, had gained special acceptance among the
  country people round about Hippo. In accordance with the example
  of Abel, who in the Old Testament history is without children,
  its members, the so-called =Abelites=, indeed married, but
  restrained themselves from marital intercourse, in order that
  they might not by begetting children contribute to the spread of
  original sin, and maintained their existence by the adoption of
  strange children, one boy and one girl being received into each
  family.


                         § 45. THE CLERGY.

  The distinction between clergy and laity was ever becoming more
and more clearly marked and in the higher church offices there grew
up a spiritual aristocracy alongside of the secular aristocracy. The
priesthood arrogated a position high above the laity just as the soul
is higher than the body. There was consequently such a thronging into
the clerical ranks that a restriction had to be put upon it by the
civil laws. The choice of the clergy was made by the bishops with the
formal consent of the members of the church. In the East the election
of bishops lay ordinarily with the episcopal board of the province
concerned though under the presidency of the metropolitan, whose duty
it was to ordain the individual so elected. The episcopal chair of the
imperial capital, however, was generally under the patronage of the
court. In the West on the other hand the old practice was continued,
according to which bishops, clergy and members of the church together
made the election. At Rome, however, the emperor maintained the right
of confirming the appointment of the new bishop. The exchange of one
bishopric for another was forbidden by the Nicene Council as spiritual
adultery (Eph. v. 33 ff.), but was nevertheless frequently practised.
The monarchical rank of the bishop among the clergy was undisputed. The
_Chorepiscopi_ (§ 34, 3) had their episcopal privileges and authority
always more and more restricted, were made subordinate to the city
bishops, and finally, about A.D. 360, were quite set aside. To the
Presbyters, on the other hand, in consequence of the success of the
anti-episcopal reaction, especially among the daughter and country
churches, complete independence was granted in regard to the ministry
of the word and dispensation of sacraments, with the exception of the
ordination of the clergy, and in the West also the confirmation of the
baptism, which the bishop alone was allowed to perform.

  § 45.1. =Training of the Clergy.=--The few theological seminaries
  of Alexandria, Cæsarea, Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis could not
  satisfy the need of clerical training, and even these for the
  most part disappeared amid the political and ecclesiastical
  upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries. The West was entirely
  without such institutions. So long as pagan schools of learning
  flourished at Athens, Alexandria, Nicomedia, etc., many Christian
  youths sought their scientific preparation for the service of
  the church in them, and added to this on the Christian side by
  asceticism and theological study among the anchorets or monks.
  Others despised classical culture and were satisfied with what
  the monasteries could give. Others again began their clerical
  career even in boyhood as readers or episcopal secretaries,
  and grew up under the oversight and direction of the bishop or
  experienced clergymen. Augustine organized his clergy into a
  monastic association, _Monasterium Clericorum_, and gave it the
  character of a clerical seminary. This useful institution found
  much favour and was introduced into Sicily and Sardinia by the
  bishops driven out by the Vandals. The _Regula Augustini_, so
  often referred to the Latin Middle Ages, is of later and
  uncertain origin, but is based upon two discourses of Augustine,
  “_De Moribus Clericorum_” and an Epistle to the Nuns at
  Hippo.--The age of thirty was fixed upon as the canonical age
  for entering the order of presbyter or priest; twenty-five for
  that of deacon. Neophytes, those who had been baptized on a
  sickbed (_Clinici_), penitents and energoumeni, _Bigenie_, the
  mutilated, eunuchs, slaves, actors, comedians, dancers, soldiers,
  etc., were excluded from the clerical office. The African church
  even in the 4th century prescribed a strict examination of
  candidates as to their attainments and orthodoxy. Justinian
  at least insisted upon a guarantee of orthodoxy by means of
  episcopal examination.--=Ordination=[123] made its appearance
  as an appendage to the baptismal anointing as a sacramental
  ordinance. The one was consecration to the priesthood in the
  special sense: the other in the general sense; both bore a
  _character indelibilis_. Their efficacy was generally regarded
  as of a magical kind. The imparting of ordination was exclusively
  an episcopal privilege; but presbyters could assist at the
  consecration of those of their own order. The proposition:
  _Ne quis vage ordinatur_, was of universal application; the
  missionary office was the only exception. The anniversaries of
  episcopal ordinations, _Natales episcoporum_, were frequently
  observed as festivals. Legally no one could be ordained to a
  higher ecclesiastical office, who had not passed through all the
  lower offices from that of subdeacon. In earlier times ordination
  consisted only in imposition of hands; but subsequently, after
  the pattern of baptism there was added an anointing with _Chrism_,
  _i.e._ oil with balsam. The Lord’s Supper was partaken of
  before ordination, the candidate having previously observed a
  fast.--From the 5th century it was made imperative that the party
  ordained should adopt the =Tonsure=.[124] It had been introduced
  first in connection with the penitents, then as a symbol of
  humility it found favour among the monks, and from these it
  passed over to the clergy. Originally the whole head was shaved
  bare. At a later period the Greek tonsure, _Tonsura Pauli_, which
  merely shaved the forehead, was distinguished from the Romish,
  _Tonsura Petri_, which left a circle of hair round about the
  crown of the head, as a memorial of Christ’s crown of thorns or
  as the symbol of the royal priesthood, _Corona sacerdotalis_.
  The shaving of the beard, as an effeminate foppish custom, seemed
  to the ancient church to detract from the sternness and dignity
  of the clerical rank. In all Eastern churches the full beard was
  retained, and the wearing of it by-and-by made obligatory, as it
  is to this day. In the West, however, perhaps to mark a contrast
  to the bearded clergy of the Arian Germans, shaving became
  general among the Catholic clergy, and by papal and synodal
  ordinances became almost universally prevalent. The adoption
  of the custom was also perhaps furthered by a desire to
  give symbolic expression by the removal of the beard to the
  renunciation of the claims of the male sex on the part of a
  celibate clergy.--A solemn =Investiture= with the insignia of
  office (§ 59, 7) was gradually introduced, and was that which
  marked distinctions between the consecrations to the various
  ranks of clerical offices.

  § 45.2. =The Injunction of Celibacy.=--In accordance with a hint
  given by the Spanish Provincial Synod of Elvira in A.D. 306 in
  its 32nd canon, the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 was
  inclined to make the obligation of celibacy at least for the
  _Ordines Majores_ a binding law over the whole church. But on the
  other hand the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, a confessor and from
  his youth an ascetic, stoutly maintained that the fellowship of
  married persons too is chastity. His powerful voice decided the
  matter. The usual practice, however, was that bishops, presbyters
  and deacons should not contract a second marriage (1 Tim. iii. 2),
  after ordination should contract no marriage at all, and if
  previously married, should continue to live with their wives
  or not as they themselves should find most fit. The Easterns
  maintained this free standpoint and at the Synod of Gangra in
  A.D. 360 contended against the Eustathianists (§ 44, 7) for
  the holiness of marriage and the legitimacy of married priests;
  and in the 5th Apost. Canon there was an express injunction:
  _Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam non rejiciat
  religionis prætexti; sin autem rejecerit segregetur, et si
  perseveret deponatur_. Examples of married bishops are not
  rare in the 4th and 5th centuries; _e.g._ the father of Gregory
  Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Ptolemais, etc.
  Justinian I. forbade the election of a married man as bishop.
  The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) confirmed this
  decree, interdicted second marriages to all the clergy, but, with
  an express protest against the unnatural hardness of the Roman
  church, allowed to presbyters a single marriage with all its
  privileges which, however, must have been entered upon before
  consecration, and during the period of service at the altar all
  marital intercourse had to be discontinued. In Rome, however, the
  Spanish principles were strictly maintained. A decretal of the
  Roman bishop, Siricius, in A.D. 385, with semi-Manichæan abuse
  of marriage, insisted on the celibacy of all bishops, presbyters
  and deacons, and Leo the Great included even subdeacons under
  this obligation. All the more distinguished Latin church
  teachers contended zealously for the universal application of
  the injunction of clerical celibacy. Yet there were numerous
  instances of the contravention of the order in Italy, in Gaul,
  and in Spain itself, and conformity could not be secured even by
  the most emphatic re-issue of the injunction by successive Synods.
  In the British and Iro-Scottish church the right of the clergy
  and even of bishops to marry was insisted upon (§ 77, 3).[125]

  § 45.3. =Later Ecclesiastical Offices.=--In addition to the
  older church offices we now meet with attendants on the sick or
  =Parabolani=, from παραβάλλεσθαι τὴν ζωήν, and grave-diggers,
  κοπιαταί, _Fossarii_, whose number in the capital cities rose to
  an almost incredible extent. They formed a bodyguard ever ready
  to gratify episcopal love of pomp. Theodosius II. in A.D. 418
  restricted the number of the Parabolani of Alexandria to six
  hundred and the number of the Copiati of Constantinople to nine
  hundred and fifty. For the administration of Church property
  there were οἰκόνομοι; for the administration of the laws of the
  church there were advocates, ἔνδικοι, σύνδικοι, _Defensores_; for
  drawing up legal documents in regard to church affairs there were
  _Notarii_, ταχύγραφοι, besides, Keepers of Archives, χαρτοφύλακες,
  Librarians, _Thesaurarii_, σκευοφύλακες, etc. None of these as
  such had clerical consecration. But also within the ranks of the
  _Ordines Majores_ new offices sprang up. In the 4th century we
  meet with an =Archdeacon= at the head of the deacons. He was the
  right hand of the bishop, his representative and plenipotentiary
  in the administration and government of the diocese, frequently
  also his successor in office. The college of presbyters, too, had
  as its head the =Arch-Presbyter= who represented and supported
  the bishop in all acts of public worship. A city presbyter
  was entrusted with the supervision of the country churches
  as =Visitor=. The African _Seniores plebis_ were mere lay
  elders without clerical ordination. The office of =Deaconess=
  more or less lost its significance and gradually fell into
  disuse.--Justinian I. restricted the number of ecclesiastical
  officers in the four great churches of Constantinople to 525;
  namely, in addition to the bishop, 60 presbyters, 100 deacons,
  40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 24 singers, and
  100 doorkeepers.

  § 45.4. =Church Property.=--The possessions of the church
  regularly increased by presents and bequests was regarded
  down to the 5th century generally as the property of the poor,
  _Patrimonium pauperum_, while the cost of maintaining public
  worship and supplying the clergy with the means of livelihood
  were defrayed by the voluntary contributions, _Oblationes_,
  of the church members. But the growing demands of the clergy,
  especially of the bishops, for an income corresponding to their
  official rank and the increasing magnificence of the service, led,
  first of all in Rome, to the apportioning of the whole sum into
  four parts; for the bishops, for the subordinate clergy, for the
  expenses of public worship (buildings, vestments, etc.), and for
  the needs of the poor. With the introduction of the Old Testament
  idea of priesthood the thought gradually gained ground that the
  laity were under obligation, at first regarded simply as a moral
  obligation, to surrender a tenth of all their possessions to the
  church, and at a very early date this, in the form of freewill
  offerings, was often realised. But the Council at Macon in
  A.D. 585, demanded these tithes as a right of the church resting
  on divine institution, without, however, being thereby able to
  effect what first was secured by the Carolingian legislation
  (§ 86, 1). The demand that all property which a cleric earned in
  the service of the church, should revert to the church after his
  death, was given effect to in a Council at Carthage in A.D. 397.


     § 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.[126]

  A hierarchical distinction of ranks among the bishops had already
made its appearance even in the previous period by the elevation of
the metropolitan see and the yet more marked precedency given to the
so-called _Sedes apostolicæ_ (§ 34). This tendency got powerful support
from the political divisions of the empire made by Constantine the
Great; for now the bishops of capital cities demanded an extension
of their spiritual superiority corresponding to that given in secular
authority to the imperial governors. The guarding of earlier privileges
along with respectful consideration of more recent claims prevented
the securing of a perfect correspondence between the political and
hierarchical distribution of ranks. The result of giving consideration
to both was the development of the Patriarchal Constitution, in which
the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem
were recognised as heads of the church universal of equal rank with
jurisdiction over the patriarchates assigned them. The first place in
this clerical Pentarchy was claimed by the Roman see, which ever more
and more decidedly strove for the primacy of the whole church.

  § 46.1. =The Patriarchal Constitution.=--Constantine the Great
  divided the whole empire into four prefectures which were
  subdivided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. Many
  bishops then of the capitals of these dioceses, especially in the
  East, under the title of =Exarchs=, assumed a rank superior to
  that of the metropolitans, just as these had before arrogated a
  rank superior to that of provincial bishops. The first œcumenical
  Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 (§ 50, 1) affirmed on behalf of the
  bishops of the three most prominent _Sedes apostolicæ_, =Rome=,
  =Alexandria= and =Antioch=, that their supremacy had been already
  established by old custom. The so-called second œcumenical
  Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4) exempted the
  bishop of =Constantinople=, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην (since
  A.D. 330), from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea,
  and gave him the first rank after the bishop of Rome. To these
  distinguished prelates there was given the title of honour,
  =Patriarch=, which formerly had been given to all bishops; but
  the Roman bishops, declining to take common rank with the others,
  refused the title, and assumed instead the exclusive use of the
  title =Papa=, Πάπας, which had also been previously applied to
  all of episcopal rank. The fourth œcumenical Council of Chalcedon
  in A.D. 451, in the 28th canon, ranked the patriarch of the
  Eastern capital along with the bishop of Rome, granted him
  the right of hearing complaints against the metropolitans of
  all dioceses that they might be decided at an _endemic_ Synod
  (§ 43, 2), and as an equivalent to the vast dominions of
  his Roman colleague, gave him as an endowment in addition to
  his own patriarchal district, the three complete dioceses of
  Thrace, Pontus and Asia. The Exarchs of Heraclea in Thrace, of
  Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus, and of Ephesus in Asia, thus placed under
  him, bearing the title of _Archbishops_, ἀρχιεπίσκοποι, formed
  a hierarchical middle rank between him and the metropolitans of
  these dioceses, without, however, any strict definition of their
  status being given, so that their preferential rank remained
  uncertain and gradually fell back again into that of ordinary
  metropolitans. But even at Nicæa in A.D. 325 the bishopric of
  =Jerusalem= had been declared worthy of very special honour,
  without, however, its subordination under the Metropolitan of
  Cæsarea being disputed. Founding on this, Juvenal of Jerusalem
  in the 3rd œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 claimed
  the rank and privileges of a patriarch, but on the motion of
  Cyril of Alexandria was refused. He then applied to the Emperor
  Theodosius II. who by an edict named him patriarch, and assigned
  to him all Palestine and Arabia. Maximus, however, patriarch
  of Antioch, who was thereby deprived of part of his diocese,
  persisted in protesting until at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 at
  least Phœnicia and Arabia were restored to him.--Within his own
  official district each of these five prelates exercised supreme
  spiritual authority, and at the head of his patriarchal Synod
  decided all the affairs of the churches within the bounds. Still
  many metropolitans, especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of
  Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna maintained a position, as Αὐτοκέφαλοι,
  independent of any superiority of patriarchate or exarchate.
  Alongside of the patriarchs in the East there were σύγκελλοι as
  councillors and assistants, and at the imperial court they were
  represented by permanent legates who were called _Apocrisiarians_.
  From the 6th century the Popes of Rome began by sending them the
  _pallium_ to confer confirmation of rank upon the newly-elected
  metropolitans of the West, who were called in these parts
  _Archiepiscopi_, Archbishops. The patriarchs meeting as a
  court represented the unity of the church universal. Without
  their consent no œcumenical Council could be held, nor could any
  decision be binding on the whole church.--But first Jerusalem
  in A.D. 637, then Antioch in A.D. 638, and next Alexandria in
  A.D. 640, fell under the dominion of the Saracens.

  § 46.2. =The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.=--From the
  time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 the patriarch of
  Constantinople continued to claim equality in rank and authority
  with the bishop of Rome. But the principle upon which in either
  case the claims to the primacy were based were already being
  interpreted strongly in favour of Rome. In the East the spiritual
  rank of the bishoprics was determined in accordance with the
  political rank of the cities concerned. Constantinople was the
  residence of the ruler of the οἰκουμένη, consequently its bishop
  was œcumenical bishop. But in the eyes of the world Old Rome
  still ranked higher than the New Rome. All the proud memories of
  history clustered round the capital of the West. From Byzantium,
  on the other hand, dated the visible decline, the threatened
  overthrow of the empire. Moreover the West refused even to
  admit the principle itself. Not the will of the emperor, not the
  fortunes of the empire, ever becoming more and more deplorable,
  should determine the spiritual rank of the bishops, but the
  history of the church and the will of its Divine Founder and
  Head. Measured by this standard the see of Constantinople stood
  not only lower than those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem,
  but even below many other sees which though they scarcely had
  metropolitan rank, could yet boast of apostolic origin. Then,
  Rome unquestionably stood at the head of the church, for here
  had lived, confessed and suffered the two chief apostles, here
  too were their tombs and their bones; yea, still further, on the
  Roman chair had Peter sat as its first bishop (§ 16, 1), whom the
  Lord Himself had called to the primacy of the Apostles (§ 34, 8),
  and the Roman bishops were his successors and heirs of his
  privileges. The patriarch of Constantinople had nothing to
  depend upon but his nearness to the court. He was backed up
  and supported by the court, was only too often a tool in the
  hands of political parties and a defender of heresies which
  had the imperial favour. The case for the Roman bishop was
  incomparably superior. His being a member of the West-Roman
  empire, A.D. 395-476, with emperors for the most part weak and
  oppressed on all sides by the convulsions caused by the invasions
  of the barbarians, secured to him an incomparably greater
  freedom and independence of action, which was little, if at
  all, restricted by the Rugian and Ostrogoth invaders of Italy,
  A D. 476-536. And even in A.D. 536, when the Byzantine empire
  again obtained a footing in Italy, and held out with difficulty
  against the onslaught of the Longobards from A.D. 569 to A.D. 752
  within ever narrowing limits, the court could only seldom exercise
  an influence upon his proceedings or punish him for his refusal
  to yield by removal, imprisonment or exile. And while the East
  was rent by a variety of ecclesiastical controversies, in which
  sometimes the one, sometimes the other party prevailed, the
  West under the direction of Rome almost constantly presented the
  picture of undisturbed unity. The controversialists sought the
  mediating judgment of Rome, the oppressed sought its intercession
  and protection, and because the Roman bishops almost invariably
  lent the weight of their intellectual and moral influence to the
  cause of truth and right, the party in whose favour decision was
  given, almost certainly at last prevailed. Thus Rome advanced
  from day to day in the eyes of the Christian world, and soon
  demanded as a constant right what personal confidence or pressure
  of circumstances had won for it in particular cases. And in
  the course of time Rome has never let a favourable opportunity
  slip, never failed to hold what once was gained or even claimed
  with any possibility of success. A strong feeling in favour of
  strict hierarchical pretensions united all parties and found
  its rallying point in the chair of St. Peter; even incapable and
  characterless popes were upborne and carried through by means of
  this idea. Thus Rome advanced with firm step and steady aim, and
  in spite of all opposition and resistance continually approached
  nearer and nearer to the end in view. The East could at last hold
  on and save its ecclesiastical independence only by a complete
  and incurable division (§ 67).


          § 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS
                          TO THE PRIMACY.[127]

  The history of the Roman bishopric during the first three centuries is
almost wholly enveloped in a cloud of legend which is only occasionally
broken by a gleam of historical light (see § 33, 3, 4, 5, 7; § 35, 5;
§ 37, 2; § 40, 2; § 41, 1, 3). Only after the martyr church became in
the 4th century the powerful state church does it really enter into
the field of regular and continuous history. And now also first begins
that striving after primacy, present from the earliest times among its
bishops and inherited from the political supremacy of “eternal Rome,”
to be prosecuted with success in political and ecclesiastical quarters.
Its history, for which biographies of the popes down to the end of the
9th century in the so-called _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) are most
instructive sources, certainly always in need of critical sifting in
a high degree, permits therefore and demands for our purposes at this
point earnest and close consideration.

  § 46.3. =From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.=--At
  the time when Constantine’s conversion so completely changed the
  aspect of things =Melchiades= occupied the bishopric of Rome,
  A.D. 310 to A.D. 314. Even in A.D. 313 Constantine conferred on
  him as the chief bishop of the West the presidency of a clerical
  commission for inquiry into the Donatist schism (§ 63, 1). Under
  =Sylvester I.=, A.D. 314 to A.D. 335, the Arian controversy
  broke out (§ 50), in which, however, he laid no claim to be
  an authority on either side. That by his legates, Vitus and
  Vincentius [Vincent], he presided at the first œcumenical
  Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325 is a purely Romish fabrication; no
  contemporary and none of the older historians know anything of it.
  On account of the rise in Egypt of the Meletian schism (§ 41, 4)
  the 6th canon of the Council prescribes that the bishop of
  Alexandria “in accordance with the old customs shall have
  jurisdiction over Egypt, in Libya and in Pentapolis, since it
  is also according to old custom for the bishop of Rome to have
  such jurisdiction, as also the churches in Antioch and in the
  other provinces.” The Council, therefore, as Rufinus also and
  the oldest Latin collection of canons, the so-called _Prisca_,
  understand this canon, maintains that the ecclesiastical
  supremacy of the Roman chair extended not over all the West but
  only over the ten _suburbicarian_ provinces belonging to the
  diocese of Rome according to Constantine’s division, _i.e._ over
  Middle and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sardinia, Corsica
  and Sicily. The bishop of Rome, however, was and continued by
  the wider development of the patriarchal constitution the sole
  patriarch in all the West. What more natural than that he should
  regard himself as the one patriarch _over_ all the West? But,
  even as the only _sedes apostolica_ of the West, Rome had already
  for a long time obtained a rank far beyond the limits of the
  Nicene canon. In doubtful cases application was made from all
  quarters of the West to Rome for instruction as to the genuine
  apostolic tradition, and the epistolary replies to such questions
  assumed even in the 4th century the tone of authoritative
  statements of the truth, _epistolæ decretales_. But down to
  A.D. 344 it was never attempted to claim the authority of Rome
  over the East in giving validity to any matter. In this year,
  however, the pressure of circumstances obliged the Council
  of Sardica (§ 50, 2), after most of the Eastern bishops had
  already withdrawn, to agree to hand over to the bishop of
  Rome, =Julius I.=, A.D. 337-352, as a steadfast and consistent
  confessor of the orthodox faith in this age of ecclesiastical
  wavering, the right of receiving appeals from condemned bishops
  throughout the empire, and if he found them well supported, of
  appointing a new investigation by the bishops of the neighbouring
  province. But this decree affected only the person of Julius and
  was only the momentary makeshift of a hard-pressed minority. It
  therefore attracted no attention and was soon forgotten,--only
  Rome forgot it not.

  § 46.4. =From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to
  A.D. 402.=--Julius’ successor =Liberius=,[128] A.D. 352 to
  A.D. 366, maintained with equal steadfastness as his predecessor
  the confession of the orthodox Nicene faith, and was therefore
  banished by the Emperor Constantius in A.D. 355, who appointed
  as his successor the accommodating deacon Felix. But the members
  of the church would have nothing to do with the contemptible
  intruder, who moreover on the very day of the deportation of
  Liberius had solemnly sworn with the whole clergy of Rome to
  remain faithful to the exiled bishop. He succeeded indeed in
  drawing over to himself a considerable number of the clergy. The
  people, however, continued unfalteringly true to their banished
  bishop, and even after he had in A.D. 358 by signing a heretical
  creed (§ 50, 3) obtained permission to return, they received him
  again with unfeigned joy. It was the emperor’s wish that Liberius
  and Felix should jointly preside over the Roman church. But
  Felix was driven away by the people and could not again secure
  a footing among them. Liberius, who henceforth held his position
  in Rome as a Nicæan, amnestied those of the clergy who had
  fallen away. But the schism occasioned thereby in the church of
  Rome broke out with great violence after his death. A rigorist
  minority repudiated =Damasus I.=, A.D. 366 to A.D. 384, who had
  been chosen as his successor by the majority, because he too at
  an earlier date had belonged to the oath-breaking party of Felix.
  This minority elected Ursinus as anti-bishop. Over this there
  were contentions that led to bloodshed. The party of Damasus
  attacked the church of Ursinus and one hundred and thirty-seven
  corpses were carried out. Valentinian III. now exiled Ursinus,
  and Gratian in A.D. 378 by an edict conferred upon Damasus the
  right of giving decision without appeal as party and judge in
  one person against all bishops and clergy involved in the schism.
  In consequence of this victory of Damasus as partisan of Felix
  there was now formed in Rome a tradition which has passed over
  into the lists of the popes and the martyrologies, in which
  Liberius figures as the adherent of a heretical emperor and a
  bloody persecutor of the true Nicene faith and Felix II. as the
  legitimate pope. He is also confounded with the martyr Felix who
  suffered under Maximian and was celebrated in song by Paulinus
  Nolanus, and is thus represented as a holy martyr.[129] To the
  pontificate of =Siricius=, A.D. 384 to A.D. 398, the western
  church is indebted for the oldest extant papal decretals dating
  from A.D. 385 which contain a reply to various questions of
  the Spanish bishop couched quite in the hierarchical form and
  insisting in strong terms upon the binding obligation of clerical
  celibacy. Subsequently the same pope, burdened with “the care of
  all the churches,” feels himself obliged to issue an _encyclical_
  to all the churches of the West, denouncing the frequent
  neglect of existing ecclesiastical laws. In the Origenist
  controversy between Jerome and Rufinus (§ 51, 2) he favoured
  the latter;--whereas his successor, =Anastasius=, A.D. 398 to
  A.D. 402, took the side of Jerome.

  § 46.5. =From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.=--In
  consequence of the partition of the empire into an eastern and
  a western division in A.D. 364 (comp. § 42, 4), the claims of
  the Roman chair to ecclesiastical supremacy over the whole of the
  West were not only confirmed but also very considerably extended.
  For by this partition the western half of the empire included not
  only those countries which had previously been reckoned western,
  namely, Africa, Spain, Britain, Gaul and Italy, but also the
  prefecture of Illyricum (Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, Dalmatia,
  Pannonia, Mœsia, Dacia) with its capital Thessalonica, and thus
  events played into the hands of those who pressed the patriarchal
  claims of Rome. Even when in A.D. 379 Eastern Illyria (Macedonia,
  Mœsia and Dacia) was attached to the Eastern empire, the Roman
  bishops continued still to regard it as belonging to their
  patriarchal domain. These claims were advanced with special
  emphasis and with corresponding success by =Innocent I.=,
  A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. When in A.D. 402 he intimated to the
  archbishop of Thessalonica his elevation to the chair, he at the
  same time transferred to him as his representative the oversight
  of all the Illyrian provinces, and to his successor, in A.D. 412,
  he sent a formal document of installation as Roman vicar. Not
  only did he apply to the Roman chair that canon of the Council
  of Sardica which had referred only to the person of Julius, but
  in a decretal to a Gallic bishop he extended also the clearly
  circumscribed right of appeal on the part of condemned bishops
  into an obligation to submit all “_causæ majores_” to the
  decision of the apostolic see. From Africa a Carthaginian Synod
  in A.D. 404 sent messengers to Rome in order to secure its
  intercession with the emperor to put down the Donatists. From the
  East Theophilus of Alexandria and Chrysostom of Constantinople
  solicited the weighty influence of Rome in the Origenist
  controversy (§ 51, 3); and Alexander of Antioch (§ 50, 8)
  expresses the proud satisfaction he had, as only Western bishops
  had done before, in asking the Roman bishop’s advice on various
  constitutional and disciplinary matters. During the Pelagian
  controversy (§ 53, 4) the Palestinian Synod at Diospolis in
  A.D. 415 interceded with the Pope in favour of Pelagius accused of
  heresy in Africa; on the other hand the African Synods of Mileve
  and Carthage in A.D. 416 besieged him with the demand to give the
  sanction of his authority to their condemnation of the heretic.
  He took the side of the Anti-Pelagians, and Augustine could
  shower upon the heretics the pregnant words: _Roma locuta ...
  causa finita_.--The higher the authority of the Roman chair rose
  under Innocent, all the more painful to Rome must the humiliation
  have been, which his successor =Zosimus=, A.D. 417-418, called
  down upon it, when he, in opposition to his predecessor, took
  the part of Pelagius and his companion Cœlestius, and addressed
  bitter reproaches to the Africans for their treatment of him, but
  afterwards in consequence of their vigorous remonstrances and the
  interference of the emperor Honorius was obliged to withdraw his
  previous judgment and formally to condemn his quondam protegé.
  And when a deposed presbyter of Africa, Apiarius, sought refuge
  in Rome, the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418, in which Augustine
  also took part, made this an excuse for forbidding under threat
  of excommunication any appeal _ad transmarina judicia_. Zosimus
  indeed appealed to the canon of the Sardican Synod, which he
  quoted as Nicene; but the Africans, to whom that canon was quite
  unknown, only said that on this matter they must make inquiries
  among the Eastern churches.[130]

  § 46.6. =From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to
  A.D. 440.=--After the death of Zosimus, 26th Dec., 418, a minority
  of the clergy and the people, by the hasty election and ordination
  of the deacon Eulalius, anticipated the action of the majority
  who chose the presbyter Boniface. The recommendation of the city
  prefect Symmachus secured for the former the recognition of the
  Emperor Honorius; but the determined remonstrance of the majority
  moved him to convene a Synod at Ravenna in A.D. 419 for a final
  settlement of the dispute. When the bishops there assembled
  could not agree, he called a new Synod to meet at Spoleto at the
  approaching Easter festival, and ordered, so as to make an end
  of disturbances and tumults in the city, that both rivals should
  quit Rome until a decision had been reached. Eulalius, however,
  did not regard the injunction but pushed his way by force of arms
  into the city. The Emperor now banished him from Rome on pain of
  death, and at Spoleto the bishops decided in consequence of the
  moderation he had shown, to recognise =Boniface I.=, A.D. 419 to
  A.D. 422, as bishop of Rome. His successor was =Cœlestine I.=,
  A.D. 422 to A.D. 432. Apiarius, who meanwhile, because he
  professed repentance and besought forgiveness, had been restored,
  began anew to offend, was again deposed, and again obtained
  protection and encouragement at Rome. But an African Synod at
  Carthage energetically protested against Cœlestine’s interference,
  charging him with having often referred to a Nicene canon
  warranting the right of appeal to Rome which the most diligent
  inquiries among the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and
  Antioch, had failed to discover. On the outbreak of the Nestorian
  controversy (§ 52, 3) two opponents again sued for the favour
  of the Roman league; first of all, Nestorius of Constantinople,
  because he professed to have given particular information
  about the Pelagian-minded bishops driven from Italy who sought
  refuge in Constantinople (§ 53, 4) and had immediately made a
  communication about the error of confounding the two natures of
  Christ which had recently sprung up in the East. The brotherly
  tone of this writing, free from any idea of subordination,
  found no response at Rome. The letters of Cyril of Alexandria
  proved more acceptable, filled as they were with cringing
  flatteries of the Roman chair and venomous invectives against the
  Constantinopolitan see and its occupier. Cœlestine unreservedly
  took the side of Cyril, commanded Nestorius under threat of
  deposition and excommunication within ten days to present to
  a Roman Synod, A.D. 420, a written retractation, and remitted
  to Cyril the carrying out of this judgment. To his legates at
  the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, he gave the instructions:
  _Auctoritatem sedis apostolicæ custodire debere mandamus.... Ad
  disceptationem si fuerit ventum, vos de eorum sententiis judicare
  debetis, non subire certamen._ The Council decided precisely
  according to Cœlestine’s wish. The proud Alexandrian patriarch
  had recognised Rome as the highest court of appeal; a Western
  educated at Rome, named Maximian, thoroughly submissive to
  Cœlestine, was, with the pope’s hearty approval, raised to the
  patriarchal see of Constantinople as successor of the deposed
  Nestorius; only John of Antioch opposed the decision. Cœlestine’s
  successor =Sixtus III.=, A.D. 432 to A.D. 440, could already
  boast in A.D. 433 that he had put himself superior to the decrees
  of the Council, and in commemoration of the victory dedicated
  a beautiful church newly built to the mother of God, now called
  _S. Maria Maggiore_.[131]

  § 46.7. =From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to
  A.D. 483.=--=Leo I.=, A.D. 440 to A.D. 461 (comp. § 47, 22),
  unquestionably up to that date the greatest of all the occupants
  of the Roman chair, was also the most powerful, the worthiest and
  most successful vindicator of its authority in the East as well
  as in the West; indeed he may be regarded as properly the founder
  of the Roman papacy as a universal episcopate with the full
  sanction of the civil power. Even the Western Fathers of the 4th
  and 5th centuries, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine,
  as also Innocent I., had still interpreted the πέτρα of Matt.
  xvi. 18 partly of the confession of Peter, partly of the Person
  of Christ. First in the time of Cœlestine an attempt was made to
  refer it to the person of Peter. The legates of Cœlestine at the
  Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 had said: ὅστις, ἕως τοῦ νῦν καὶ
  ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ διαδόχοις καὶ ζῇ καὶ δικάζει. Thus they claimed
  universal primacy as of immediately Divine authority. Leo I.
  adopted this view with all his soul. In the most determined
  and persistent way he carried it out in the West; then next
  in proconsular Africa which had so energetically protested in
  the times of Innocent and Cœlestine against Romish pretensions.
  When news came to him of various improprieties spreading there,
  he sent a legate to investigate, and in consequence of his
  report addressed severe censures which were submitted to without
  opposition. The right of African clerics to appeal to Rome was
  also henceforth unchallenged. In Gaul, however, Leo had still to
  maintain a hard struggle with Hilary, archbishop of Arles, who,
  arrogating to himself the right of a primacy of Gaul, had deposed
  Celedonius, bishop of Besontio, _Besançon_. But Leo took up his
  case and had him vindicated and restored by a Roman Synod. Hilary,
  who came himself to Rome, defied the Pope, escaped threatened
  imprisonment by secret flight, and was then deprived of his
  metropolitan rights. At the same time, in A.D. 445, Leo obtained
  from the young Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., a civil
  enactment which made every sort of resistance to the divinely
  established universal primacy of the Roman see an act of high
  treason.--In the East, too, Leo gained a higher position than had
  ever before been accorded to Rome on account of his moderation
  in the Eutychian controversy (§ 52, 4). Once again was Rome
  called in to mediate between the two conflicting parties. At the
  Robber-Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, under the presidency of the
  tyrannical Dioscurus of Alexandria, the legates of Leo were not,
  indeed, allowed to speak. But at the next œcumenical Council at
  Chalcedon in A.D. 451 his doctrine won a brilliant victory; even
  here, however, much objection was raised to his hierarchical
  pretensions. He demanded from the first the presidency for his
  legates, which, however, was assigned not to them, but to the
  imperial commissioners. The demand, too, for the expulsion of
  Dioscurus from the Synod, because he dared _Synodum facere sine
  auctoritate sedis apostolicæ, quod mumquam licuit, numquem factum
  est_, did not, at first at least, receive the answer required.
  When, notwithstanding the opposition of the legates the question
  of the relative ranks of the patriarchs was dealt with, they
  withdrew from the session and subsequently protested against the
  28th canon agreed upon at that session with a reference to the
  6th Nicene canon which in the Roman _translation_, _i.e._ forgery,
  began with the words: _Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum_.
  But the Council sent the Acts with a dutiful report to Rome for
  confirmation, whereupon Leo strictly repudiated the 28th canon,
  threatening the church of Constantinople with excommunication,
  and so finally gained his point. The emperor annulled it in
  A.D. 454, and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was obliged
  to write a humble letter to Leo acquiescing in its erasure; but
  this did not prevent his successor from always maintaining its
  validity (§ 63, 2).--When the wild hordes of Attila, king of the
  Huns, spread terror and consternation by their approach, Leo’s
  priestly form appeared before him as a messenger of God, and
  saved Rome and Italy from destruction. Less successful was his
  priestly intercession with the Arian Vandal chief Genseric,
  whose army in A.D. 455 plundered, burnt and murdered throughout
  Rome for fourteen days; but all the more strikingly after his
  withdrawal did the pope’s ability display itself in restoring
  comfort and order amid scenes of unutterable destitution and
  confusion.

  § 46.8. =From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to
  A.D. 532.=--Under Leo’s second successor, the Rugian or Scyrrian
  Odoacer put an end to the West-Roman empire in A.D. 476 (§ 76, 6).
  As to the enactments of the Roman state, although himself an
  Arian, after seventeen years of a wise rule he left untouched the
  orthodox Roman church, and the Roman bishops could under him, as
  under his successor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric, also an Arian, from
  A.D. 493 to A.D. 526, more freely exercise their ecclesiastical
  functions than under the previous government, all the more
  as neither of these rulers resided in Rome but in Ravenna.
  =Pope Felix III.=, A.D. 483 to A.D. 492, in opposition to the
  Byzantine ecclesiastical policy, which by means of the imperial
  authority had for quite a hundred years retarded the development
  of the orthodox doctrine (§ 52, 5), began a schism lasting
  for thirty-five years between East and West, from A.D. 484 to
  A.D. 519, which no suspicion of disloyal combination with the
  Western rulers can account for. On the appointment of Felix III.
  Odoacer assumed the right of confirming all elections of Popes,
  just as previously the West Roman emperors had claimed, and Rome
  submitted without resistance. The Gothic kings, too, maintained
  this right.--=Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496 (comp. § 47, 22),
  ventured before the Emperor Anastasius I., in A.D. 493, to
  indicate the relation of _Sacerdotium_ and _Imperium_ according
  to the Roman conception, which already exhibits in its infant
  stage of development the mediæval theory of the two swords
  (§ 110, 1) and the favourite analogy of the sun and the moon
  (§ 96, 9). His peaceable successor =Anastasius II.=, A.D. 496 to
  A.D. 498, entered into negotiations for peace with the Byzantine
  court; but a number of Roman fanatics wished on this account to
  have him cast out of the communion of the church, and saw in his
  early death a judgment of heaven upon his conduct. He has ever
  since been regarded as a heretic, and as such even Dante consigns
  him to a place in hell. After his death there was a disputed
  election between =Symmachus=, A.D. 498 to A.D. 514, and Laurentius.
  The schism soon degenerated into the wildest civil war, in which
  blood was shed in the churches and in the streets. Theodoric
  decided for Symmachus as the choice of the majority and the first
  ordained, but his opponents then charged him before the king as
  guilty of the gravest crimes. To investigate the charges brought
  against the bishop the king now convened at Rome a Synod of all
  the Italian bishops, _Synodus palmaris_ of A.D. 502, so called
  from the porch of St. Peter’s Church adorned with palms, where it
  first met. As Symmachus on his way to it was met by a wild mob of
  his opponents and only narrowly escaped with his life, Theodoric
  insisted no longer on a regular proof of the charges against
  him. The bishops without any investigation freely proclaimed him
  their pope, and the deacon Eunodius of Pavia, known also as a
  hymn writer, commissioned by them to make an apology for their
  procedure, laid down the proposition that the pope who himself is
  judge over all, cannot be judged of any man. Bloody street fights
  between the two parties, however, still continued by day and
  night. Symmachus’ successor =Hormisdas=, A.D. 514 to A.D. 523,
  had the satisfaction of seeing the Byzantine court, in order
  to prepare the way for the winning back of Italy, seeking
  for reconciliation with the Western church, and in A.D. 519
  submitting to the humbling conditions of restoration to church
  fellowship offered by the pope. A sharp edict of the West Roman
  emperor Justin II. against the Arians of his empire caused
  Theodoric to send an embassy in their favour to Constantinople,
  at the head of which stood =John I.=, A.D. 523 to A.D. 526, with
  a threat of reprisals. The pope, however, seems rather to have
  utilized his journey for intrigues against the Italian government
  of the Goths, for after his return Theodoric caused him to
  be cast into prison, in which he died. He was succeeded by
  =Felix IV.= A.D. 526 to A.D. 530, after whose death the election
  was again disputed by two rivals. This schism, however, was only
  of short duration, since Dioscurus, the choice of the majority,
  died during the next month. His rival =Boniface II.=, A.D. 530
  to A.D. 532, a Goth by birth and favoured by the Ostrogoth
  government, applied himself with extreme severity to put down
  the opposing party.

  § 46.9. =From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to
  A.D. 590.=--Meanwhile Justinian I. had been raised to the
  Byzantine throne, and his long reign from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565,
  was in many ways a momentous one for the fortunes of the Roman
  bishopric. The reconquest of Italy, from A.D. 536 to A.D. 553, by
  his generals Belisarius and Narses, and the subsequent founding
  of the Exarchate at Ravenna in A.D. 567, at the head of which a
  representative of the emperor, a so-called Roman patrician stood,
  freed the pope indeed from the control of the Arian Ostrogoths
  which since the restoration of ecclesiastical fellowship with the
  East had become oppressive, but it brought them into a new and
  much more serious dependence. For Justinian and his successors
  demanded from the Roman bishops as well as from the patriarchs of
  Constantinople unconditional obedience.--=Agapetus I.=, A.D. 535
  to A.D. 536, sent as peacemaker by the Goths to Constantinople,
  escaped the fate of John I. perhaps just because he suddenly died
  there. Under his successor =Silverius=, A.D. 536 to A.D. 537,
  Belisarius, in December, A.D. 536, made his entry into Rome,
  and in the March following he deposed the pope and sentenced
  him to banishment. This he did at the instigation of the Empress
  Theodora whose machinations in favour of Monophysitism had been
  already felt by Agapetus. Theodora had already designated the
  wretched =Vigilius=, A.D. 537 to A.D. 555, as his successor. He
  had purchased her favour by the promise of two hundred pounds
  of gold and acquiescence in the condemnation of the so-called
  _three chapters_ (§ 52, 6) so eagerly desired by her. Owing
  to his cowardliness and want of character Africa, North Italy
  and Illyria shook off their allegiance to the Roman see and
  maintained their independence for more than half a century.
  Terrified by this disaster he partly retracted his earlier
  agreement with the empress, and Justinian sent him into exile.
  He submitted unconditionally and was forgiven, but died before
  reaching Rome. =Pelagius I.=, A.D. 555 to A.D. 560, also a
  creature of Theodora, subscribed the agreement and so confirmed
  the Western schism which Gregory the Great first succeeded in
  overcoming.--The fantastic attempt of Justinian to raise his
  obscure birthplace Tauresium, the modern Bulgarian Achrida, to
  the rank of a metropolis as Justinianopolis or _Prima Justiniana_,
  and its bishop to the rank of patriarch with Eastern Illyria as
  his patriarchate, proved, notwithstanding the consent of Vigilius,
  a still-born child.

  § 46.10. =From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to
  A.D. 625.=--After the papal chair had been held by three
  insignificant popes in succession =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590
  to A.D. 604 (comp. § 47, 22), was raised to the Apostolic
  see, the greatest, most capable, noblest, most pious and most
  superstitious in the whole long series of popes. He took the
  helm of the church at a time when Italy was reduced to the most
  terrible destitution by the savage and ruthless devastations of
  the Arian Longobards lasting over twenty years (§ 76, 8), and
  neither the emperor nor his exarch at Ravenna had the means of
  affording help. Gregory could not allow Italy and the church to
  perish utterly under these desperate circumstances, and so was
  compelled to assume the functions of civil authority. When the
  Longobards in A.D. 593 oppressed Rome to the uttermost there
  remained nothing for him but to purchase their withdrawal with
  the treasures of the church, and the peace finally concluded
  with them in A.D. 599 was his and not the exarch’s work. The
  exceedingly rich possessions of lands and goods, the so-called
  _Patrimonium Petri_, extending throughout all Italy and the
  islands, brought him the authority of a powerful secular prince
  far beyond the bounds of the Roman duchy, in comparison with
  which the rank of the exarch himself was insignificant. The
  Longobards too treated with him as an independent political power.
  Gregory, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the first founder
  of the temporal power of the Papacy on Italian soil. But all
  this as we can easily understand provoked no small dislike of
  the pope at Constantinople. The pope, on the other hand, was
  angry with the Emperor Maurice because he gave no consideration
  to his demand that the patriarch, Johannes Jejunator, should
  be prohibited from assuming the title Ἐπίσκοπος οἰκουμενικός.
  Gregory’s own position in regard to the primacy appears from
  his Epistles. He writes to the bishop of Syracuse: _Si qua culpa
  in episcopis invenitur, nescio, quis Sedi apostolicæ subjectus
  non sit; cum vero culpa non existit, omnes secundum rationem
  humilitatis æquales sunt_. And with this reservation it was
  certainly meant when he, in a letter to the patriarch of
  Alexandria, who had addressed him as “_Universalis Papa_,”
  most distinctly refused this title and readily conceded to
  the Alexandrian as well as to the Antiochean see, as of Petrine
  origin (the Antiochean directly, § 16, 1; the Alexandrian
  indirectly through Mark, § 16, 4), equal rank and dignity with
  that of Rome; and when he denounced as an anti-Christ every
  bishop who would raise himself above his fellow bishops. Thus
  he compared Johannes Jejunator to Lucifer who wished to exalt
  himself above all the angels. Gregory, on the other hand, in
  proud humility styled himself, as all subsequent popes have done,
  _Servus servorum Dei_. When he extolled the Frankish Jezebel
  Brunhilda [Brunehilda] (§ 77, 7), who had besought him to send
  her relics and at another time a pallium for a bishop, as an
  exemplary pious Christian woman and a wise ruler, he may, owing
  to the defective communication between Rome and Gaul, have had
  no authentic information about her doings and disposition. The
  memory of the otherwise noble-minded pope is more seriously
  affected by his conduct in reference to the emperor Phocas,
  A.D. 602 to A.D. 610, the murderer of the noble and just emperor
  Maurice, whom he congratulates upon his elevation to the throne,
  and makes all the angelic choirs of heaven and all tongues on
  earth break forth in jubilees and hymns of thanksgiving; but even
  here again, when he thus wrote, the news of his iniquities,--not
  only the slaughter of the emperor, but also of his queen, his
  five sons and three daughters, etc., by which this demon in
  human form cut his way to the throne,--may not have been known to
  him in their full extent.--Phocas, however, showed himself duly
  thankful, for at the request of pope =Boniface III.=, A.D. 606
  to A.D. 607, he refused to allow the patriarch of Constantinople
  to assume the title of Universal bishop, while at the same time
  he formally acknowledged the chair of Peter at Rome as _Caput
  omnium ecclesiarum_. To the next pope =Boniface IV.=, A.D. 608 to
  A.D. 615, he presented the beautiful Pantheon at Rome, which from
  being a temple dedicated to Cybele, the mother of the gods, and
  to all the gods, he turned into a church of the mother of God and
  of all the martyrs.[132]

  § 46.11. =From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to
  A.D. 741.=--For almost fifty years, from A.D. 633 under
  =Honorius I.=, A.D. 625 to A.D. 638, the third successor of
  Boniface IV., the _Monothelite controversy_ (§ 52, 8) continued
  its disastrous course. Honorius, a pious and peace-loving man,
  had seen nothing objectionable in this attempt of the Emperor
  Heraclius (A.D. 611 to A.D. 641) to win the numerous Monophysites
  back to the unity of the church by the concession of _one_ will
  in the two natures of Christ, and was prepared to co-operate in
  the work. But the conviction grew more and more strong that the
  doctrine proposed in the interests of peace was itself heretical.
  All subsequent bishops of Rome therefore unanimously condemned as
  an accursed heresy (§ 52, 9), what their predecessor Honorius had
  agreed to and confessed. This explains how the exarch of Ravenna
  delayed for more than a year the confirmation of the election
  of the next pope, =Severinus=, A.D. 638 to A.D. 640, and granted
  it only in A.D. 640 as amends for his wholesale plundering of
  the treasury of the Roman church to supply his own financial
  deficiencies. In the time of =Martin I.=, A.D. 649 to A.D. 653,
  the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 642 to A.D. 668, sought to make
  an end of the bitter controversy by the strict prohibition of any
  statement as to one will or two wills. The determined pope had to
  suffer for his opposition by severe imprisonment and still more
  trying banishment, in which he suffered from hunger and other
  miseries (A.D. 655). The new emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus,
  A.D. 668 to A.D. 685, finally recognised the indispensable
  necessity of securing reconciliation with the West. In A.D. 680,
  he convened an œcumenical Council at Constantinople at which the
  legates of the pope =Agatho=, A.D. 678 to A.D. 682, the fifth
  successor of Martin I., once more prescribed to the Greeks what
  should henceforth be regarded throughout the whole empire as
  the orthodox faith. The Council sent its Acts to Rome with the
  request that they might be confirmed, which Agatho’s successor,
  =Leo II.=, A.D. 682 to A.D. 683, did, notwithstanding the
  condemnation therein very pointedly expressed of the heretical
  pope Honorius, which indeed he explicitly approved.--Once again
  in A.D. 686, the Roman church was threatened with a schism by a
  double election to the papal chair. This, however, was averted
  by the opposing electors, lay and clerical, agreeing to set
  aside both candidates and uniting together in the election of
  the =Thracian Conon=, A.D. 686 to A.D. 687. Precisely the same
  thing happened with a similar result on the death of Conon.
  The new candidate whom both parties agreed upon this time was
  =Sergius I.=, A.D. 687 to A.D. 701, but he was obliged to purchase
  the exarch’s confirmation by a present of a hundred pounds of gold.
  His rejection of the conclusions of the second Trullan Council
  at Constantinople in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), which in various points
  disregarded the pretensions of Rome, brought him into conflict
  with the emperor Justinian II., A.D. 685 to A.D. 711. The result
  of this contest was to show that the power and authority of the
  pope in Italy were at this time greater than those of the emperor.
  When the emperor sent a high official to Rome with the order
  to bring the pope prisoner to Constantinople, almost the whole
  population of the exarchate gathered out in the pope’s defence.
  The Byzantine ambassador sought and obtained protection from the
  pope, under whose bed he crept, and was then allowed to quit Rome
  in safety, followed by the scorn and abuse of the people. Soon
  thereafter, in A.D. 695, Justinian was overthrown, and with slit
  ears and nose sent into exile. In A.D. 705, having been restored
  by the Bulgarian king, he immediately took fearful revenge upon
  the rebel inhabitants of Ravenna. Pope Constantine I., A.D. 708
  to A.D. 715, intimidated by what he had seen, did not dare to
  refuse the imperial mandate which summoned him to Byzantium
  for the arrangement of ecclesiastical differences. With fear
  and trembling he embarked. But he succeeded in coming to an
  understanding with the emperor, who received and dismissed him
  with every token of respect. Under his successor, =Gregory II.=,
  A.D. 715 to A.D. 731, the Byzantine iconoclast controversy
  (§ 66, 1) gave occasion to an almost complete rupture between
  the papacy and the Byzantine empire; and under =Gregory III.=,
  A.D. 731 to A.D. 741, the papacy definitely withdrew from the
  Byzantine and put itself under the Frankish government. Down to
  the latest age of the exarchate of Ravenna the confirmation of
  papal elections by the emperor or his representative, the exarch,
  was always maintained, and only after it had been given was
  consecration allowed. This is proved both from the biographies
  of the papal books and from the relative formulæ of petition in
  the _Liber diurnus Rom. Pontificum_, a collection of formulæ for
  the performance of the most important acts in the service of the
  Romish Church made between A.D. 685 and A.D. 751. The election
  itself was in the hands of the three orders of the city (_clerus_,
  _exercitus_ and _populus_).--Continuation § 82.




                III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.


      § 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED
                            REPRESENTATIVES.

  The Ancient Church reached its highest glory during the 4th and
5th centuries. The number of theological schools properly so-called
(§ 45, 1) was indeed small, and so the most celebrated theologians
were self-taught in theology. But all the greater must the intellectual
resources of this age have been and all the more powerful the general
striving after culture, when the outward means, helps and opportunities
for obtaining scientific training were so few. The middle of the 5th
century, marked by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, may be regarded
as the turning point where the greatest height in theological science
and in other ecclesiastical developments was reached, and from this
point we may date the beginnings of decline. After this the spirit
of independent research gradually disappeared from the Eastern as
well as from the Western Church. Political oppression, hierarchical
exclusiveness, narrowing monasticism and encroaching barbarism choked
all free scientific effort, and the industry of compilers took the place
of fresh youthful intellectual production. The authority of the older
church teachers stood so high and was regarded as binding in so eminent
a degree that at the Councils argument was carried on almost solely
by means of quotations from the writings of those fathers who had been
recognised as orthodox.

  § 47.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies:=

    a. =In the 4th and 5th centuries.=--Since the time of the
       two Dionysiuses (§ 33, 7) the Alexandrian theology had
       been divided into two different directions which we may
       distinguish as the old and the new Alexandrian. =The Old
       Alexandrian School= held by the subordinationist view
       of Origen and strove to keep open to scientific research
       as wide a field as possible. Its representatives showed
       deep reverence for Origen but avoided his more eccentric
       speculations. Its latest offshoot was the _Semiarianism_
       with which it came to an end in the middle of the 4th
       century. This same free scientific tendency in theology
       was yet more decidedly shown in =the Antiochean School=.
       Although at first animated by the spirit which Origen had
       introduced into theology, its further development was a
       thoroughly independent one, departing from its original
       in many particulars. To the allegorical method of
       interpretation of the Origenist school it opposed
       the natural grammatico-historical interpretation, to its
       mystical speculation, clear positive thinking. Inquiry into
       the simple literal sense of holy scripture and the founding
       of a purely biblical theology were its tasks. Averse to all
       mysteries, it strove after a positive, rational conception
       of Christianity and after a construction of dogma by
       means of clear logical thought. Hence its dogmatic aim was
       pre-eminently the careful distinguishing of the divine and
       human in Christ and in Christianity, forming a conception
       of each by itself and securing especially in both due
       recognition of the human. The theology of the national
       =East-Syrian Church=, far more than that of the Antiochean
       or Græco-Syrian, was essentially bound down by tradition.
       It had its seminaries in the theological schools of Nisibis
       and Edessa. The oriental spirit was here displayed in an
       unrestricted manner; also a tendency to theosophy, mysticism
       and asceticism, a special productiveness in developing forms
       of worship and constitution, and withal doctrinal stability.
       In their exegesis the members of this school co-operated
       with the Antiocheans, though not so decidedly, in opposing
       the arbitrary allegorizing of the Origenist school, but
       their exegetical activity was not, as with the Antiocheans,
       scientific and critical but rather practical and homiletical.
       =The New Alexandrian School= was the prevailing one for the
       4th century so far as Alexandrian culture was concerned.
       Its older representatives, at least, continued devotedly
       attached to Origen and favourable to the speculative
       treatment of Christian doctrine introduced by him. But
       they avoided his unscriptural extravagances and carried out
       consistently the ecclesiastical elements of his doctrine. By
       a firm acceptance of the doctrine of the eternal generation
       of the Son they overcame the subordinationism of their
       master, and in this broke away from the old Alexandrian
       school and came into closer relations to the theology of the
       Western church. To the Antiochean school, however, they were
       directly opposed in respect of the delight they took in the
       mysteries of Christianity, and their disinclination to allow
       the reason to rule in theology. The union of the divine and
       human in Christ and in Christianity seemed to them a sublime,
       incomprehensible mystery, any attempt to resolve it being
       regarded as alike useless and profane. But in this way
       the human element became more and more lost to view and
       became absorbed in the divine. They energetically affirmed
       the inseparable union of the two, but thereby lost the
       consciousness of their distinctness and fell into the
       contrary error of Antiochean onesidedness. With Cyril of
       Alexandria the New Alexandrian school properly began to
       assume the form of a sect and to show symptoms of decay,
       although he himself retained the reputation of an orthodox
       teacher. =The Western Theology= of this period, as well as
       its North-African precursor (§ 31, 10, 11), energetically
       insisted upon the application of Christianity to the life,
       the development of the doctrines affecting this matter
       and the maintenance of the church system of doctrine as a
       strong protection against all wilfulness in doctrine. In
       it therefore the traditional theology finds its chief home.
       Still the points of contact with the East were so many and
       so vital that however much inclined to stability the West
       might be, it could not altogether remain unmoved and without
       enrichment from the theological movements of the age. Thus
       we distinguish in the West four different but variously
       inter-connected tendencies. First of all there is the
       genuinely _Western_, which is separated on the one hand in
       Tertullian and Cyprian, but on the other hand is variously
       influenced by the talented teachers of the New Alexandrian
       School, which continued to mould and dominate the cultured
       theology of the West. Its chief representatives are
       Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and above all, Augustine,
       who completely freed the Latin theology from its hitherto
       prevailing dependence on the Greek, placing it now upon its
       own feet. The representatives of this tendency were at first
       in complete accord with the members of the New Alexandrian
       school in their opposition to the semi-Arian Origenists
       and the Nestorianizing Antiocheans, but then as that school
       itself drifted into the position of a heretical sect, they
       also decidedly contended for the other side of the truth
       which the Antiochean school maintained. A second group of
       Western theologians were inspired by the writings of Origen,
       without, however, abandoning the characteristics of the
       Western spirit. To this class belongs Jerome, who afterwards
       repudiated his master and joined the previously named school,
       and Rufinus. The third group of Pelagians represent the
       practical but cool rationalistic tendency of the West. The
       fourth is that of the semi-Pelagians who in the Western
       theology intermingle synergistic elements of an Antiochean
       complexion.

    b. =Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=--The brilliant period
       of theological literature had now closed. There still
       were scholars who wrought laboriously upon the original
       contributions of the fathers, and reproduced the thoughts
       of their predecessors in a new shape suited to the needs
       of the time, but spirit and life, creative power and
       original productivity had well nigh disappeared. After the
       monophysite Johannes Philoponus of Alexandria had commented
       on the works of Aristotle and applied their categories
       to theology, the Platonic philosophy, hitherto on account
       of its ideal contents the favourite of all philosophizing
       church fathers, was more and more set aside by the
       philosophy of the Stagirite so richly developed on the
       formal side. The theology of the Greeks even at so early a
       date assumed to some extent the character of Scholasticism.
       Alongside of it, however, we have a theosophic mysticism
       which reverting from the tendency that had lately come into
       vogue to Neoplatonic ideas, drew its chief inspiration from
       the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. In the West, in addition to
       the general causes of decay, we have also the sufferings of
       the times amid the tumult of the migration of the nations.
       In Italy Boëthius and Cassiodorus won for themselves
       imperishable renown as the fosterers of classical and
       patristic studies in an age when these were in danger of
       being utterly forgotten. The series of Latin church fathers
       in the strict sense ends with Gregory the Great; that of
       Greek church fathers with Johannes Damascenus.




         1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

  § 47.2. =The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old
  Alexandrian School= is the father of Church History =Eusebius
  Pamphili=, _i.e._, the friend of Pamphilus (§ 31, 6), bishop
  of Cæsarea from A.D. 314 to A.D. 340. The favour of the emperor
  Constantine laid the imperial archives open to him for his
  historical studies. By his unwearied diligence as an investigator
  and collector he far excels all the church teachers of his age
  in comprehensive learning, to which we owe a great multitude of
  precious extracts from long lost writings of pagan and Christian
  antiquity. His style is jejune, dry and clumsy, sometimes
  bombastic. His =Historical Writings= supported on all sides by
  diligent research, want system and regularity, and suffer from
  disproportionate treatment and distribution of the material. To
  his Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία in 10 bks., reaching down to A.D. 324,
  he adds a highly-coloured biography of Constantine in 4 bks.,
  which is in some respects a continuation of his history; and
  to it, again, he adds a fawning panegyric on the emperor.--At
  a later date he wrote an account of the Martyrs of Palestine
  during the Diocletian persecution which was afterwards added
  as an appendix to the 8th bk. of the History. A collection of
  old martyrologies, three bks. on the life of Pamphilus, and a
  treatise on the origin, celebration and history of the Easter
  festival, have all been lost. Of great value, especially for the
  synchronizing of biblical and profane history, was his diligently
  compiled Chronicle, Παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία, similar to that of Julius
  Africanus (§ 31, 3), an abstract of universal history reaching
  down to A.D. 352, to which chronological and synchronistic tables
  were added as a second part. The Greek original has been lost,
  but Jerome translated it into Latin, with arbitrary alterations,
  and carried it down to A.D. 378.--The =Apologetical Writings=
  take the second place in importance. Still extant are the two
  closely-connected works: _Præparatio Evangelica_, Εὐαγγελικὴ
  προπαρασκευή, in 15 bks., and the _Demonstratio Evangelica_,
  Εὐαγγελικὴ ἀπόδειξις, in 8 out of an original of 20 bks. The
  former proves the absurdity of heathenism; the latter, the truth
  and excellence of Christianity. A condensed reproduction of
  the contents and text of the Θεοφανεία in 5 bks. is found only
  in a Syriac translation. The Ἐκλογαὶ προφητικαί in 4 bks., of
  which only a portion is extant, expounds the Old Testament in an
  allegorizing fashion for apologetic purposes; and the treatise
  against Hierocles (§ 23, 3) contests his comparison of Christ
  with Apollonius of Tyana. A treatise in 30 bks. against Porphyry,
  and some other apologetical works are lost.--His =Dogmatic
  Writings= are of far less value. These treatises--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου,
  in 2 bks., the one already named against Hierocles, and Περὶ τῆς
  ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας, also against Marcellus (§ 50, 2)--are
  given as an Appendix in the editions of the _Demonstratio
  Evangelica_. On his share in Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, see
  § 31, 6; and on his Ep. to the Princess Constantia, see § 57, 4.
  The weakness of his dogmatic productions was caused by his
  vacillating and mediating position in the Arian controversy,
  where he was the mouthpiece of the moderate semi-Arians
  (§ 50, 1, 3), and this again was due to his want of speculative
  capacity and dogmatic culture.--Of his =Exegetical Writings=
  the Commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms are the most complete,
  but of the others we have only fragments. We have, however, his
  Τοπικά in the Latin translation of Jerome: _De Situ et Nominibus
  Locorum Hebraeorum_.[133]

  § 47.3. =Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.=

    a. The most conspicuous figure in the church history of the
       4th century is =Athanasius=, styled by an admiring posterity
       _Pater orthodoxiæ_. He was indeed every inch of him a church
       father, and the history of his life is the history of the
       church of his times. His life was full of heroic conflict.
       Unswervingly faithful, he was powerful and wise in building
       up the church; great in defeat, great in victory. His was a
       life in which insight, will and action, earnestness, force
       and gentleness, science and faith, blended in most perfect
       harmony. In A.D. 319 he was a deacon in Alexandria. His
       bishop Alexander soon discovered the eminent gifts of the
       young man and took him with him to the Council of Nicæa
       in A.D. 325, where he began the battle of his life. Soon
       thereafter, in A.D. 328, Alexander died and Athanasius
       became his successor. He was bishop for forty-five years,
       but was five times driven into exile. He spent about
       twenty years in banishment, mostly in the West, and died
       in A.D. 373. His writings are for the most part devoted
       to controversy against the Arians (§ 50, 6); but he
       also contested Apollinarianism (§ 52, 1), and vindicated
       Christianity against the attacks of the heathens in the
       pre-Arian treatise in two bks. _Contra Gentes_, Κατὰ Ἑλλήνων,
       the first bk. of which argues against heathenism, while the
       second expounds the necessity of the incarnation of God in
       Christ. For a knowledge of his life and pastoral activity
       the _Librî paschales_, Festal letters (§ 56, 3), are of
       great value.[134] Of less importance are his exegetical,
       allegorical writings on the Psalms. His dogmatic,
       apologetical and polemical works are all characterized
       by sharp dialectic and profound speculation, and afford
       a great abundance of brilliant thoughts, skilful arguments
       and discussions on fundamental points in a style as clear
       as it is eloquent; but we often miss systematic arrangement
       of the material, and they suffer from frequent repetition
       of the same fundamental thoughts, defects which, from the
       circumstances of their composition, amid the hot combats of
       his much agitated life, may very easily be understood and
       excused.[135]

  § 47.4. =(The Three Great Cappadocians.)=--

    b. =Basil the Great=, bishop of his native city of Cæsarea
       in Cappadocia, is in very deed a “kingly” figure in church
       history. His mother Emmelia and his grandmother Macrina
       early instilled pious feelings into his youthful breast.
       Studying at Athens, a friendship founded on love to the
       church and science soon sprang up between him and his
       likeminded countryman Gregory Nazianzen, and somewhat
       later his own brother Gregory of Nyssa became an equally
       attached member of the fraternity. After he had visited
       the most celebrated ascetics in Syria, Palestine and
       Egypt, he continued long to live in solitude as an ascetic,
       distributed his property among the poor, and became
       presbyter in A.D. 364, bishop in A.D. 370. He died in
       A.D. 379. The whole rich life of the man breathed of the
       faith that overcometh the world, of self-denying love and
       noble purpose. He gave the whole powers of his mind to
       the holding together of the Catholic church in the East
       during the violent persecution of the Arian Valens. The
       most beautiful testimony to his noble character was the
       magnificent Basil institute, a hospital in Cæsarea, to which
       he, while himself living in the humblest manner, devoted
       all his rich revenues. His writings, too, entitle Basil
       to a place among the most distinguished church fathers.
       They afford evidence of rich classical culture as well as of
       profound knowledge of Scripture and of human nature, and are
       vigorous in expression, beautiful and pictorial in style.
       In exegesis he follows the allegorical method. Among his
       dogmatic writings the following are the most important:
       Ll. 5 _Adv. Eunomium_ (§ 50, 3) and _De Spiritu s. ad
       Amphilochium_ against the Pneumatomachians (§ 50, 5). The
       other writings bearing his name comprise 365 Epistles,
       moral and ascetic tractates, Homilies on the Hexæmeron and
       13 Psalms, and Discourses (among them, Πρὸς τοὺς νέους,
       ὁπως ἂν ἐξ ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων), a larger and a
       short Monastic rule, and a Liturgy.[136]

    c. =Gregory Nazianzen= was born in the Cappadocian village
       Arianz. His father Gregory, in his earlier days a
       Hypsistarian (§ 42, 6), but converted by his pious wife
       Nonna, became bishop of Nazianzum [Nazianzen]. The son, after
       completing his studies in Cæsarea, Alexandria and Athens,
       spent some years with Basil in his cloister in Pontus, but,
       when his father allowed himself to be prevailed upon to sign
       an Arianizing confession, he hasted to Nazianzum [Nazianzen],
       induced him to retract, and was there and then suddenly and
       against his will ordained by him a presbyter in A.D. 361.
       From that time, always vacillating between the desire for
       a quiet contemplative ascetic life and the impulse toward
       ecclesiastical official activity, easily attracted and
       repelled, not without ambition, and so sometimes irritable
       and out of humour, he led a very changeful life, which
       prevented him succeeding in one definite calling. Basil
       transferred to him the little bishopric of Sasima; but
       Gregory fled thence into the wilderness to escape the
       ill-feelings stirred up against him. He was also for a long
       time assistant to his father in the bishopric of Nazianzum
       [Nazianzen]. He withdrew, however, in A.D. 375, when the
       congregation in spite of his refusal appointed him successor
       to his father. Then the small, forsaken company of Nicene
       believers in Constantinople called him to be their pastor.
       He accepted the call in A.D. 379, and delivered here in a
       private chapel, which he designated by the significant name
       of Anastasia, his celebrated five discourses on the divinity
       of the Logos, which won for him the honourable title of
       ὁ θεόλογος. He was called thence by Theodosius the Great in
       A.D. 380 to be patriarch of the capital, and had assigned
       to him the presidency of the Synod of Constantinople in
       A.D. 381. But the malice of his enemies forced him to resign.
       He returned now to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], administered for
       several years the bishopric there, and died in A.D. 390 in
       rural retirement, without having fully realised the motto
       of his life: Πράξις ἐπίβασις θεωρίας. His writings consist
       of 45 Discourses, 242 Epistles, and several poems (§ 48, 5).
       After the 5 λόγοι θεολογικοί and the Λόγος περὶ φυγῆς (a
       justification of his flight from Nazianzum [Nazianzen] by
       a representation of the eminence and responsibility of the
       priesthood), the most celebrated are two philippics, Λόγοι
       στηλιτευτικοί (στηλίτευσις=the mark branded on one at
       the public pillory), _Invectivæ in Julianum Imperatorem_,
       occasioned by Julian’s attempt to deprive the Christians
       of the means of classical culture.[137]

    d. =Gregory of Nyssa= was the younger brother of Basil. In
       philosophical gifts and scientific culture he excelled his
       two elder friends. His theological views too were rooted
       more deeply than theirs in those of Origen. But in zeal
       in controverting Arianism he was not a whit behind them,
       and his reputation among contemporaries and posterity is
       scarcely less than theirs. Basil ordained him bishop of
       Nyssa in A.D. 371, and thus, not without resistance, took
       him away from the office of a teacher of eloquence. The
       Arians, however, drove him from his bishopric, to which he
       was restored only after the death of the Emperor Valens.
       He died in A.D. 394. He took his share in the theological
       controversies of his times and wrote against Eunomius and
       Apollinaris. His dogmatic treatises are full of profound
       and brilliant thoughts, and especially the Λόγος κατηχητικὸς
       ὁ μέγας, an instruction how to win over Jews and Gentiles
       to the truth of Christianity; Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως,
       conversations between him and his sister Macrina after the
       death of their brother Basil, one of his most brilliant
       works; Κατὰ εἱμαρμένης, against the fatalistic theory of
       the world of paganism; Πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοίων,
       for the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity on
       principles of reason. In his numerous exegetical writings
       he follows the allegorical method in the brilliant style of
       Origen. We also have from him some ascetical tracts, several
       sermons and 26 Epistles.

  § 47.5.

    e. =Apollinaris=, called the Younger, to distinguish him
       from his father of the same name, was a contemporary of
       Athanasius, and bishop of Laodicea. He died in A.D. 390.
       A fine classical scholar and endowed with rich poetic gifts,
       he distinguished himself as a defender of Christianity
       against the attacks of the heathen philosopher Porphyry
       (§ 23, 3) and also as a brilliant controversialist against
       the Arians; but he too went astray when alongside of the
       trinitarian question he introduced those Christological
       speculations that are now known by his name (§ 52, 1).
       That we have others of his writings besides the quotations
       found in the treatises of his opponents, is owing to the
       circumstance that several of them were put into circulation
       by his adherents under good orthodox names in order to get
       impressed upon the views developed therein the stamp of
       orthodoxy. The chief of these is Ἡ κατὰ μέρος (_i.e._
       developed bit by bit) πίστις, which has come down to us
       under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus (§ 31, 6). Theodoret
       quotes passages from it and assigns them to Apollinaris,
       and its contents too are in harmony with this view. So
       too with the tract Περὶ τῆς σαρκώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, _De
       Incarnatione Verbi_, ascribed to Athanasius, which a scholar
       of Apollinaris, named Polemon, with undoubted accuracy
       ascribed to his teacher. That Cyril of Alexandria ascribes
       this last-named tract to Athanasius may be taken as proof of
       the readiness of the Monophysites and their precursor Cyril
       to pass off the false as genuine (§ 52, 2). To Apollinaris
       belong also an Epistle to Dionysius attributed to Julius,
       bishop of Rome (§ 50, 2) and a tract, attributed to the
       same, Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ἑνότητος τοῦ σώματος πρὸς τὴν
       θεότητα, which were also assigned to Apollinaris by his own
       scholars. Finally, the Pseudo-Justin Ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως
       ἤτοι περὶ τριάδος seems to be a reproduction of a treatise
       of Apollinaris’ Περὶ τριάδος, supposed to be lost, enlarged
       with clumsy additions and palmed off in this form under the
       venerated name of Justin Martyr.

    f. =Didymus the Blind= lost his sight when four years of age,
       but succeeded in making wonderful attainments in learning.
       He was for fifty years Catechist in Alexandria, and as such
       the last brilliant star in the catechetical school. He died
       in A.D. 395. An enthusiastic admirer of Origen, he also
       shared many of his eccentric views, _e.g._ Apocatastasis,
       pre-existence of the soul, etc. But also in consequence of
       the theological controversies of the times he gave to his
       theology a decidedly ecclesiastical turn. His writings were
       numerous; but only a few have been preserved. His book _De
       Spiritu S._ is still extant in a Latin translation of Jerome;
       his controversial tract against the Manichæans is known
       only from fragments. His chief work _De S. Trinitate_, Περὶ
       τριάδος, in 3 bks., in which he showed himself a vigorous
       defender of the Nicene Creed, was brought to light in the
       18th century. A commentary on the Περὶ ἀρχῶν of Origen
       now lost, was condemned at the second Council of Nicæa in
       A.D. 787.

  § 47.6.

    g. =Macarius Magnes=, bishop of Magnesia in Asia Minor about
       A.D. 403, under the title Μονογενὴς ἢ Ἀποκριτικός, etc.,
       wrote an apology for Christianity in 5 bks., only recovered
       in A.D. 1867, which takes the form of an account of a
       disputation with a heathen philosopher. Doctrinally it has
       a strong resemblance to the works of Gregory of Nyssa. The
       material assigned to the opponent is probably taken from
       the controversial tract of Porphyry (§ 23, 3).

    h. =Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria=, was the nephew, protegé
       and, from A.D. 412, also the successor of Theophilus
       (§ 51, 3). The zealous and violent temper of the uncle was
       not without an injurious influence upon the character of the
       nephew. At the _Synodus ad Quercum_ in A.D. 403, he voted
       for the condemnation of Chrysostom, but subsequently, on
       further consideration, he again of his own accord entered
       upon the _diptyche_ (§ 59, 6) of the Alexandrian church
       the name of the disgracefully persecuted man. In order to
       revenge himself upon the Jews by whom in a popular tumult
       Christian blood had been shed, he came down upon them at
       the head of a mob, drove them out of the city and destroyed
       their houses. He also bears no small share of the odium of
       the horrible murder of the noble Hypatia (§ 42, 4). He shows
       himself equally passionate and malevolent in the contest
       with the Nestorians and the Antiocheans (§ 52, 3), and
       to this controversy many of his treatises, as well as
       87 epistles, are almost entirely devoted. The most important
       of his writings is Πρὸς τὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀθέοις Ἰουλιανοῦ (§ 42, 5).
       He systematically developed in almost scholastic fashion the
       dogma of the Trinity in his _Thesaurus de S. Consubstantiali
       Trinitate_; and in a briefer and more popular form, in two
       short tracts. As a preacher he was held in so high esteem,
       that, as Gennadius relates, Greek bishops learnt his homilies
       by heart and gave them to their congregations instead of
       compositions of their own. His 30 Λόγοι ἑορταστικοί, _Homiliæ
       paschales_, delivered at the Easter festivals observed in
       Alexandria (§ 56, 3), in unctuous language expatiate upon
       the burning questions of the day, mostly polemical against
       Jews, heathens, Arians and Nestorians. His commentaries
       on the books of the Old and New Testaments illustrate the
       extreme arbitrariness of the typical-allegorical method.[138]
       The treatise Περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως
       gives a typical exposition of the ceremonial law of Moses,
       and his Γλαφυρά contain “ornate and elegant,” _i.e._
       typical-allegorical, expositions of selected passages from
       the Pentateuch.

    i. =Isidore of Pelusium=, priest and abbot of a monastery
       at Pelusium in Egypt, who died about A.D. 450, was one of
       the noblest, most gifted and liberal representatives of
       monasticism of his own and of all times. A warm supporter of
       the new Alexandrian system of doctrine but also conciliatory
       and moderate in his treatment of the persons of opponents,
       while firm and decided in regard to the subject in debate,
       he most urgently entreats Cyril to moderation. His writings
       _Contra Gentiles_ and _Contra Fatum_ are lost; but his still
       extant 2,012 Epistles in 5 bks. afford a striking evidence
       of the richness of his intellect and of his culture, as
       well as of the great esteem in which he was held and of
       his far-reaching influence. His exegesis, too, which always
       inclines to a simple literal sense, is of far greater
       importance than that of the other Alexandrians.

  § 47.7. (=Mystics and Philosophers.=)

    k. =Macarius the Great or the Elder=, monk and priest in
       the Scetic desert, was exiled by the Arian Emperor Valens
       on account of his zeal for Nicene orthodoxy. He died in
       A.D. 391. From his writings, consisting of 50 Homilies, a
       number of Apophthegms, some epistles and prayers, there is
       breathed forth a deep warm mysticism with various approaches
       to Augustine’s soteriological views, while other passages
       seem to convey quite a Pelagian type of doctrine.

    l. =Marcus Eremita=, a like-minded younger contemporary of
       the preceding, lived about A.D. 400 as an inhabitant of
       the Scetic desert. We possess of his writings only nine
       tracts of an ascetic mystical kind, the second of which,
       bearing the title Περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι,
       has secured for them a place in the Roman Index with the
       note “_Caute legenda_.” However even in his mysticism
       contradictory views, Augustinian and Pelagian, in regard
       to human freedom and divine grace, on predestination and
       sanctification, etc., find a place alongside one another,
       and have prominence given them according to the writer’s
       humour and the requirement of his meditation or exhortation.

    m. =Synesius of Cyrene=,[139] subsequently bishop of Ptolemais
       in Egypt, was a disciple of the celebrated Hypatia (§ 42, 4)
       and an enthusiastic admirer of Plato. He died about A.D. 420.
       A happy husband and father, in comfortable circumstances
       and devoted to the study of philosophy, he could not for a
       long time be prevailed upon to accept a bishopric. He openly
       confessed his Origenistic heterodoxy in reference to the
       resurrection doctrine, the eternity of the world, as well
       as the pre-existence of the soul. He also publicly declared
       that as bishop he would continue the marriage relation with
       his wife, and no one took offence thereat. In the episcopal
       office he distinguished himself by noble zeal and courage
       which knew no fear of man. His 10 Hymns contain echoes of
       Valentinian views (§ 27, 4), and his philosophical tracts
       are only to a small extent dominated by Christian ideas. His
       155 Epistles are more valuable as illustrating on every hand
       his noble character.

    n. =Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa= in Phœnicia, lived in the
       first half of the 5th century. He left behind a brilliant
       treatise on religious philosophy, Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. The
       traditional doctrine of the Eastern church is unswervingly
       set forth by him; still he too finds therein a place for
       the eternity of the world, the pre-existence of the soul, a
       migration of souls (excluding, however, the brute creation),
       the unconditional freedom of the will, etc.

    o. =Æneas of Gaza=, a disciple of the Neo-Platonist Hierocles
       and a rhetorician in Alexandria, about A.D. 437 wrote a
       dialogue directed against the Origenistic doctrines of the
       eternity of the world and the pre-existence of the soul; as
       also against the Neo-Platonic denial of the resurrection of
       the body. It bore the title: Θεόφραστος.

  § 47.8. =The Antiocheans.=

    a. =Eusebius of Emesa= was born at Edessa and studied in
       Cæsarea and Antioch. A quiet, peaceful scholar, and one who
       detested all theological wrangling, he declined the call to
       the Alexandrian bishopric in place of the deposed Athanasius
       in A.D. 341, but accepted the obscure bishopric of Emesa. He
       was not, however, to be left here. When, on account of his
       mathematical and astronomical attainments, the people there
       suspected him of sorcery, he quitted Emesa and from that date
       till his death in A.D. 360 taught in Antioch. Of his numerous
       exegetical, dogmatical and polemical writings only a few
       fragments are extant.

    b. =Diodorus of Tarsus=, a scholar of the preceding, monk and
       presbyter at Antioch, was afterwards bishop of Tarsus in
       Cilicia, and died in A.D. 394. Only a few fragments of his
       numerous writings survive. As an exegete he concerned himself
       with the plain grammatico-historical sense and contested
       the Alexandrian mode of interpretation in the treatise: Τίς
       διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορίας. By θεωρία he understands
       insight into the relations transcending the bare literal
       sense but yet essentially present in it as the ideal. By his
       polemic against Apollinaris (§ 52, 1), he imprinted upon the
       Antiochean school its specific dogmatic character (§ 52, 2),
       in consequence of which he was at a later period regarded as
       the original founder of the Nestorian party.

    c. His scholar again was =John of Antioch=, whose proper name
       afterwards almost disappeared before the honourable title of
       =Chrysostom=. Educated by his early widowed mother Arethusa
       with the greatest care, he attended the rhetoric school
       of Libanius and started with great success as an advocate
       in Antioch. But after receiving baptism he abandoned his
       practice and became a monk. He was made deacon in A.D. 380
       and presbyter in A.D. 386 in his native city. His brilliant
       eloquence raised him at last in A.D. 398 to the patriarchal
       chair at Constantinople (§ 51, 3). He died in exile in
       A.D. 407. Next to Athanasius and the three Cappadocians
       he is one of the most talented of the Eastern fathers, the
       only one of the Antiochean school whose orthodoxy has never
       been questioned. In his exegesis he follows the fundamental
       principles of the Antiochean school. He wrote commentaries
       on Isaiah (down to chap. viii. 10) and on Galatians. Besides
       these his 650 Expository Homilies on all the Biblical books
       and particular sections cover almost the whole of the Old
       and New Testaments. Among his other dogmatical, polemical
       and hortatory church addresses the most celebrated are the
       21 _De Statuis ad populum Antiochen_, delivered in A.D. 387.
       (The people of Antioch, roused on account of the exorbitant
       tax demanded of them, had broken down the statues of
       Theodosius I.) The _Demonstratio c. Julianum et Gentiles
       quod Christus sit Deus_ and the _Liber in S. Babylam
       c. Judæos et Gentiles_ are apologetical treatises. Of
       his ethico-ascetic writings, in which he eagerly commends
       virginity and asceticism, by far the most celebrated is
       Περὶ ἱερωσύνης, _De Sacerdotis_, in 4 bks., in the form of
       a dialogue with his Cappadocian friend Basil (the Great)
       who in A.D. 370 had felt compelled to accept the bishopric
       of Cæsarea after Chrysostom had escaped this honour by
       flight.[140]

  § 47.9.

    d. =Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia= in Cilicia, was the
       son of respectable parents in Antioch, the friend and
       fellow-student of Chrysostom, first under Libanius, then
       under Diodorus. He died in A.D. 429. It was he who gave
       full development and consistent expression to the essential
       dogmatic and hermeneutical principles of the Antiochean
       theology. For this reason he was far more suspected of
       heresy by his Alexandrian opponents than even his teacher
       Diodorus, and they finally obtained their desire by the
       formal condemnation of his person and writings at the fifth
       œcumenical Synod in A.D. 553 (§ 52, 6). Leontius Byzantinus
       formulated his exegetical offence by saying that in his
       exposition he treated the Holy Scriptures precisely as
       ordinary human writings, especially that he interpreted the
       Song of Songs as a love poem, _libidinose pro sua et mente
       et lingua meretricia_, explained the Psalms after the
       manner of the Jews till he emptied them dry of all Messianic
       contents, _Judaice ad Zorobabelem et Ezechiam retulit_,
       denied the genuineness of the titles of the Psalms, rejected
       the canonical authority of Job, the Chronicles and Ezra
       as well as James and other Catholic Epistles, etc. In
       every respect Theodore was one of the ablest exegetes of the
       ancient church and the Syrian church has rightly celebrated
       him as the _“Interpres” par excellence_. He set forth his
       hermeneutical principles in the treatise: _De Allegoria
       et Historia_. Of his exegetical writings we have still his
       Comm. on the Minor Prophets, on Romans, fragments of those
       on other parts of the New Testament. Latin translations of
       his Comm. on the Minor Epp. of Paul, with the corresponding
       Greek fragments, are edited by Swete, 2 vols., Cambr.,
       1880, 1882. An introduction to Biblical Theology collected
       from Theodore’s writings and reproduced in a Latin form by
       Junilius Africanus (§ 48, 1) is still extant. His dogmatic,
       polemical and apologetical works on the Incarnation
       and Original Sin (§ 53, 4), against Eunomius (§ 50, 3),
       Apollinaris (§ 52, 1) and the Emperor Julian (§ 42, 5),
       are now known only from a few fragmentary quotations.

    e. =Polychronius, bishop of Apamea=, was Theodore’s brother and
       quite his equal in exegetical acuteness and productivity,
       while he excelled him in his knowledge of the Hebrew and
       Syriac. Tolerably complete scholia by him on Ezekiel, Daniel
       and Job have been preserved in the Greek Catenæ (§ 48, 1).
       In regard to Daniel he maintains firmly its historical
       character and understands chap. vii. of Antiochus Epiphanes.

    f. =Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus= in Syria, was Theodore’s ablest
       disciple, the most versatile scholar and most productive
       writer of his age, an original investigator and a diligent
       pastor, an upright and noble character and a man who kept
       the just mean amid the extreme tendencies of his times,--yet
       even he could not escape the suspicion of heresy (§ 52, 3,
       4, 6). He died in A.D. 457. As an exegete he followed the
       course of grammatico-historical exposition marked out by
       his Antiochean predecessors, but avoided the rationalistic
       tendencies of his teacher. He commented on most of the
       historical books of the Old Testament, on the Prophets, the
       Song, which he understood allegorically of the church as
       the bride of Christ, and on the Pauline Epistles. Among his
       historical works the first place belongs to his continuation
       of the history of Eusebius (§ 5, 1). His Φιλόθεος ἱστορία,
       _Hist. religiosa_, gives a glowing description of the
       lives of 33 celebrated ascetics of both sexes. Of higher
       value is the Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή, _Hæreticarum
       fabularum compendium_. His Ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων,
       _De Curandis Græcorum Affectionibus_, is an apologetical
       treatise. His seven Dialogues _De s. Trinitate_ are polemics
       against the Macedonians and Apollinarians. The _Reprehensio_
       xii. _Anathematismorum_ is directed against Cyril of
       Alexandria; and the Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι Πολύμορφος against
       monophysitism as a heresy compounded of many heresies
       (§ 52, 4). Besides these we have from him 179 Epistles.[141]

  § 47.10. =Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th and
  5th Centuries.=

    a. =Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem=, from A.D. 351 to A.D. 386,
       in the Arian controversy took the side of the conciliatory
       semi-Arians and thus came into collision with his imperious
       and decidedly Arian metropolitan Acacius of Cæsarea. During
       a famine he sold the church furniture for distribution
       among the needy, and was for this deposed by Acacius. Under
       Julian he ventured to return, but under Valens he was again
       driven out and found himself exposed to the persecution
       of the Arians, which was all the more violent because in
       the meantime he had assumed a more decided attitude toward
       Nicene orthodoxy. At the death of Valens in A.D. 378 he
       returned and became reconciled to the victorious maintainers
       of the Homoousion by fully accepting the doctrine at the
       Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4). We still
       have his 23 Catechetical Lectures delivered in A.D. 348 by
       him as presbyter to the baptized at Jerusalem. The first
       18 are entitled: Πρὸς τοὺς φωτιζομένους, _Ad Competentes_
       (§ 35, 1); the last five: Πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, _Catecheses
       Mystagogicæ_, on Baptism, Anointing and the Lord’s Supper.
       In their present form they afford but faint evidence of their
       author having surmounted the semi-Arian standpoint.[142]

    b. =Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis= or Constantia in Cyprus, was
       born of Jewish parents in the Palestinian village Besanduce
       and was baptized in his sixteenth year. His pious and
       noble, but narrow and one-sided character was formed by his
       education under the monks. He completed his ascetic training
       by several years residence among the monks of the Scetic
       desert, then founded a monastery in his native place over
       which he presided for thirty years until in A.D. 367 he was
       raised to the metropolitan’s chair at Salamis, where he died
       in A.D. 403. In the discharge of his episcopal duties he
       was a miracle of faithfulness and zeal, specially active and
       self-denying in his care of the poor. But in the forefront
       of all his thinking and acting there ever stood his glowing
       zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The very soul of honour,
       truth-loving and courageous, but credulous, positive, with
       little knowledge of the world and human nature, and hence
       not capable of penetrating to the bottom of complicated
       affairs, he was all his days misused as a tool of the
       intriguing Alexandrian Theophilus in the Origenistic
       controversies (§ 51, 3). He was all the more easily won
       to this from the fact that he had brought with him from
       the Scetic desert the conviction that Origen was the prime
       mover in the Arian and all other heresies. In spite of all
       defects in form and contents his writings have proved most
       serviceable for the history of the churches and heresies
       of the first four centuries. The diligence and honourable
       intention of his research in some measure compensate for
       the bad taste and illogical character of his exposition and
       for his narrow, one-sided and uncritical views. His Πανάριον
       ἤτοι κιβώτιον κατὰ αἱρέσεων lxxx. is a full and learned
       though confused and uncritical work, in which the idea
       of heresy is so loosely defined that even the Samaritans,
       Pharisees, Essenes, etc., find a place in it. He himself
       composed an abridgment of it under the title: Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις.
       His Ἀγκυρωτός is an exposition of the Catholic faith, which
       during the tumults of the Arian controversy should serve
       as an anchor of salvation to the Christians. The book Περὶ
       μέτρων καὶ στάθμων, _De mensuris et ponderibus_, answers to
       this title only in the last chapter, the 24th; the preceding
       chapters treat of the Canon and translations of the Old
       Testament. There are two old codices in the British Museum
       which have in addition, in a Syriac translation, 37 chapters
       on biblical weights and measures and 19 on the biblical
       science of the heaven and the earth. The tract Περὶ τῶν
       δώδεκα λίθων (on the high-priest’s breastplate) is of little
       consequence.

    c. =Palladius=, born in Galatia, retired at an early age into
       the Nitrian desert, but lived afterwards in Palestine, where
       he was accused of favouring the heresy of Origen (§ 51, 2).
       Chrysostom consecrated him bishop of Hellenopolis in
       Bithynia. Latterly he administered a small bishopric in
       Galatia, where he died before A.D. 431. His chief writing
       is the Πρὸς Λαῦσον ἱστορία, _Hist. Lausiaca_, a historical
       romance on the hermit and monkish life of his times which is
       dedicated to an eminent statesman called Lausus.

    d. =Nilus=, sprung from a prominent family in Constantinople,
       retired with his son Theodulus to the recluses of Mount
       Sinai. By a murderous onslaught of the Saracens his beloved
       son was snatched away from him, but an Arabian bishop bought
       him and ordained both father and son as priests. He died
       about A.D. 450. In his ascetical writings and specially
       in the 4 books of his Epistles, about 1,000 in number,
       he shows himself to be of like mind and character to his
       companion Isidore, but with a deeper knowledge and more
       sober conception of Holy Scripture. He himself describes
       the capture of his son in _Narrationes de cæde monachorum
       et captivitate Theoduli_.

  § 47.11. =Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=

    a. =Johannes Philoponus= was in the first half of the 6th
       century teacher of grammar at Alexandria, and belonged to
       the sect of tritheistic monophysites in that place (§ 52, 7).
       Although trained in the Neo-Platonic school, he subsequently
       applied himself enthusiastically to the Aristotelian
       philosophy, composed many commentaries on Aristotle’s
       writings, and was the first to apply the Aristotelian
       categories to Christian theology. Notwithstanding many
       heretical tendencies in his theology, among which is his
       statement in a lost work, Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, that for the
       saved at the last day entirely new bodies and an entirely
       new world will be created, his philosophical writings
       powerfully impelled the mediæval Greek Church to the study
       of philosophy. His chief doctrinal treatise Διαιτητὴς ἢ περὶ
       ἑνώσεως is known only from quotations in Leontius Byzantinus
       and Johannes Damascenus. Of his other writings the most
       important was the controversial treatise _Contra Procli
       pro æternitate mundi argumenta_ in 18 bks. The 7 bks. Περὶ
       κοσμοποίας treat of the six days’ work of creation with
       great display of philosophical acuteness and acquaintance
       with natural history.

    b. =Dionysius the Areopagite.= Under this name (Acts xvii. 34)
       an unknown writer, only a little earlier than the previously
       named, published writings of a decidedly mystico-theosophical
       kind. The first mention of them is at a conference of
       the monophysite Severians (§ 52, 7) with the Catholics
       at Constantinople in A.D. 533, where the former referred
       to them, while the other side denied their authenticity.
       Subsequently, however, they were universally received as
       genuine, not only in the East but also in the West. They
       comprise four tracts: 1. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας οὐρανίου;
       2. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας ἐκκλησιαστικῆς; 3. Περὶ τῶν θείων
       ὀνομάτων; 4. Περὶ τῆς μυστικῆς θεολογίας; and also 12 Epp.
       to Apostolic men. Their author was a Monophysite-Christian
       Neo-Platonist, who transferred the secret arts of the
       Dionysian mysteries to Christian worship, monasticism,
       hierarchy and church doctrines. He distinguished a θεολογία
       καταφατική, which consisted in symbolic representations,
       from a θεολογία ἀποφατική, which surmounted the symbolical
       shell and rose to the perception of the pure idea by means
       of ecstasy. Side by side with the revealed doctrine of Holy
       Scripture he sets a secret doctrine, the knowledge of which
       is reached only by initiation. The primal mystagogue, who
       like the sun enlightens all spirits, is the divine hierarch
       Christ, and the primitive type of all earthly order in the
       heavenly hierarchy as represented in the courses of angels
       and glorified spirits. There is constant intercourse between
       the earthly and heavenly hierarchies by means of Christ the
       highest hierarch incarnate. The purpose of this intercourse
       is the drawing out of the θείωσις of man by means of
       priestly consecration and the mysteries (_i.e._ the
       Sacraments of which he reckons six, § 58). The θείωσις
       has its foundation in baptism as consecration to the
       divine birth, τελετὴ θεογενεσίας, and its completion in
       consecration of the dead, the anointing of the body. The
       historical Christ with His redeeming life, sufferings and
       death is at no time the subject of the Areopagite mysticism.
       It is always concerned with the heavenly Christ, not about
       the reconciliation but only about the mystical living
       fellowship of God and man, about the immediate vision and
       enjoyment of God’s glory. The monophysite standpoint of the
       author betrays itself in his tendency to think of the human
       nature of Christ as absorbed by the divine. His Christian
       Neo-Platonism appears in his fantastic speculations about
       the nature of God, the orders of angels and spirits, etc.;
       while his antagonism to the pagan Neo-Platonism is seen
       in his regarding the θείωσις not as a natural power proper
       to and dwelling in man, but as a supernatural power made
       possible by the ἐνσάρκωσις of Christ, but still more
       expressly by his emphatic assertion over against the
       Neo-Platonic depreciation of the body, of the resurrection
       of the flesh as the completion of the θείωσις. Hence also
       the importance which he attaches to the sacrament of the
       consecration of the dead.[143]

  § 47.12.

    c. =Leontius Byzantinus=, at first an advocate at
       Constantinople, subsequently a monk at Jerusalem, wrote
       about the end of the 6th century controversial tracts against
       Nestorians, Monophysites and Apollinarians, and in his
       _Scholia s. Liber de sectis_ presented a historico-polemical
       summary of all heresies up to that time.

    d. =Maximus Confessor=, the scion of a well-known family of
       Constantinople, was for a long time private secretary to
       the Emperor Heraclius, but retired about A.D. 630 from love
       of a contemplative life into a monastery at Chrysopolis
       near Constantinople, where he was soon raised to the rank of
       abbot. The further details of his story are given in § 52, 8.
       He died in A.D. 662. In decision of character, fidelity
       to his convictions and courage as a confessor during
       the Monothelete controversy, he stands out among his
       characterless countrymen and contemporaries as a rock in the
       ocean. In scientific endowments and comprehensive learning,
       in depth and wealth of thought there is none like him,
       although even in him the weakness of the age, especially
       slavish submission to authority, is quite apparent. His
       scientific theology is built up mainly upon the three great
       Cappadocians, among whom the speculative Nyssa has most
       influence over him. His dialectic acuteness and subtlety he
       derived from the study of Aristotle, while his imaginative
       nature and the intensity of his emotional life which
       predestined him to be a mystic, found abundant nourishment
       and satisfaction in the writings of Dionysius. He was saved,
       however, by the manysidedness of his mind and the soundness
       of his whole life’s tendencies, from many eccentricities of
       the Areopagite mysticism, so that in his humility he thought
       that his soul was not pure enough to be able fully to
       penetrate and comprehend these mysteries. His numerous
       writings, of which more than fifty are extant, were in
       great part occasioned by the struggle against Monophysitism
       and Monotheletism. His mystico-ascetic writings are
       also important, such as his Μυσταγωγία, treatises on the
       symbolico-mystic meaning of the acts of church worship, his
       epistles and several beautiful hymns. He also wrote scholia
       and commentaries on the works of the Areopagite. He is
       weakest in exegesis, where the most wilful allegorizing
       prevails.

    e. =Johannes Climacus=, abbot of the monastery at Sinai, died
       at an extremely old age in A.D. 606. Under the title Κλίμαξ
       τοῦ παραδείσου, _Heavenly Guide_, he composed a directory
       toward perfection in the Christian life in thirty steps,
       which became a favourite reading book of pious monks.

    f. =Johannes Moschus= was a monk in a cloister at Jerusalem.
       Accompanying his friend Sophronius, afterwards patriarch of
       Jerusalem (§ 52, 8), he travelled through Egypt and the East,
       visiting all the pious monks and clerics. At last he reached
       Rome, where he wrote an account in his Λειμονάριον ἤτοι νέος
       παραδείσος, _Pratum Spirituale_, of the edifying discourses
       which he had had with famous monks during his travels, and
       soon thereafter, in A.D. 619, he died.

    g. =Anastasius Sinaita=, called the new Moses, because like
       Moses he is said to have seen God, was priest and dweller
       on Mount Sinai at the end of the 7th century. His chief work
       Ὁδηγός, _Viæ duæ_, is directed against the _Acephalians_
       (§ 52, 5) and his _Contemplationes_ preserved only in a
       Latin translation give an allegorico-mystical exposition of
       the Hexæmeron.

  § 47.13. =Syrian Church Fathers.=[144]

    a. =Jacob of Nisibis=, as bishop of his native city and founder
       of the theological school there, performed most important
       services to the national Syrian Church. At the Council of
       Nicæa in A.D. 325 he distinguished himself by vindicating
       the homoüsion and also subsequently we find him sometimes in
       the front rank of the champions of Nicene orthodoxy. Of his
       writings none are known to us. He died in A.D. 338.

    b. =Aphraates= was celebrated in his time as a Persian sage.
       As bishop of St. Matthew near Mosul he adopted the Christian
       name of =Mar Jacob=, and dedicated his 23 Homilies, which
       are rather instructions or treatises, to a certain Gregory.
       He wrote them between A.D. 336 and A.D. 345. The _Sermones_
       ascribed even by Gennadius at the end of the 5th century
       to Nisibis were composed by Aphraates. Although he lived
       when the Arian controversy was at its height, there is no
       reference to it in his treatises, which may be explained by
       his geographical isolation. The polemic against the Jews to
       which seven tracts are devoted _ex professo_, was one which
       specially interested him.

    c. =Ephraim the Syrian=,[145] called, on account of his
       importance in the Syrian Church, _Propheta Syrorum_, was
       born at Nisibis and was called by the bishop Jacob to
       be teacher of the school founded there by him. When the
       Persians under Sapor in A.D. 350 plundered the city and
       destroyed the school, Ephraim retired to Edessa, founded a
       school there, administered the office of deacon, and died
       at a great age in A.D. 378. As an exegete he indulged to his
       heart’s content in typology, but in other respects mostly
       followed the grammatico-historical method with a constant
       endeavour after what was edifying. Many of his writings have
       been lost. Those remaining partly in the Syriac original,
       partly in Greek and Latin translations, have been collected
       by the brothers Assemani. They comprise Commentaries on
       almost the whole Bible, Homilies and Discourses in metrical
       form on a variety of themes, of these 56 are against
       heretics (Gnostics, Manichæans, Eunomians, Audians, etc.),
       and Hymns properly so called, especially funeral Odes.

    d. =Ibas, bishop of Edessa=, at first teacher in the high
       school there, translated the writings of Diodorus and
       Theodore into Syriac, and thus brought down upon himself
       the charge of being a Nestorian. Having been repeatedly
       drawn into discussion, and being naturally outspoken, he was
       excommunicated and deposed at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in
       A.D. 449, but his orthodoxy was acknowledged by the Council
       of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, after he had pronounced anathema
       upon Nestorius. He died in A.D. 457. An epistle, in which
       he gives an account of these proceedings to Bishop Meris of
       Hardashir in Persia, led to a renewal of his condemnation
       before the fifth œcumenical Council at Constantinople in
       A.D. 553 (§ 52, 4, 6).

    e. =Jacob, bishop of Edessa=, a monophysite, is the
       most important and manysided among the later Syrians,
       distinguished as theologian, historian, grammarian and
       translator of the Greek fathers. He died in A.D. 708. Of his
       works still extant in MS.--scholia on the Bible, liturgical
       works and treatises on church law, revision of the Syrian
       Old Testament according to the LXX., continuation of the
       Eusebian Chronicle, etc.--only a few have been printed.




         2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.

  § 47.14.

    f. =During the Period of the Arian Controversy.=

        a. =Jul. Firmicus Maternus.= Under this name we have a
           treatise _De errore profanarum religionum_, addressed to
           the sons of Constantine the Great, in which the writer
           combats heathenism upon the Euhemerist theory (which
           traces the worship of the heathen gods from the deifying
           of famous ancestors), but besides reclaims many myths as
           corruptions of the biblical history, and shows that the
           violent overthrow of all idolatry is the sacred duty of
           a Christian ruler from God’s command to Joshua to destroy
           utterly the Canaanites.

        b. =Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]= in Sardinia, was a
           violent, determined, and stubborn zealot for the Nicene
           doctrine, whose excessive severity against the penitent
           Arians and semi-Arians drove him into schism (§ 50, 8).
           He died in A.D. 371. In his tract, _Ad Constantium
           Augustum pro S. Athansio_, lb. ii., written in A.D. 360,
           he upbraids the emperor with his faults so bitterly as
           to describe him as a reckless apostate, antichrist, and
           Satan. He boldly acknowledged the authorship and, in
           prospect of a death sentence, wrote in A.D. 361 his
           consolatory treatise, _Moriendum esse pro filio Dei_.
           The early death of the emperor, however, permitted his
           return from exile (§ 50, 2, 4), where he had written
           _De regibus apostaticis_ and _De non conveniendo cum
           hæreticis_.

        c. =Marius Victorinus= from Africa, often confounded with
           the martyr of the same name (§ 31, 12), was converted
           to Christianity when advanced in life, about A.D. 360,
           while occupying a distinguished position as a heathen
           rhetorician in Rome. He gave proof of his zeal as a
           neophyte by the composition of controversial treatises
           against the Manichæans, _Ad Justinum Manichæum_, and
           against the Arians, _Lb. iv. adv. Arium, De generatione
           divina ad Candidum, De_ ὁμοουσίῳ _recipiendo_. In his
           treatise, _De verbis scripturæ_, Gen. i. 5, he shows
           that the creative days began not with the evening, but
           with the morning. He composed three hymns _de Trinitate_,
           and an epic poem on the seven brothers, the Maccabees.

        d. =Hilary of Poitiers=--_Hilarius Pictavienses_--styled
           the Athanasius of the West, and made _doctor ecclesiæ_
           by Pius IX. in A.D. 1851, was sprung from a noble pagan
           family of Poitiers (Pictavium). With wife and daughter
           he embraced Christianity, and was soon thereafter,
           about A.D. 350, made bishop of his native city. In
           A.D. 356, however, as a zealous opponent of Arianism,
           he was banished to Phrygia, from which he returned in
           A.D. 360. Two years later he travelled to Milan, in
           order if possible to win from his error the bishop of
           that place, Auxentius, a zealous Arian. That bishop,
           however, obtained an imperial edict which obliged him
           instantly to withdraw. He died in A.D. 366. The study
           of Origen seems to have had a decided influence upon
           his theological development. His strength lay in the
           speculative treatment of the groundworks of doctrine. At
           the same time he is the first exegete proper among the
           Western fathers writing the Latin language. He follows
           exactly the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. His
           works embrace commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospel
           of Matthew, several polemical lectures (§ 50, 6), and
           his speculative dogmatic masterpiece _de Trinitate_
           in xii. books.

        e. =Zeno, bishop of Verona=, who died about A.D. 380,
           left behind ninety-three _Sermones_ which, in beautiful
           language and spirited style, treat of various subjects
           connected with faith and morals, combat paganism and
           Arianism, and eagerly recommend virginity and monasticism.

        f. =Philaster=, bishop of Brescia, contemporary of Zeno, in
           his book _De hæresibus_, described in harsh and obscure
           language, in an uncritical fashion and with an extremely
           loose application of the word heresy, 28 pre-Christian
           and 128 post-Christian systems of error.

        g. =Martin of Tours=,[146] son of a soldier, had before
           baptism, but after his heart had been filled with the
           love of Christ, entered the Roman cavalry. Once, legend
           relates, he parted his military cloak into two pieces in
           order to shield a naked beggar from the cold, and on the
           following night the Lord Jesus appeared to him clothed in
           this very cloak. In his eighteenth year he was baptized,
           and for some years thereafter attached himself to Hilary
           of Poitiers, and then went to his parents in Pannonia.
           He did not succeed in converting his father, but he
           was successful with his mother and many of the people.
           Scourged and driven away by the Arian party which there
           prevailed, he turned to Milan where, however, he got
           just as little welcome from the Arian bishop Auxentius.
           He then lived some years on the island of Gallinaria,
           near Genoa. When Hilary returned from banishment to
           Pictavium, he followed him there, and founded in the
           neighbourhood a monastery, the earliest in Gaul. He was
           guilefully decoyed to Tours, and forced to mount the
           episcopal chair there in A.D. 375. He converted whole
           crowds of heathen peasants, and, according to the
           legend given by Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours
           (§ 90, 2), wrought miracle after miracle. But he was
           himself with his holy zeal, his activity in doing good,
           his undoubted power over men’s hearts, and a countenance
           before which even the emperor quailed (§ 54, 2), the
           greatest and the most credible miracle. He died about
           A.D. 400 in the monastery of Marmontiers [Marmoutiers],
           which he had founded out from Tours. His tomb was
           one of the most frequented places of pilgrimage. He
           was wholly without scholarly culture, but the force
           of intellect with which he was endowed lent him a
           commanding eloquence. The _Confessio de s. Trinitate_
           attributed to him is not genuine.

  § 47.15.

    g. =Ambrose, bishop of Milan=, sprung from a prominent Roman
       family, was governor of the province of Milan. After the
       death of the Arian Auxentius in A.D. 374 violent quarrels
       broke out over the choice of a successor. Then a child is
       said to have cried from the midst of the crowd “Ambrose is
       bishop,” and all the people, Arians as well as Catholics,
       agreed. All objection was vain. Up to this time only a
       catechumen, he received baptism, distributed his property
       among the poor, and eight days after mounted the episcopal
       chair. His new office he administered with truly apostolic
       zeal, a father of the poor, a protector of all oppressed,
       an unweariedly active pastor, a powerful opponent of heresy
       and heathenism. His eloquence, which had won him a high
       reputation in the forum, was yet more conspicuous in the
       service of the church. To ransom the prisoners he spared not
       even the furniture of the church. To a peculiarly winning
       friendliness and gentleness he added great strength of
       character, which prevented him being checked in his course
       by any respect of persons, or by any threatening and danger.
       He so decidedly opposed the intrigues of the Arian Empress
       Justina, during the minority of her son Valentinian II.,
       that she, powerless to execute her wrath, was obliged to
       desist from her endeavours (§ 50, 4). With Theodosius the
       Great he stood in the highest esteem. When the passionate
       emperor had ordered a fearful massacre without distinction of
       rank, age and sex, without enquiry as to guilt or innocence,
       of the inhabitants of Thessalonica on account of a tumult
       in which a general and several officers had been murdered,
       Ambrose wrote him a letter with an earnest call to repentance,
       and threatened him with exclusion from the communion of the
       church and its services. The emperor, already repenting of
       his hastiness, took patiently the rebuke administered, but
       did nothing to atone for his crime. Some time after he went
       as usual to church, but Ambrose met him at the entrance of
       the house of God and refused him admission. For eight months
       the emperor refrained from communion; then he applied for
       absolution, which was granted him, after he had publicly done
       penance before the congregation and promised never in future
       to carry out a death sentence within thirty days of its being
       pronounced. Theodosius afterwards declared that Ambrose was
       the only one truly deserving the name of a bishop. Ambrose
       was also a zealous promoter of monasticism in the West.
       In his sermons he so powerfully recommended virginity
       that many families forbade their daughters attending them.
       He deserves special credit for his contributions to the
       liturgical services (_Officium Ambrosianum_, _Cantus Ambr._,
       Hymn Composition, § 59, 4-6). On all dogmatic questions he
       strongly favoured the realism of the North African school,
       while in exegesis he did not surmount the allegorical
       method of the Alexandrians. To the department of morals
       and ascetics belong the 3 bks. _De Officiis Ministrorum_,
       a Christian construction of Cicero’s celebrated work and
       the most important of all Ambrose’s writings; also several
       treatises in recommendation of virginity. The book _De
       Mysteriis_ explains baptism and the Lord’s Supper to the
       neophytes. The 5 bks. _De fide_, the 3 bks. _De Spiritu S._
       and the tract _De incarnatîonis sacramento_, treat of the
       fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in opposition
       to Arians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, etc. These are
       somewhat dependent upon the Greeks, especially Athanasius,
       Didymus and Basil. His expositions of Old Testament histories
       (_Hexaëmeron_, _De Paradiso_, _De Cain et Abel_, _De Noë
       et arca_, _De Abraham_, _De Jacob et anima_, etc.) are
       allegorical and typical in the highest degree. More important
       are his _Sermones_ and 92 Epistles. But all his writings are
       distinguished by their noble, powerful and popular eloquence.

    h. =Ambrosiaster= is the name given to an unknown writer
       whose allegorizing Commentary on Paul’s Epistles was long
       attributed to Ambrose. This work, highly popular on account
       of its pregnant brevity, was perhaps the joint work of
       several writers. In its earliest portions it belongs to
       the age of Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died in A.D. 384,
       who is named as a contemporary. Augustine names a Hilary,
       not otherwise known, as author of a passage quoted from it.

    i. =Pacianus=,[147] bishop of Barcelona, who died about
       A.D. 390, wrote in a clear style and correct Latinity three
       Epistles against the Novatians, from the first of which,
       _De Catholico nomine_, is borrowed the beautiful saying:
       _Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen_. He also
       wrote a _Liber exhortatorius ad pœnitentiam_ and a _Sermo
       de baptismo_.

  § 47.16. =During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.=

    a. =Jerome=[148]--_Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus_--of Stridon
       in Dalmatia, received his classical training under the
       grammarian Donatus at Rome. In A.D. 360 he was baptized by
       bishop Liberius, but afterwards fell into sensual excesses
       which he atoned for by penitential pilgrimages to the
       catacombs. During a journey through Gaul and the provinces
       of the Rhine and Moselle he seems to have formed the fixed
       resolve to devote himself to theology and an ascetic life.
       Then for more than a year he stayed at Aquileia, A.D. 372,
       where he formed an intimate friendship with Rufinus. He next
       undertakes a journey to the East. At Antioch in a vision,
       during a violent fever, placed before the throne of the
       judge of all, having answered the question Who art thou? by
       the confession that he was a Christian, he heard the words
       distinctly uttered: Thou liest! thou art a Ciceronian and no
       Christian! He then sentenced himself to severe castigation
       and promised with an oath to give up the reading of the
       heathen classics which he had so much enjoyed. He afterwards
       indeed excused himself from the fulfilment of this twofold
       obligation; but this had sealed his devotion to an ascetic
       life, and the desert of Chalcis, the Syrian Thebaid, became
       for him during many years the school of ascetic discipline.
       Worn out with privations, penances and sensual temptations
       he returned in A.D. 379 to Antioch, where he was ordained
       presbyter but without any official district being assigned.
       Urged by Gregory of Nazianzum [Nazianzen], he next spent
       several years in Constantinople. From A.D. 382 to A.D. 385
       he again lived in Rome, where bishop Damasus honoured him
       with his implicit confidence. This aroused against him the
       envy and enmity of many among the Roman clergy, while at
       the same time his zeal for the spread of monasticism and
       virginity, as well as his ascetic influence with women, drew
       upon him the hatred of many prominent families (§ 44, 4). On
       the death of his episcopal patron in A.D. 384 his position
       in Rome thus became untenable. He now returned to the East,
       visited all the holy places in Palestine, and also made
       an excursion to Alexandria where he stayed for four weeks
       in the school of the blind Didymus. He then settled down at
       Bethlehem, founded there with the means of his Roman lady
       friends an establishment for monks, over which he presided
       till his death in A.D. 420; and an establishment for
       nuns over which St. Paula presided, who with her daughter
       Eustochium had accompanied him from Rome. As to his share
       in the Origenistic controversies into which he allowed
       himself to be drawn, see § 51, 2. His character was not
       without defects: vanity, ambition, jealousy, passionateness,
       impatience and intense bitterness in debate, are only all
       too apparent in his life. But where these, as well as his
       scrupulous anxiety for the maintaining of a reputation
       for unwavering orthodoxy and by zeal for monasticism
       and asceticism, did not stand in the way, we often find
       in him an unexpected clearness and liberality of view.
       Comp. § 17, 6; 57, 6; 59, 1; 61, 1. To the instructions
       of the Jew Bar Hanina he was indebted for his knowledge
       of Hebrew and Chaldee. The greatest and most enduring
       service was rendered to the study of holy scripture by his
       pioneer labours in this direction. He is at his weakest
       in his dogmatic works, which mostly are disfigured by
       immoderately passionate polemic. In exegesis he represents
       the grammatico-historical method, but nevertheless
       frequently falls back again into allegorico-mystical
       explanations. His style is pure, flowing and elegant, but
       in polemic often reckless and coarse even to vulgarity. In
       the department of exegesis the first place belongs to his
       translation of the bible (§ 59, 1). We have also a number
       of Commentaries--on Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
       Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets, Matthew, Galatians,
       Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon. His _Onomasticon s. de
       situ et nominibus locorum Hebr._ is a Latin reproduction of
       the Τοπικά of Eusebius. In the department of dogmatics we
       have polemics against Lucifer of Calaris (§ 50, 3), against
       Helvidius, Jovinian and Vigilantius (§ 63, 2), against John
       of Jerusalem (§ 51, 2) and in several treatises against
       Rufinus, and finally against the Pelagians (§ 53, 4). In
       the department of history we have his Latin adaptation and
       continuation of the second part of the Eusebian Chronicle,
       his _Catalogus Scriptorum ecclest. s. de viris illustr._,
       which tells in anecdotal form about the lives and writings
       of biblical and ecclesiastical writers, 135 in number,
       from Peter down to himself, with the avowed purpose of
       proving the falseness of the reproach that only ignorant
       and uncultured men had embraced Christianity. It was
       afterwards continued by the Gaul =Gennadius= of Marseilles
       down to the end of the fifth century. Finally, the romancing
       legendary sketches of the lives of the famous monks Paul of
       Thebes (§ 39, 4), Hilarion (§ 44, 3) and Malchus, were added.
       His 150 Epistles are extremely important for the church
       history of his times. Of his translations of the Greek
       fathers only those of Didymus, _De Spiritu S._ and that
       of 70 _Homilies_ of Origen, are now extant.

  § 47.17.

    b. =Tyrannius Rufinus= of Aquileia after receiving baptism
       lived for a long time in monastic retirement. His enthusiasm
       for monasticism and asceticism led him in A.D. 373 to Egypt.
       At Alexandria he spent several years in intercourse with
       Didymus. He contracted there that enthusiastic admiration
       of Origen which made his after life so full of debate and
       strife. He next went in A.D. 379 to Jerusalem, where bishop
       John ordained him presbyter. Here he found Jerome, with whom
       he had become acquainted at Aquileia, and the two friends
       were brought more closely together from their mutual love for
       Origen, although afterwards this was to prove the occasion of
       the most bitter enmity (§ 51, 2). About A.D. 397 he returned
       to Italy. He died in A.D. 410. His literary activity was
       mainly directed to the transplanting of the writings of
       Greek fathers to Latin soil. To his zeal in this direction
       we owe the preservation of Origen’s most important work Περὶ
       ἀρχῶν, _De principiis_, and of no fewer than 124 Homilies.
       The former, indeed, has been in many places altered in an
       arbitrary manner. He also translated several Homilies of
       Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen,
       the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (§ 28, 3), etc. There
       are extant of his own works: the Continuation of his Latin
       reproduction of the Church History of Eusebius, down to
       A.D. 388, the romancing _Historia eremitica s. Vitæ Patrum_,
       biographies of 33 saints of the Nitrian desert (§ 51, 1),
       an _Apologia pro fide sua_, the _Invectivæ Hieron._ in
       2 bks. the treatise _De benedictionibus Patriarcharum_,
       an exposition of Genesis xlix. in the spirit and style of
       Origen, and an _Expositio symboli apost._

    c. =Sulpicius Severus=[149] from Aquitania in Gaul, had gained
       great reputation by his eloquence as an advocate, when the
       death of his young wife disgusted him with the world, and
       led him to withdraw into a monastery. He died about A.D. 410.
       In his _Chronica_ or _Historia sacra_ (§ 5, 1), a summary
       of biblical and ecclesiastical history, he imitates not
       unsuccessfully the eloquence of Sallust, so that he has
       been called “the Christian Sallust.” His _Vita_ of Martin
       of Tours is a panegyric overflowing with reports of miracles.
       The three dialogues on the virtues of Eastern Monks and on
       the merits of St. Martin, may be regarded as a supplement to
       the _Vita_.

    d. =Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus= is the name by which Peter,
       bishop of Ravenna, is best known. He also received the title
       _Chrysostomus Latinorum_. He died in A.D. 450. Among the
       176 _Sermones_ ascribed to him, the discourses expository
       of the baptismal formula are deserving of special mention.
       Of his Epistles, one in Latin and Greek addressed to Eutyches
       (§ 52, 4) is still preserved, in which the writer warns
       Eutyches against doctrinal errors.

  § 47.18. =The Hero of the Soteriological
  Controversy.=--=Augustine=--_Aurelius Augustinus_--was born in
  A.D. 354 at Tagaste in Numidia. From his pious mother Monica he
  early received Christian religious impressions which, however,
  were again in great measure effaced by his pagan father the
  _Decurio_ Patricius. While he studied in Carthage, he gave way
  to sensuality and worldly pleasure. Cicero’s Hortensius first
  awakened again in him a longing after higher things. From about
  A.D. 374 he sought satisfaction in the tenets of the Manichæan
  sect, strongly represented in Africa, and for ten years he
  continued a catechumen of that order. But here, too, at last
  finding himself cruelly deceived in his struggle after the
  knowledge of the truth, he would have sunk into the most utter
  scepticism, had not the study of the Platonic philosophy still for
  awhile held him back. In A.D. 383 he left Africa and went to Rome,
  and in the following year he took up his residence in Milan as a
  teacher of eloquence. An African bishop, once himself a Manichæan,
  had comforted his anxious mother, who followed him hither, by
  assuring her that the son of so many sighs and prayers could
  not be finally lost. At Milan too the sermons of Ambrose made
  an impression on Augustine’s heart. He now began diligently to
  search the scriptures. At last the hour arrived of his complete
  renewal of heart and life. After an earnest conversation with
  his friend Alypius, he hastened into the solitude of the garden.
  While agonizing in prayer he heard the words thrice repeated:
  _Tolle, lege_! He took up the scriptures, and his eye fell upon
  the passage Rom. xiii. 13, 14. This utterance of stern Christian
  morality seemed as if written for himself alone, and from this
  moment he received into his wounded spirit a peace such as he had
  never known before. In order to prepare for baptism he withdrew
  with his mother and some friends to the country house of one of
  them, where scientific studies, pious exercises and conversations
  on the highest problems of life occupied his time. Out of
  these conversations sprang his philosophical writings. At
  Easter A.D. 387 Ambrose baptized him, and at the same time his
  illegitimate son Adeodatus, who not long afterwards died. His
  return journey to Africa was delayed by the death of his mother
  at Ostia, and at last, after almost a year’s residence in Rome,
  he reached his old home again. In Rome he applied himself to
  combat the errors of Manichæism, arguing with many of his old
  companions whom he met there. After his return to Africa in
  A.D. 388, he spent some years on his small patrimonial estate
  at Tagaste engaged in scientific work. During a casual visit to
  Hippo in A.D. 391 he was, in spite of all resistance, ordained
  presbyter, and in A.D. 395 colleague of the aged and feeble
  bishop Valerius, whose successor he became in the following year.
  Now began the brilliant period of his career, in which he stands
  forth as a pillar of the church and the centre of all theological
  and ecclesiastical life throughout the whole Western world. In
  A.D. 400 began his battle against the Donatists (§ 63, 1). And
  scarcely had he brought this to a successful end in a religious
  discussion at Carthage in A.D. 411, when he was drawn into a far
  more important Soteriological controversy by Pelagius and his
  followers (§ 53), which he continued till the close of his life.
  His death occurred in A.D. 430 during the siege of Carthage by
  the Vandals. He has written his own life in his _Confessiones_
  (Engl. translat., Oxf., 1838; Edin., 1876). In the form of an
  address to God he here unfolds before the Omniscient One his
  whole past life with all its errors and gracious providences
  in the language of prayer full of the holiest earnestness and
  most profound humility, a lively commentary on the opening
  words: _Magnus es, Domine, et laudabilis valde.... Fecisti nos
  ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te._
  The biography of his disciple Possidius may serve as a supplement
  to the Confessions.--Augustine was the greatest, most powerful,
  and most influential of all the fathers. In consequence of his
  thoroughly Western characteristics he was indeed less perfectly
  understood and appreciated in the East; but all the greater was
  his reputation in the West, where the whole development of church
  and doctrine seemed always to move about him as its centre. The
  main field of his literary activity in consequence of his own
  peculiar mental qualities, his philosophical culture, speculative
  faculty, and dialectic skill, as well as the ecclesiastical
  conflicts of his time, to which his most important works are
  devoted, was Systematic Theology, Dogmatics and Ethics, Polemics
  and Apologetics. He is weakest as an exegete; for he had little
  interest in philological and grammatico-historical research into
  the simple literal sense of scripture. He was unacquainted with
  the original language of the Old Testament, and even the New
  Testament he treats only in a popular way according to the Latin
  translations. Neither does he deal much with the exegetical
  foundations of dogmatics, which he rather develops from the
  Christian consciousness by means of speculation and dialectic,
  and from the proof of its meeting the needs of humanity. Over
  against philosophy he insisted upon the independence and
  necessity of faith as the presupposition and basis of all
  religious knowledge. _Rationabiliter dictum est per prophetam:
  Nisi credideretis non intelligetis. Credamus ut id quod credimus
  intelligere valeamus._

  § 47.19. =Augustine’s Works.=

    a. =Philosophical Treatises= belonging to the period preceding
       his ordination. The 3 bks. _Contra Academicos_ combat
       their main position that men cannot attain to any certain
       knowledge; the treatise _De Vita beata_ shows that true
       happiness consists in the knowledge of God; the 2 bks. _De
       Ordine_ treat of the relation of good and evil in the divine
       order of the world; the 2 bks. _Soliloquia_ are monologues
       on the means and conditions of the knowledge of supernatural
       truths, and contain beside the main question an Appendix _De
       immortalitate animæ_, etc.

    b. =Dogmatic Treatises.= The most important are: _De Trinitate_
       in 15 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1874), a speculative
       dogmatic construction of the dogma, of great importance
       for its historical development; _De doctrina christiana_
       in 4 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), of which the first
       three bks. form a guide to the exposition of scripture after
       the analogy of faith, while the 4th book shows how the truth
       thus discovered is to be used (Hermeneutics and Homiletics);
       finally, the two bks. _Retractationes_, written in his
       last years, in which he passes an unfavourable judgment
       on his earlier writings, and withdraws or modifies much in
       them. Among his =Moral-ascetic writings= the bk. _De bono
       conjugali_ is of special interest, called forth by Jovinian’s
       utterances on non-meritoriousness of the unmarried state
       (§ 62, 2); he admits the high value of Christian marriage,
       but yet sees in celibacy genuinely chosen as a means to
       holiness a higher step in the Christian life. Also the
       bk. _De adulterinis conjugis_ against second marriages,
       and two treatises _De Mendacium_ and _Contra Mendacium ad
       Consentium_, which in opposition to the contrary doctrine
       of the Priscillianists (§ 54, 2), unconditionally repudiates
       the admissibility of equivocation.

    c. =Controversial Treatises.= Of 11 treatises against the
       Manichæans (§ 54, 1) the most important is that _C. Faustum_
       in 33 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), interesting as
       reproducing in quotations the greater part of the last work
       of this great champion of the Manichæans. Then came the
       discussion with the Donatists (§ 63, 1), which he engaged
       in with great vigour. We have ten treatises directed against
       them (Engl. transl., Edin., 1873). Of far greater importance
       was the conflict which soon after broke out against the
       Pelagians and then against the semi-Pelagians (§ 53, 4, 5),
       in which he wrote fourteen treatises (Engl. transl.,
       3 vols., Edin., 1873-1876). Also the Arians, Priscillianists,
       Origenists and Marcionites were combated by him in special
       treatises, and in the bk. _De hæresibus_ he gave a summary
       account of the various heresies that had come under his
       notice.

    d. Among his =Apologetical Treatises= against pagans and
       Jews, by far the ablest and most important is the work _De
       Civitate Dei_, in 22 bks., a truly magnificent conception
       (Engl. transl., 2 vols., Edin., 1873), the most substantial
       of all apologetical works of Christian antiquity, called
       forth by the reproach of the heathens that the repeated
       successes of the barbarians resulted from the weakening and
       deteriorating influence of Christianity upon the empire.
       The author repels this reproach in the first four bks.
       by showing how the Roman empire had previously in itself
       the seeds of decay in its godless selfishness, and thence
       advancing immorality; Ilium was and continued pagan, but
       its gods could not save it from destruction. Ilium’s Epigone,
       haughty Rome, meets the same fate. It owed its power only to
       God’s will and His government of the world, and to His using
       it as a scourge for the nations. The next five books show
       the corruption of the heathen religions and the inadequacy
       of heathen philosophy. Then the last 12 bks. point out
       the contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdom
       of the world in respect of their diverse foundations,
       their entirely different motive powers, their historical
       development and their ultimate disposal in the last judgment.

    e. The most important and complete of his =Exegetical Works=
       are the 12 bks. _De Genesi ad litteram_, a gigantic
       commentary on the three first chapters of Genesis, which
       in spite of its title very often leaves the firm ground
       of the literal sense to revel in the airy regions of
       spiritualistic and mystical expatiation. Of his _Sermones_,
       400 are recognised as genuine (Engl. transl., Hom. on N.T.,
       2 vols., Oxf., 1844 f.; Hom. on John and 1st John, 2 vols.,
       Oxf., 1848; Comm. on Psalms, 6 vols., Oxf., 1847 f.; Harmony
       of Evangelists, and Serm. on Mt., Edin., 1874; Commentary
       on John, 2 vols., Edin., 1875). His correspondence still
       preserved comprises 270 Epistles (Engl. transl., 2 vols.,
       Edin., 1874, 1876).

  § 47.20. =Augustine’s Disciples and Friends.=

    a. =Paulinus=, deacon of Milan, who wrote, at Augustine’s
       request, the life of Ambrose, awakened in A.D. 411 the
       Pelagian controversy by the charges which he made, and
       took part in it himself by writing in A.D. 417 the _Libellus
       c. Cœlestium ad Zosimum Papam_.

    b. =Paulus [Paul] Orosius=, a Spanish presbyter, who visited
       Augustine in Africa in A.D. 415 to urge him to combat
       Priscillianism, took part with him there in his conflict
       with the Pelagians. He has left behind a _Commonitorium de
       errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum ad Augustinum_;
       an _Apologeticus de arbitrii libertate c. Pelagium_ and
       _Hist. adv. Paganos_ in 7 bks. The last named work was
       written at Augustine’s urgent entreaty, and pursues in a
       purely historical manner the same end which Augustine in his
       _City of God_ sought to reach in a dogmatico-apologetic way.

    c. =Marius Mercator= was a learned and acute layman, belonging
       to the West, but latterly resident in Constantinople. He
       made every effort to secure the condemnation of Pelagianism
       even in the East, and so wrote not only against its Western
       leaders but also against its Antiochean supporters, Nestorius
       and Theodore of Mopsuestia (§ 53, 4).

    d. =Prosper Aquitanicus=, also a layman and an enthusiastic
       follower of Augustine, not only wrote several treatises
       against the semi-Pelagians of his native Gaul (§ 53, 5),
       but also poured out the vials of his wrath upon them in
       poetic effusions (§ 48, 6). He died about A.D. 460.

    e. =Cæsarius, bishop of Arelate=, now Arles in Gaul, originally
       a monk in the monastery of Larinum, was one of the most
       celebrated, most influential, and in church work most
       serviceable of the men of his times. It is also mainly
       due to him that in A.D. 529 moderate Augustinianism gained
       the victory over semi-Pelagianism. He died in A.D. 543.
       His treatise _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ is no longer
       extant, but two rules for monks and nuns composed by him,
       _Ad monachos_, _Ad virgines_, as well as a considerable
       number of _Sermones_, the best of their time, are still
       preserved.

    f. =Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe= in Africa, on account of
       his zeal for the Catholic doctrine, was banished by the
       Arian Vandal king Thrasimund, but returned after the
       king’s death in A.D. 523. He was one of the stoutest
       champions of Augustinianism. His writings against Arians
       and semi-Pelagians have been often printed. He died in
       A.D. 555. His scholar and biographer was =Fulgentius
       Ferrandus=, deacon at Carthage about A.D. 547. Alongside
       of and after him we meet with bishop =Facundus= of Hermiane,
       and the archdeacon =Liberatus of Carthage=, who with
       characteristic African energy defend the _Tria Capitula_
       (§ 52, 6) basely surrendered by the Roman bishop Vigilius.

  § 47.21. =Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.=

    I. =Pelagius=, a British monk, the originator of the heresy
       named after him (§ 53, 3, 4), left behind a considerable
       number of writings, of which, however, for the most part
       we have now only fragments in the works of his opponents.
       References in Augustine, Marius Mercator, and others show
       that to him belong the _Lb._ xiv. _Expositionum in Epistt.
       Pauli_, which have been ascribed to Jerome and included
       among his works, scholia-like explanations with good sound
       grammatico-historical exegesis. The wish to make this
       useable and safe for the Catholic church led at an early
       date to various omissions and alterations in it. Afterwards
       its heretical origin was forgotten which notwithstanding
       the purifying referred to is still quite discernible. Two
       epistles addressed to Roman ladies recommending virginity
       have also got a place among the works of Jerome.--=Julianus,
       bishop of Eclanum= in Italy, is the only one among the
       followers of Pelagius who can be regarded as of scientific
       importance. He was an acute but frivolous and vulgar
       opponent of Augustine, whom he honoured with the epithets
       _amentissimus et bardissimus_ (comp. § 53, 4).

   II. At the head of the semi-Pelagians or Massilians stands:

        a. =Johannes Cassianus=. Gennadius designates him as
           _natione Scythus_; but he received his early education
           in a monastery at Bethlehem. He then undertook a
           journey in company with the abbot to visit the Egyptian
           monks, stayed next for a long time with Chrysostom at
           Constantinople, and after his banishment resided some
           years in Rome, and finally in A.D. 415 settled down at
           Massilia (Marseilles), where he established a monastery
           and a nunnery, and organised both after the Eastern
           model. He died about A.D. 432. His writings were held
           in high esteem throughout the Middle Ages. In the
           _De institutis Cœnobiorum_ he describes the manner
           of life of the Palestinian and Egyptian monks, and
           then treats of the eight vices to which the monks were
           specially exposed. The 24 _Collationes Patrum_ report
           the conversations which he had with the Eastern monks
           and hermits about the ways and means of attaining
           Christian perfection. The 13th _Collatio_ is, without
           naming him, directed against Augustine’s doctrine,
           and develops semi-Pelagian Synergism (§ 53, 5). Both
           writings, however are certainly calculated to serve
           the development of his own monkish ideal as well as his
           own dogmatic and ethical views, rather then to afford
           a historically faithful representation of the life and
           thinking of oriental monasticism of that time. The 7 bks.
           _De incarnatione Christi_ combat not only Nestorianism
           but also Pelagianism as in its consequences derogatory
           to the divinity of Christ.

        b. =Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis=, monk in the Gallic
           monastery of Lerinum, was Cassianus’ most distinguished
           disciple. He died about A.D. 450. On his often printed
           _Commonitorium pro cath. fidei antiquit. et universit._,
           comp. § 53, 5.

        c. =Eucherius, bishop of Lyons=, left behind him several
           ascetical works (_De laude eremi; De contemtu mundi_),
           Homilies, and a _Liber formularum spiritualis
           intelligentiæ_ as guide to the mystico-allegorical
           interpretation of Scripture. He died about A.D. 450.

        d. =Salvianus=, presbyter at Marseilles, was in his
           earlier days married to a heathen woman whom he
           converted, and with her took the vow of continency.
           He died about A.D. 485. He wrote _Adv. avaritiam_
           Lb. iv., in which the support of the poor and surrender
           of property to the church for pious uses are recommended
           as means of furthering the salvation of one’s own soul.
           In consequence of the oppression of the times during
           the convulsions of the migration of the peoples and
           the reproach of the heathen again loudly raised that
           the weakness of the Roman empire was occasioned by the
           introduction of Christianity, he wrote _De providentia
           s. de gubernatione Dei et de justo præsentique judicio_,
           Lb. viii., which in rhetorical and flowery language
           depicted the dreadful moral condition of the Roman
           world of that day.

        e. =Faustus of Rhegium=, now Riez in Provence, in his
           earlier years an advocate, then monk and abbot of the
           cloister of Lerinum, and finally bishop of Rhegium, was
           the head of the Gallic semi-Pelagians of his times. In
           his writings he stated this doctrine in a moderate form.
           He died in A.D. 493.

        f. =Arnobius the Younger=, the contemporary and
           fellow-countryman of Faustus, wrote a very important
           work entitled _Prædestinatus_, which in a very thorough
           and elaborate manner contests the doctrines of Augustine.
           Comp. § 53, 5.

  § 47.22. =The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman
  Popes.=

    a. =Leo the Great= occupied the papal chair from A.D. 440 to
       A.D. 461. While but a deacon he was the most distinguished
       personage in Rome. On assuming the bishopric he gave the
       whole powers of his mind to the administration of his office
       in all directions. By the energy and consistency with which
       he carried out the idea of the Roman primacy, he became the
       virtual founder of the spiritual sovereignty of Rome. With
       a strong arm he guided the helm of the church, reformed
       and organized on every side, settled order and discipline,
       defended orthodoxy, contended against heretics (Manichæans,
       Priscillianists, Pelagians, Eutychians), and appeased the
       barbarians (Attila). Of his writings we have 96 _Sermones_
       and 173 Epistles, which last are of the utmost importance
       for the church history of his times. He is also supposed
       to be the author of a talented work _De vocatione Gentium_
       (§ 53, 5).

    b. =Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496, left behind him a
       treatise _Adv. hæresin Pelagianem_, another _De duabus
       in Christo naturis_, and a work against the observance of
       the Lupercalia which some prominent Romans wished to have
       continued. He also wrote 18 Decretals. The celebrated
       _Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis_, in
       a sense the oldest _Index prohibitorum_, is ascribed to
       him. The first section, wanting in the best MSS., contains
       a biblical canon corresponding to that of the Synod of
       Hippo, A.D. 393 (§ 59, 1); the second section treats of
       the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome granted by our Lord
       Himself in the person of Peter; the third enumerates the
       œcumenical Councils; and the fourth, the writings of the
       fathers received by the Roman Church; the Chronicle and
       Church History of Eusebius are found fault with (_quod
       tepuerit_) but not rejected; in respect to the writings of
       Origen and Rufinus the opinion of Jerome is approved. The
       fifth section gives a list of books not to be received--the
       New Testament Apocrypha, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
       Arnobius, Cassianus, Faustus of Rhegium, etc.

    c. =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 to A.D. 604, born in Rome
       about A.D. 540, sprung from a distinguished old Roman
       family, held about A.D. 574 the office of city prefect,
       after his father’s death founded on his inherited estates,
       six monasteries, and himself withdrew into a seventh,
       which he built in Rome. Ordained deacon against his will in
       A.D. 579, he was entrusted with the important and difficult
       office of a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople, and was
       constrained in A.D. 590, after a long persisted-in refusal,
       to mount the papal chair, which obliged him to abandon
       the long-cherished plan of his life, the preaching of the
       gospel to the Anglo-Saxons (§ 77, 4). Gregory united a rare
       power and energy of will with real mildness and gentleness
       of character, deep humility and genuine piety with the
       full consciousness of his position as a successor of Peter,
       insight, circumspection, yea even an unexpected measure of
       liberal-mindedness (comp. _e.g._ § 57, 4; 75, 3) with all
       monkish narrowness and stiff adherence to the traditional
       forms, doctrines and views of the Roman Church. He himself
       lived in extremest poverty and simplicity according to
       the strictest monastic asceticism, and applied all that he
       possessed and received to the support of the poor and the
       help of the needy. It was a hard time in which he lived,
       the age of the birth throes of a new epoch of the world’s
       history. There is therefore much cause to thank the good
       providence which set such a man as spiritual father, teacher
       and pastor at the head of the Western Church. He took special
       interest in fostering monasticism and such-like institutions,
       which were, indeed, most conducive to the well-being of
       the world, for during this dangerous period of convulsion,
       monasticism was almost the only nursery of intellectual
       culture. The Roman Catholic church ranks him as the last
       of the Fathers, and places him alongside of Ambrose, Jerome
       and Augustine, the four greatest teachers of the church,
       _Doctores ecclesiæ_, whose writings have been long reverenced
       as the purest and most complete vehicles of the Catholic
       tradition. Among the Greeks a similar position is given to
       Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom. The
       rank thus assigned to Gregory is justifiable inasmuch as
       in him the formation and malformation of doctrine, worship,
       discipline and constitution peculiar to the ancient church
       are gathered up, completed and closed. His most complete
       work is the _Expositio in b. Jobum s. Moralium_, Ll. xxxv.,
       (Engl. transl., Lib. of Fath., 3 vols., Oxf., 1844-1850)
       which, by dragging in all possible relations of life which
       an allegorical interpretation can furnish, is expanded into
       a repertory of moral reflections. His _Regula pastoralis
       s. Liber curæ pastoralis_ obtained in the West a position
       of almost canonical authority. In his “Dialogues,” of which
       the first three books treat “_de vita et miraculis Patrum
       Italicorum_,” and the 4th book mostly of visionary views of
       the hereafter (heaven, hell and purgatory), “_de æternitate
       animarum_,” we meet with a very singular display of the most
       uncritical credulousness and the most curious superstition.
       Besides these we have from him Homilies on Ezekiel and
       the Gospels, as well as a voluminous correspondence in
       880 Epistles of great importance for the history of the
       age. To Gregory also is attributed the oft quoted saying
       which compares holy scripture to a stream _in quo agnus
       peditat et elephas natat_.

  § 47.23. =The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.=

    a. =Boëthius=, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus, was
       descended from a distinguished Roman family, and stood high
       in favour with the Ostrogoth Arian king Theodoric. Accused,
       however, by his enemies of treasonable correspondence with
       the Byzantine court, he was, after a long imprisonment,
       condemned unheard and executed, A.D. 525. In prison
       he composed the celebrated treatise, _De consolatione
       philosophiæ_, which, written in pure and noble language,
       was the favourite book of the Latin Middle Ages, and was
       translated into all European languages: first of all by
       Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon, and often reprinted in
       its original form. The book owed its great popularity to the
       mediæval tradition which made its author a martyr for the
       Catholic faith under Arian persecution; but modern criticism
       has sought to prove that in all probability he was not even
       a Christian. Still more decidedly the theological writings
       on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ bearing his
       name are repudiated as irreconcileable with the contents
       and character of the _De consolatione_; though, on the
       other hand, their authenticity has again found several
       most capable defenders. Finally, Usener has conclusively,
       as it seems, in a newly discovered fragment of Cassiodorus,
       brought forward a quite incontestable witness for their
       authenticity. In any case Boëthius did great service in
       preserving the continuity of Western culture by his hearty
       encouragement and careful prosecution of classical studies
       at a time when these were threatened with utter neglect. Of
       special importance was his translation of a commentary on
       the logical works of Aristotle as the first and for a long
       time almost the only philosophical groundwork of mediæval
       scholasticism (§ 99, 2).

    c. Magnus Aurelius =Cassiodorus=, surnamed Senator, belonged
       to Southern Italy and held the highest civil offices under
       Odoacer and Theodoric for fifty years. About A.D. 540,
       he retired to the cloister of Vivarium founded by him in
       Southern Italy, and devoted the rest of his life to the
       sciences and the instruction of the monks. He collected a
       great library in his monastery, and employed the monks in
       transcribing classical and patristic writings. He died about
       A.D. 575 when almost a hundred years old. His own writings
       show indeed no independence and originality, but are all
       the more important as concentrated collections of classical
       and patristic learning for the later Latin Middle Ages. His
       twelve books of the History of the Goths have come down only
       in the condensed reproduction of Jordanes or Jornandes. His
       twelve books _Variarum_ (_sc. epistolarum et formularum_),
       which consist of a collection of acts and ordinances of the
       period of his civil service, are important for the history
       of his age. His _Historia ecclest. tripartita_ (§ 5, 1),
       was for many centuries almost the only text book of church
       history, and his _Institutiones divinarum et sæcularum
       litterarum_ had a similar position as a guide to the study
       of theology and the seven liberal arts (§ 90, 8). Also his
       commentary on the Psalms and the most of the books of the
       New Testament, made up of compilations, was held in high
       esteem.

    c. =Dionysius Exiguus=, a Scythian by birth, who became a Roman
       abbot, and died about A.D. 566, may also be placed in this
       group. He translated many Greek patristic writings, by his
       _Cyclus paschalis_ became founder of the Western reckoning
       of Easter (§ 56, 3), and also the more universally adopted
       so-called Dionysian era. By his _Codex Canonum_ he is also
       the founder of the Western system of Canon Law (§ 43, 3).


      § 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.

  § 48.1. =Exegetical Theology.=--Nothing was done in the way
  of criticism of the original biblical text. Even Jerome was
  only a translator. For the Old Testament the LXX. sufficed,
  and the divergences of the Hebrew text were explained as
  Jewish alterations. Hebrew was a _terra incognita_ to the
  fathers, Polychronius and Jerome only are notable exceptions.
  The allegorical method of interpretation was and continued to be
  the prevalent one. The Antiocheans, however, put limits to it by
  their theory and practice of the right of historico-grammatical
  interpretation. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia
  contested the principles of Origen, while Gregory of Nyssa in his
  _Proemium in Cant._ undertook their defence. The first attempt
  at a system of =Hermeneutics= was made by the learned Donatist
  Tychonius in his book the _Regulæ_ vii. _ad investigandam
  intelligentiam ss. Scr._ More profound is Augustine’s _De
  Doctrina Chr._ The Εἰσαγωγὴ τῆς θείας γραφῆς of the Greek
  Adrianus with its opposition to the immoderate allegorizing
  that then prevailed, deserves mention here. Jerome contributed
  to biblical =Introduction= by his various _Proœmia_. The
  first attempt at a scientific introduction to biblical study
  (isagogical and biblico-theological in the form of question
  and answer), is met with in the 2 bks. _Instituta regularia
  div. legis_ of the African Junilius, a prominent courtier at
  Constantinople, about A.D. 550. There is a Latin rendering made
  by Junilius at the request of Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum,
  of a treatise composed originally in Syriac, by Paul the Persian,
  teacher of the Nestorian seminary at Nisibis, which he had
  collected from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, for the
  purposes of instruction. The title _Departibus div. legis_,
  usually given to the whole, properly belongs only to the first
  part of the treatise. A more popular guide is Cassiodorus’
  _Institutio divinarum litt._ Some contributions were made
  to biblical archaeology by Eusebius and Epiphanius. Of the
  allegorical =Exegetes= of the East, the most productive was
  Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochean school produced a whole
  series of able expositors of the grammatico-historical sense
  of scripture. In the commentaries of Chrysostom and Ephraem
  [Ephraim] the Syrian, that method of interpretation is applied
  in a directly practical interest. The Westerns Hilary, Ambrose,
  Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine, as well as their later
  imitators, all allegorize; yet Jerome also applied himself very
  diligently to the elucidation of the grammatical sense. Only
  Pelagius is content to rest in the plain literal meaning of
  scripture. From the 6th century, almost all independent work in
  the department of exegesis ceased. We have from this time only
  _Catenæ_, collections of passages from commentaries and homilies
  of distinguished fathers. The first Greek writer of Catenæ, was
  Procopius of Gaza, in the 6th century; and the first Latin writer
  of these was Primasius of Adrumetum, about A.D. 560.

  § 48.2. =Historical Theology.=--The writing of Church history
  flourished especially during the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 5, 1).
  For the history of heresies we have Epiphanius, Theodoret,
  Leontius of Byzantium; and among the Latins, Augustine,
  Philastrius [Philaster], and the author of _Prædestinatus_
  (§ 47, 21f). There are numerous biographies of distinguished
  fathers. On these compare the so-called _Liber pontificalis_, see
  § 90, 6. Jerome laid the foundation of a history of theological
  literature in a series of biographies, and Gennadius of
  Massilia continued this work. With special reference to monkish
  history, we have among the Greeks, Palladius, Theodoret and
  Joh. Moschus; and among the Latins, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregory
  the Great and Gregory of Tours (§ 90, 2). Of great importance
  for ecclesiastical statistics is the Τοπογραφία χριστιανική
  in 12 bks., whose author _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, monk in the
  Sinai peninsula about A.D. 540, had in his earlier years as an
  Alexandrian merchant travelled much in the East. The connection
  of biblical and profane history is treated of in the Chronicle
  of Eusebius. Orosius too treats of profane history from the
  Christian standpoint. The _Hist. persecutionis Vandalorum_
  (§ 76, 3), of Victor, bishop of Vita in Africa, about A.D. 487,
  is of great value for the church history of Africa. For chronology
  the so-called _Chronicon paschale_, in the Greek language, is of
  great importance. It is the work of two unknown authors; the work
  of the one reaching down to A.D. 354, that of the other, down to
  A.D. 630. These chronological tables obtained their name from the
  fact that the Easter cycles and indictions are always carefully
  determined in them.

  § 48.3. =Systematic Theology.=

    a. =Apologetics.= The controversial treatises of Porphyry
       and Hierocles were answered by many (§ 23, 3); that of
       the Emperor Julian also (§ 42, 5), especially by Gregory
       Nazianzen, Chrysostum [Chrysostom] (in the Discourse on
       St. Babylas), and most powerfully by Cyril of Alexandria.
       Ambrose and the poet Prudentius answered the tract of
       Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4. The insinuations of
       Zosimus, Eunapius, and others (§ 42, 5) were met by Orosius
       with his _Historiæ_, by Augustine with his _Civ. Dei_,
       and by Salvian [Salvianus] with his _De gubernatione
       Dei_. Johannes Philoponus wrote against Proclus’ denial
       of the biblical doctrine of creation. The vindication of
       Christianity against the charges of the Jews was undertaken
       by Aphraates, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregentius, bishop
       of Taphne in Arabia, who, in A.D. 540, disputed for four
       days amid a great crowd with the Jew Herban. Apologies of
       a general character were written by Eusebius of Cæsarea,
       Athanasius, Theodoret and Firmicus Maternus.

    b. In =Polemics= against earlier and later heretics, the
       utmost energy and an abundance of acuteness and depth of
       thought were displayed. See under the history of theological
       discussions, § 50 ff.

    c. Positive =Dogmatics=. Origen’s example in the construction
       of a complete scientific system of doctrine has no imitator.
       For practical purposes, however, the whole range of Christian
       doctrine was treated by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
       Nyssa, Apollinaris, Epiphanius, Rufinus (_Expositio Symboli
       Apost._), Augustine (in the last book of the _Civ. Dei_, in
       first book of his _De Doctrina Chr._, and in the _Enchiridium
       ad Laurentium_). The African Fulgentius of Ruspe (_De regula
       veræ fidei_), Gennadius of Massilia (_De fide sua_), and
       Vincentius [Vincent] of Lerinum in his _Commonitorium_. Much
       more important results for the development of particular
       dogmas were secured by means of polemics. Of supreme
       influence on subsequent ages were the mystico-theosophical
       writings of the Pseudo-Areopagite. This mysticism, so far
       as adopted, was combined by the acute and profound thinker
       Maximus Confessor with the orthodox theology of the Councils.

    d. =Morals.= The _De officiis ministr._ of Ambrose is a system
       of moral instruction for the clergy; and of the same sort
       is Chrysostom’s Περὶ ἱερωσύνης; while Cassianus’ writings
       form a moral system for the monks, and Gregory’s _Exposit.
       in Jobum_ a vast repertory on general morality.

  § 48.4. =Practical Theology.=--The whole period is peculiarly
  rich in distinguished homilists. The most brilliant of the Greek
  preachers were: Macarius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory
  Nazianzen, Ephraem [Ephraim] the Syrian, and above all Chrysostom.
  Of the Latins the most distinguished were Ambrose, Augustine,
  Zeno of Verona, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Leo the Great, and
  Cæsarius of Arles. A sort of Homiletics is found in the 4th of
  Augustine’s _De Doctr. Chr._, and a directory for pastoral work,
  in the _Regula pastoralia_ of Gregory the Great. On Liturgical
  writings, comp. § 59, 6; on Constitutional works, § 43, 3-5.

  § 48.5. =Christian Poetry.=--The beginning of the prevalence of
  Christianity occurred at a time when the poetic art had already
  ceased to be consecrated to the national life of the ancient
  world. But it proved an intellectual power which could cause to
  swell out again the poetic vein, relaxed by the weakness of age.
  In spite of the depraved taste and deteriorated language, it
  called forth a new period of brilliancy in the history of poetry
  which could rival classical poetry, not indeed in purity and
  elegance of form, but in intensity and depth. The Latins in
  this far excelled the Greeks; for to them Christianity was more
  a matter of experience, emotion, the inner life, to the Greeks
  a matter of knowledge and speculation. Among the =Greeks= the
  most distinguished are these: =Gregory Nazianzen=. He deserves
  notice mainly for his satirical _Carmen de vita sua_, περὶ ἑαυτοῦ.
  Among his numerous other poems are some beautiful hymns and
  many striking phrases, but also much that is weak and flat.
  The drama Χριστὸς πάσχων, perhaps wrongly bearing his name,
  modelled on the tragedies of Euripides and in great part made
  up of Euripidean verses, is not without interest as the first
  Christian passion-play, and contains some beautiful passages;
  _e.g._ the lament of Mary; but it is on the whole insipid
  and confused. =Nonnus of Panopolis=, about A.D. 400, wrote
  a Παράφρασις ἐπικὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγ. κατὰ Ἰωάννην, somewhat more
  useful for textual criticism and archaeology, than likely
  to afford enjoyment as poetry. Of the poetical works of the
  Empress =Eudocia=, wife of Theodosius II., daughter of the
  pagan rhetorician Leontius of Athens, hence called Athenais
  (she died about the year 460), only fragments of their renderings
  in the Cyprian legends have come down to us. The loss of her
  _Homero-centoes_ celebrated by Photius, _i.e._ reproductions
  of the biblical books of the New Testament in pure Homeric words
  and verses, is not perhaps to be very sorely lamented. On the
  other hand, the poetic description of the church of Sophia, built
  by Justinian I. and of the ambo of that church which =Paulus
  Silentiarius= left behind him, is not only of archaeological
  value, but also is not without poetic merit.

  § 48.6. =Christian Latin Poetry= reached its highest excellence
  in the composition of hymns (§ 59, 4). But also in the more
  ambitious forms of epic, didactic, panegyric, and hortatory
  poems, it has respectable representatives, especially in Spain
  and Gaul, whose excellence of workmanship during such a period
  of restlessness and confusion is truly wonderful. To the fourth
  century belongs the Spaniard =Juvencus=, about A.D. 330. His
  _Hist. evangelica_ in 4 books, is the first Christian epic;
  a work of sublime simplicity, free of all bombast or rhetorical
  rant, which obtained for him the name of “the Christian Virgil.”
  His _Liber in Genesin_ versifies in a similar manner the Mosaic
  history of the patriarchs. His countryman =Prudentius=, who died
  about A.D. 410, was a poet of the first rank, distinguished for
  depth of sensibility, glowing enthusiasm, high lyrical flow,
  and singular skill in versification. His _Liber Cathemerinon_
  consists of 12 hymns, for the 12 hours of the day, and his
  _Liber Peristephanon_, 14 hymns on the same number of saints who
  had won the martyr’s crown; his _Apotheosis_ is an Anti-Arian
  glorification of Christ; the _Hamartigenia_ treats of the origin
  of sin; the _Psychomachia_ describes the conflict of the virtues
  and vices of the human soul; and his 2 bks. _Contra Symmachum_
  combat the views of Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4.--In the
  fifth century flourished: =Paulinus=, bishop of Nola in Campania,
  who died in A.D. 431. He left behind him 30 poems, of which
  13 celebrate in noble, enthusiastic language, the life of Felix
  of Nola, martyr during the Decian persecution. =Coelius Sedulius=,
  an Irishman (?), composed in smooth dignified verse the Life of
  Jesus, and the _Mirabilia divina s. Opus paschale_, so called
  from 1 Cor. v. 7 in 5 bks.; and a Collatio V. et N.T. in elegiac
  verse. The _De libero arbitrio c. ingratos_ of the Gaul =Prosper
  Aquitanicus= lashes with poetic fury the thankless despisers of
  grace (§ 53, 5).--The most important poet of the sixth century
  was =Venantius Fortunatus=, bishop of Poitiers, _Vita Martini_,
  hymns, elegies, etc.

  § 48.7. In the =National Syrian= Church, the first place as a
  poet belongs to =Ephraem= [Ephraim], the _Propheta Syrorum_. In
  poetic endowment, lyrical flow, depth and intensity of feeling,
  he leaves all later writers far behind. Next to him stands
  =Cyrillonas=, about A.D. 400, a poet whose very name, until quite
  recently, was unknown, of whose poems six are extant, two being
  metrical homilies. Of =Rabulas of Edessa=, who died in A.D. 435,
  the notorious partisan of Cyril of Alexandria (§ 53, 3), and of
  =Baläus=, about A.D. 430, we possess only a number of liturgical
  odes, which are not altogether destitute of poetic merit.
  This cannot, however, be said of the poetic works of =Isaac of
  Antioch=, who died about A.D. 460, filled with frigid polemics
  against Nestorius and Eutyches, of which their Catholic editor
  (Opp. ed. G. Bickell, Giess., 1873 f.) has to confess they are
  thoroughly “insipid, flat and wearisome, and move backwards and
  forwards in endless tautologies.” Less empty and tiresome are
  the poetic effusions of the famous =Jacob of Sarug=, who died
  in A.D. 521; biblical stories, metrical homilies, hymns, etc.
  Most of the numerous liturgical odes are the compositions of
  unknown authors.

  § 48.8. =The Legendary History of Cyprian.=--At the basis of the
  poetic rendering of this legend in 3 bks. by the Empress Eudocia,
  about A.D. 440, lay three little works in prose, still extant in
  the Greek original and in various translations. In early youth
  Cyprian, impelled by an insatiable craving after knowledge, power
  and enjoyment, seeks to obtain all the wisdom of the Greeks, all
  the mysteries of the East, and for this purpose travels through
  Greece, Egypt, and Chaldæa. But when he gets all this he is
  not satisfied; he makes a compact with the devil, to whom he
  unreservedly surrenders himself, who in turn places at his
  disposal now a great multitude of demons, and promises to make
  him hereafter one of his chief princes. Then comes he to Antioch.
  There Aglaidas, an eminent heathen sophist, who in vain abandoned
  all to win the love of a maiden named Justina, who had taken
  vows of perpetual virginity, calls in his magical arts, in order
  thereby to gain the end so ardently desired. Cyprian enters into
  the affair all the more eagerly since he himself also meanwhile
  has entertained a strong passion for the fair maiden. But the
  demons sent by him, at last the devil himself, are forced to flee
  from her, through her calling on the name of Jesus and making
  the sign of the cross, and are obliged to own their powerlessness
  before the Christians’ God. Now Cyprian repents, repudiates his
  covenant with the devil, lays before an assembly of Antiochean
  Christians a confession inspired by the most profound despairing
  sorrow of the innumerable mischiefs wrought by him with the help
  of the demons, is comforted by the Christians present by means
  of consolatory words of scripture, receives baptism, enters
  the ranks of the clergy as reader, passes quickly through the
  various clerical offices, and suffers the death of a martyr
  as bishop of Antioch, along with Justina, under the Emperor
  Claudius II.--Gregory Nazianzen too in a discourse delivered at
  Constantinople in A.D. 379, “on the day of the holy martyr and
  bishop Cyprian,” treated of the legend, in which without more ado
  he identifies the converted Antiochean sorcerer with the famous
  Carthaginian bishop of that name, and makes him suffer martyrdom
  under Decius (?).--The romance may have borrowed the name of its
  hero from an old wizard; but his type of character is certainly
  to be looked for in the philosophico-theurgical efforts of
  the Syrio-Neoplatonic school of Iamblichus (§ 24, 2), in which
  the then expiring heathenism gathered up its last energies
  for conflict with victorious Christianity. The conception of
  the heroine on the other hand, is with slight modifications
  borrowed from the Thecla legend (§ 32, 6). By the _Legenda aurea_
  (§ 104, 8), which is just an adaptation of this earlier one,
  the legend of Cyprian was carried down even beyond the time of
  the Reformation. Calderon’s “Wonder-working Magician” presents
  a Spanish-Catholic, as the Faustus legend of the 16th century
  presents a German Protestant construction, which latter, however,
  in direct opposition to the tendency of the early Christian
  legend, allows the magician to drop into hell because his
  repentance came too late. The Romish Church, however, still
  maintains the historical genuineness of the old legend, and
  celebrates both of the supposed saints on one day, 25th September.




               IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.


              § 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.

  When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in
previous periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified
development, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition
of things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm
what was already developed or was still in the course of development.
The endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate
definition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between
the churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being
restricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact
and conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took
parts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting
struggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised
by the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the
branding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy.

  The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic
  kind (§ 26). Those of the period now under consideration have
  an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the
  construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention
  and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian
  truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into
  errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate
  development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of
  syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period
  are found in this (§ 54). The third possible form of heresies is
  the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy
  that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic
  church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist,
  so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in
  her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for
  the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of
  sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed
  with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated
  instances of this kind of heresy are met with (§ 62).


         § 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.[150]

  The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or
Arian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being
of the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to
the Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses
(§ 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father
had found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed
with it as the fundamental doctrine (§ 47, 1). But the fear excited
by Sabellius and the Samosatians (§ 33, 8), that the acknowledgment
of the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction
and doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism.
It was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (§ 31, 9)
that furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the
two contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the
substance of the Father, had been still maintained together (§ 33, 6).
Now they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side,
Athanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by
the eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption
of the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up
the eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went
to the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate
party, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated
contraries together with the newly discovered cement of the ὁμοιουσία.
In the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged
throughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the
trinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into
the discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture,
the Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and
became the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy.

  § 50.1. =Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia,
  A.D. 318-325=--=Arius=, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313
  presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle
  critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the
  divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the
  Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (ἦν
  ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), that by the will of the Father (θελήματι θεοῦ) He
  was created out of nothing (κτίσμα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and that by
  His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the
  most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the
  Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be
  called θεός and λόγος. =Alexander=, bishop of Alexandria at that
  time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and
  consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321,
  which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the
  people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops,
  who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for
  protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his
  former fellow student (Συλλουκιανίστης) Eusebius of Nicomedia,
  and to the very influential Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2).
  The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the
  Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous.
  Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs
  for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors,
  travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through
  almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried
  on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach
  in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of
  this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded,
  fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels
  (ἐλάχισται ζητήσεις) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cordŏva,
  who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the
  state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict,
  and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light.
  Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an =Œcumenical Council at
  Nicæa=, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with
  Eusebius of Cæsarea at their head, were Origenists and sought,
  as did also the =Eusebians=, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
  to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however,
  being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the
  Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence
  of the young deacon =Athanasius=, whom Alexander brought with
  him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy
  to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula
  proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own congregation, a new
  confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used
  to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed
  several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had
  been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as
  πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτίσεως πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνιων, and in their
  place strictly Homoousian formulæ were substituted, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
  τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθεὶς οὐ ποιηθεὶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; while with
  added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned.
  This was the =Symbolum Nicænum=. Arius was excommunicated and
  his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love
  of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only
  Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus,
  refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia
  and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to
  sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards
  banished to Gaul.[151]

  § 50.2. =Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.=--This unity
  under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not
  therefore be enduring. The emperor’s dying sister Constantia and
  the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to
  return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to
  a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the
  other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in
  A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to
  office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become
  bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would
  not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by
  a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him
  that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially
  the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 41, 4),
  ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the
  peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at
  Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed
  against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened
  at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to
  Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding
  the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should
  be there received back again into church fellowship, but on
  the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being
  over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him,
  A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church
  which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was
  decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the
  court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets,
  in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were
  considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part
  vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by
  Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set
  aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of
  orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital,
  died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his
  spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nicæan.
  The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which
  anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian,
  Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council
  under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his
  orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in
  A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds
  one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate
  the West, as closely as possible that of Nicæa, but carefully
  avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος. In the interests of unity Constantius
  and Constans jointly convened an Œcumenical Council at Sardica in
  Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency
  of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat
  and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an
  opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where
  important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius
  (§ 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was
  restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who
  meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds,
  confirmed Athanasius’ restoration, and the Alexandrian church
  received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the
  death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to
  the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium
  in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike
  directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who
  presented to them a weak spot. The bishop =Marcellus of Ancyra=
  in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene _Homoousia_ had
  been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views.
  At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account
  suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the
  course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of
  Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his
  own scholars =Photinus=, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into
  unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (§ 33, 1).
  His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council
  at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly
  Nicæan Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium
  now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus’
  doctrine.[152] The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with
  this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper
  Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their
  instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul,
  A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was
  again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western
  bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were
  deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius,
  Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli,
  and Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius
  [Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the
  first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius
  performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then
  withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus
  it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form
  of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole
  range of the Roman Empire.

  § 50.3. =Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.=--The Eusebians
  now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party,
  with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus
  at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that
  the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence
  called =Anomœans=, also _Exucontians_ (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also
  the distinctly moderate party, called =semi-Arians=[153] or
  _Homoiousians_, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος,
  made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood
  Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable
  to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens,
  strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret
  paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at
  Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the
  non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to
  abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is
  incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that
  the Son is _like_ the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name =Homoians=).
  Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his
  reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance,
  in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of
  the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their
  Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their
  Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the
  emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod
  at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it.
  The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the
  formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι
  γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three
  years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return
  to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that
  he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in
  order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and
  Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have
  two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and
  a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula
  of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns
  by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to
  weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia
  and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and
  their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded
  in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed
  the _Homoian_ symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius,
  were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus
  the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire.
  Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this
  artificial bond.

  § 50.4. =Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.=--Julian
  gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished
  bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops.
  Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order
  he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the
  exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church
  fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest
  of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of
  Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the
  pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor,
  Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately
  restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration
  to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I.
  surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He
  raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against
  the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations
  with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured
  after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of
  his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted
  in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations
  of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of
  eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4).
  The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during
  the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully
  checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously
  opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church
  for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms.
  Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called
  Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople.
  To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency
  of the so-called =Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople
  in A.D. 381=.[154]--When, however, his patriarchate was attacked,
  because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned
  his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the
  Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called
  Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this
  the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities.
  Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.--The
  Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent
  parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and
  so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an
  œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was
  not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of
  Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours
  were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called
  by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole
  Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of
  Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous
  in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still
  rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence
  of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court
  (§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.

  § 50.5. =The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.=--Arius and the
  Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature
  produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia
  of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with
  a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers,
  avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording
  the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of
  Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three
  Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia
  to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians.
  It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the
  Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop
  of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians
  in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians,
  Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council
  of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full
  Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380
  at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned
  in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every
  sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.[155]

  § 50.6. =The Literature of the Controversy.=--Arius himself
  developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια,
  fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a
  zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost.
  The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate
  it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote
  against Marcellus--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς
  θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the
  opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the
  first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning
  Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks,
  Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts
  of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the
  works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5.
  Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου
  Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians.
  Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa
  12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks.
  _De Trinitate_. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria
  a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom
  delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret
  wrote _Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate_. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus,
  too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the
  Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris
  (_Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen._); Hilary of Poitiers
  (_De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra
  Constantium Aug._; _C. Auxentium_); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum
  about A.D. 359 (_C. Arianos_); Ambrose (_De fide ad Gratianum
  Aug. Lb. V._); Augustine (_C. Sermonem Arianorum_; _Collatio
  cum Maximo Arianorum episc._; _C. Maximinum_); Fulgentius of
  Ruspe (_C. Arianos_, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king
  Thrasimund).

  § 50.7. =Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.=--Even the
  Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of
  subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist
  interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so
  identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this
  defect (_De Trinitate Lb. XV._). The personality of the Spirit,
  too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not
  yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of
  the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment
  in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381
  of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the
  Son.[156] But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father
  and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition
  (to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς
  ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον
  καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called _Symbolum Nic.-Constant._
  (§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even
  five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the
  church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this
  its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile
  come forward with a further development of this doctrine,
  and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded
  from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26).
  Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative
  of the further development of the dogma (_De s. Trinitate_).
  The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this
  advanced development in the proposition: _qui procedit a
  Patre et Filio_. Similarly the _Filioque_ is found also in the
  so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo
  in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).--Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2.

  § 50.8. =Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.=

     I. =The Meletian Schism at Antioch.= The Arians at Antioch
        had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop
        of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion
        of his people, however, remained attached to him and
        Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter
        Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360
        Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to
        take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital,
        his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste,
        formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the
        Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however,
        served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after
        a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided
        Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following
        in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made
        it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop.
        Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had
        meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians
        and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of
        Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch
        for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing
        it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius
        in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that
        of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus.
        The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius
        the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after
        two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the
        presidency, recommended that the next election should be
        postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then
        both parties should join the election. It was, however, all
        in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and
        when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was
        chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from
        A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising
        Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down
        to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the
        able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected
        a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with
        his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians,
        joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way
        won them over to join him in the principal church.

    II. =The Schism of the Luciferians.= After Lucifer by his
        irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch,
        he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested
        against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and
        semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the
        sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands
        for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth
        century.

   III. On the =Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome=, see
        § 46, 4.


            § 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.

  Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected
with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in
another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal
than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in
the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.

  § 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most
  distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three
  Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high
  esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority
  brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded
  opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the
  monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their
  head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source
  of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things
  adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis,
  also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct
  opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian
  desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied
  themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a
  somewhat extreme spiritualism.

  § 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy,
  A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in
  =bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and
  =Rufinus= who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when
  in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there
  expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation
  for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of
  Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention
  of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of
  heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage
  of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching
  a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against
  anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that
  tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism.
  When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the
  Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus,
  and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter
  over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy,
  which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore,
  sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar
  in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He
  translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ
  ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that
  even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up
  by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence
  a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his
  youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no
  longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal
  bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further
  causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with
  Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer
  for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent
  an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather
  consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental
  bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew
  to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of
  Origen and others of the Greeks.

  § 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,
  A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous,
  ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to
  A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even
  in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong
  terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose
  in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him
  to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a
  personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable
  presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ
  μακροί, two of whom served in his church as _œconomi_, refused to
  pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate
  displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In
  A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned
  Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against
  the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius
  approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With
  rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven
  away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they
  sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople
  (§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously
  rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the
  monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal
  to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at
  Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed
  with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win
  to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full
  of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things
  in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I
  leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew
  well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom,
  by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of
  the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great
  retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate
  of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_,
  A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality,
  offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor
  condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited
  in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A
  violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable
  excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the
  exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three
  days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city.
  Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter
  Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of
  a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and
  when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the
  unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of
  John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν
  ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game
  was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at
  the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst
  into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to
  Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries
  of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood.
  With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained
  regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of
  the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently
  sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and
  messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their
  cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding
  of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry
  his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the
  whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to
  Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407
  he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the
  Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and
  died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto
  of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his
  congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new
  patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart,
  notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites,
  until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the
  bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault.
  Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist
  controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again
  further on (§ 52, 6).[158]


               § 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]

  In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and
extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature
in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and
ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence
as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine
nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of
the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian
controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained
against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against
Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases
this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church
maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean
extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far
apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite
controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school
was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the
distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic
effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be
affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of
only one will.

  § 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy,
  A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._,
  Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the
  Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this
  view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order
  to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held
  by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is
  a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as
  an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body.
  At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained
  ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human
  nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had
  helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the
  expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of
  the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led
  to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He
  maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος,
  and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented
  in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought,
  one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down
  to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way
  too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other
  hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way
  the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of
  redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of
  A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party
  was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently
  joined the Monophysites.

  § 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In
  consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in
  consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity,
  of Christ were finally established. On the relation between
  the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite
  result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of
  the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that
  he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and
  by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the
  attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only
  the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore
  worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be
  referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις,
  he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα
  προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα
  ἅγιον, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly
  attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
  θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο
  φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον,
  ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην
  μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle
  ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although
  rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by
  Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical,
  the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the
  Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ
  and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the
  union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after
  the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one
  divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother
  of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris
  acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν
  αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a
  ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly
  admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling
  of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures,
  εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of
  Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an
  incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων,
  but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and
  _in abstracto_ (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two
  natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and
  so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be
  an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford
  no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean
  Theology= (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed
  most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the
  human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine.
  It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική,
  by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common
  being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς
  ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school
  blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that
  the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as
  it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself
  it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of
  this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict
  connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical
  development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of
  the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete
  human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies,
  but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant
  conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the
  same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit.
  He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ
  into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ
  ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced
  personality and independence.--Each of these two schools
  represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine;
  in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full
  truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more
  one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so
  tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the
  separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which
  the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth
  that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the
  =Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it
  dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side
  by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the
  expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation
  of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the
  afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of
  exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns
  turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the
  union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict
  attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West,
  but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained.
  In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the
  Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426
  he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but
  retracted his errors almost immediately.

  § 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy,
  A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called
  =Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of
  Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and
  imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature,
  and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an
  unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the
  rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as
  a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported
  monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated
  Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against
  him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius,
  was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and
  preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and
  monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to
  endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439
  condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria
  (§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian
  dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as
  well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of
  Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II.
  A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian
  bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts
  were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine
  of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within
  ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced
  twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which
  Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus
  the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and
  more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called
  =Third= (properly =Second=, comp. § 50, 4) =Œcumenical Council
  at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour
  of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal
  friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him
  to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops
  and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who
  should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian
  dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in
  readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor.
  Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril
  opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism
  was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and
  Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard
  of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the
  Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval;
  and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch
  proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which
  excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord
  retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the
  instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour
  of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius,
  Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by
  Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an
  ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained
  in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John
  subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was
  deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven
  from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died
  in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders
  called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church
  was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person
  of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents.
  This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret;
  but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person
  of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the
  doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with
  the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to
  give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions.
  Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema
  of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school,
  and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced
  upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of
  which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13).
  After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school
  again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile
  contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed
  the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought
  out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which
  Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter
  to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent
  period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas
  Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread
  of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of
  Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers
  and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school
  that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499,
  under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian
  church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman
  empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their
  ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch
  bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed
  on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the
  old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity
  into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.

  § 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=

    I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril’s successor was
       =Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in
       acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty
       left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople
       called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation
       Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of
       Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with
       our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without
       success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him
       a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι
       Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches
       as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined
       in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister
       the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had
       won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the
       Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade
       to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop
       of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before
       an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided
       over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under
       imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal
       to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to
       an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great=
       (§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman
       bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to
       that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness
       the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor,
       however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449,
       at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had
       no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for
       the first time there was a representative of the monastic
       order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot
       Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary
       and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected,
       and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians
       shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as
       he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed
       to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the
       sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang
       forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to
       desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to
       his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into
       the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout
       parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured
       by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment.
       The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment
       only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches
       was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas,
       Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated.
       Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest
       against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium
       Ephesinum_, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius
       quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and
       dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in
       state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’
       death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken.
       His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended
       the throne. A new =Œcumenical Council= (the so-called
       =fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus,
       who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the
       other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned
       Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal
       rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were
       made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox
       doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according
       to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father
       in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary
       the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in
       everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation
       the unity of the person consists in two natures which
       are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without
       change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως)
       and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too
       there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were
       little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example,
       Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals,
       the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν
       κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer
       of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed
       which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by
       the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session,
       when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special
       condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person
       of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm
       broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their
       point, but they were again defeated after violent debate,
       in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person
       and writings of Ibas.[162]

  § 52.5.

   II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters
       of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of
       resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They
       were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was
       now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the
       monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager
       empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into
       rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent.
       Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition
       patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius.
       The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus
       [Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite
       colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3),
       which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the
       formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile
       went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both
       sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474,
       a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about
       a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most
       distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders
       of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal
       sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after
       Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in
       A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476,
       under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian
       Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and
       Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national
       religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The
       patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand,
       organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was
       overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the
       throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his
       party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as
       his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes
       Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position
       towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed
       upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the
       emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon=
       of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism
       and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms
       were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated,
       and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all
       controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching
       and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides.
       The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were
       now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the
       Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius.
       Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East
       and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3)
       continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship
       between the parties was not restored until Justin I.,
       who thought that the schism would hinder his projected
       reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop
       Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed
       those who adhered to it.

  § 52.6.

  III. =Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent
       conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long
       and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565.
       He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish
       orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above
       all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor,
       who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions
       of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by
       the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations
       of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly
       a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called
       forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion
       by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς,
       had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy
       about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and
       Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of
       being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned
       it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora
       used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to
       the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop
       Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador
       of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition.
       Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor
       in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be
       burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their
       hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas,
       secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at
       court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at
       an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the
       condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court
       theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in
       concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had
       long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary
       of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify
       the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora
       persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied
       if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore,
       the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the
       controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated
       Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors
       of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_.
       The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded
       the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The
       orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown
       on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy
       of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of
       Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation,
       but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he
       broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople
       in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration,
       the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the
       condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans,
       under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor
       of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of
       the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus]
       wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defensío
       III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage,
       a _Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an
       important source of information for the history of the
       Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened
       the =Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=,
       which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued
       a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the
       doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn
       the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable,
       and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his
       return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally
       acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North
       Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured
       chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much
       difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.

  § 52.7.

   IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not
       thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites
       continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian
       Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them
       than the persecutions of the orthodox national church
       were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves.
       First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and
       Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or
       φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had
       been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the =Julianists=
       denied it. This first split was followed by many others.
       By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία
       and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the
       Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that
       in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity
       a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three
       persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes
       Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the
       Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that
       the present world as to form and matter would perish at the
       last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would
       be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus,
       affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form
       only, and that the risen saints would again possess the
       same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the
       so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the
       Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites
       were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek
       Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in
       their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves.
       They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in
       A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the
       Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into
       Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia
       had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to
       the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria
       and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the
       unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly
       called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar,
       ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the
       whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction.
       He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were
       called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites,
       _Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia.
       Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the
       title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of
       the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag
       with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a
       metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_
       § 72, 2.

  § 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The
  increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a
  union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor
  Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of
  parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work
  of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ
  θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing
  objectionable in this formula which had already been used by
  the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs
  Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis
  of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of
  the Severians attached themselves again to the national church.
  Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who
  soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came
  forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back
  to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon
  after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the
  scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict,
  the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the
  strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the
  less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite
  doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12)
  entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook
  himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the
  maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here
  secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial
  governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium.
  This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage
  in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of
  Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in
  a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from
  Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly
  submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in
  A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church
  fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and
  demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against
  the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis,
  Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was
  recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople,
  but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his
  recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen
  dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and
  was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office.
  Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation
  as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely
  the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by
  the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt
  in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still
  persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of
  open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved
  to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment
  about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back
  to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that
  neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of
  Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned
  in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along
  with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor.
  The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the
  bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the
  pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished
  for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered
  hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival.
  Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At
  the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought
  to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year
  every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats,
  imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge
  the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience.
  In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s
  resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to
  have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be
  sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks
  after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity
  was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor
  Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared
  for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it
  by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome
  in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should
  be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these
  decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates
  appeared at the =Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in
  A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was
  held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial
  castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon
  the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the
  basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα
  ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ
  ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even
  condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and
  to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks,
  finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals,
  contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter
  wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of
  Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope
  Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter
  to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council,
  expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “_qui
  profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus
  est_.”--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only
  in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state
  did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist.
  Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro
  in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as
  their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and
  with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as
  political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3).

  § 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649
  and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity
  of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho
  might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman
  chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile
  the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But
  the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could
  not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation
  of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have
  been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from
  Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6)
  help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead
  silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius
  in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for
  the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the
  condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about
  him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of
  faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every
  new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From
  the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple
  name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of
  this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had
  then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope
  was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman
  popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only
  such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8),
  Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced;
  that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th
  century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that
  the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century
  when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become
  a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real
  Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious
  attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out
  of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical
  Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of
  later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the
  Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The
  condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first,
  but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692
  (§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice
  of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to
  that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before
  the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled
  into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope
  did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love
  of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as
  to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed.
  of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in
  the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles
  referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially,
  _ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations
  that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_
  his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the
  only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du
  fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned
  _ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).[164]


       § 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165]

  While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their
origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts,
the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the
decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every
stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke
out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological
controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even
then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions
of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human
freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and
human freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally
obtained the victory.

  § 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the
  actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in
  Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment
  throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the
  moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what
  relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty
  prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older
  fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom
  of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well
  as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation,
  and to account for man’s present condition by bad training,
  evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency
  was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new
  Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect
  the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length
  of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology
  it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however,
  § 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to
  the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of
  divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of
  inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to
  conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget
  only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only
  sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm
  and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does
  his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is
  unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational
  wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism
  or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards
  the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared
  for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux animæ,
  tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian,
  himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man
  from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin,
  spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this
  he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these
  teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated
  from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the
  hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give
  equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in
  conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost
  consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius
  carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became
  scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did
  not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West.
  Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism,
  which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being
  begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists,
  without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin.
  Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1)
  held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, _anima sensitiva_
  as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who
  supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and
  soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was
  infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents
  with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which
  Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East,
  only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o.).[166]

  § 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period
  of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still
  stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity,
  Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human
  will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the
  part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore
  refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole
  life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s
  natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith
  together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The
  perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about
  by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s
  doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as
  follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined
  to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness,
  but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the
  exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had
  he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not
  to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying,
  the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse
  peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it
  became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non
  posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine
  image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil
  righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption.
  In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By
  generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt,
  death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption,
  passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can
  redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine
  image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the
  capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary,
  in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is
  granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe;
  for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace
  awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire
  for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer
  (_gratia præveniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the
  forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating
  the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine
  life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ
  (in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia
  operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But
  even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is
  still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is
  continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_)
  unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in
  the making righteous of his whole life and being through the
  Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final
  act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom
  of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal
  of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the
  perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal
  life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent
  theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace
  is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the
  doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not
  all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself
  can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must
  be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal
  unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according
  to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man,
  _Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and
  to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal
  righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and
  mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to
  man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said:
  “God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean,
  “all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (_Reprobati_)
  can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect
  (_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_).
  The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed
  perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseverantiæ_).
  To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation,
  but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures.
  So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although
  over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus,
  non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this
  contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which
  secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167]

  § 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (§ 47, 21),
  a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral
  earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life,
  without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination
  to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian
  life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of
  monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic
  to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to
  Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its
  unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification,
  by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men
  as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was
  thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome
  to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as
  he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour.
  Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but
  spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s
  fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence
  upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created
  the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his
  wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one
  side or the other. The universality of sin results from the
  power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may
  be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace
  facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore,
  not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively
  necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in
  forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and
  in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of
  the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined
  for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest
  striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect
  teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the
  most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of
  ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in
  virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as
  necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_).
  Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of
  blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers
  of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of
  ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the
  Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent
  and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his
  anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these
  supernaturalistic elements.

  § 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409
  Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views
  Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments
  than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for
  morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without
  opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius
  went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind
  and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time
  his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20)
  happening to be there formally complained against him, and a
  provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on
  his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published
  his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et
  remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine=
  Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides
  passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions,
  contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy
  (_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._),
  and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20)
  complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the
  presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals,
  however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of
  his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the
  Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of
  Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine
  proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had
  allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius
  too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._,
  in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of
  Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει
  καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again
  took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in
  A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree
  to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings
  of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and
  Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however,
  in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus],
  perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed
  himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges
  against the Africans, against which again these entered a
  vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his
  _Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod
  at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now
  Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his
  _Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them
  Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist
  of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They
  sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop
  Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop
  Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological
  views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the =Œcumenical Council
  of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with
  Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however,
  determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under
  discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius
  Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published
  two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a
  controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile
  too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413
  he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415
  against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against Cœlestius,
  _De perfectione justitiæ hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis
  Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali
  Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et
  concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine
  was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas
  epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory
  writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI.
  c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam
  Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.:
  Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

  § 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald
  Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the
  predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth
  new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum
  in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination
  theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into
  sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and
  carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such
  consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work
  of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of
  the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two
  treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_
  and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples
  and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern
  Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the
  doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of
  according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation
  with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one,
  sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head
  of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple
  and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery
  at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or
  Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine,
  without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_
  (§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius
  [Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his
  _Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate_
  (Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the
  catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum
  est_. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no
  means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably
  contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed.
  But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as
  the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What
  took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote
  against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and
  _De dono perseverantiæ_. He was prevented by his death, which
  took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest.
  Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman
  bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made
  complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself
  took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero
  arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed
  off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened
  yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione
  gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards
  pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents
  (Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in
  the notable work entitled _Prædestinatus_, pretending to be
  written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine
  of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity,
  and these sought to justify their own position. The first book
  contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is
  predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first
  the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third
  confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of
  the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at
  Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium
  (§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial
  treatise _De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio_, and
  also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned
  semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate
  and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community
  of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained
  through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but
  he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans
  banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They
  held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe
  (§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his
  _De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an
  impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus
  of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in
  behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod
  of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism.
  Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form,
  and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human
  act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged,
  faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but
  predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to
  mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as
  blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529,
  at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome
  did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation § 91, 5.


     § 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.

  Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far
off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated
Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the
countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent
reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the
name of Priscillianism.

  § 54.1. =Manichæism.=--The universal toleration of religion,
  which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans
  of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I.
  the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them.
  The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop
  Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write
  his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood
  in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th
  and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there,
  Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against
  the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been
  himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in
  33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against
  Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix,
  in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo,
  Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two
  days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted
  himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani
  and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial
  government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals,
  whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole
  ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo
  the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His
  investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian
  views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices.
  Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church
  of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then,
  however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in
  the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again
  burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power
  (§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous
  Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and
  from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71).
  Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the
  Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and
  India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1).

  § 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the
  Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century
  by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian
  let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed
  it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system.
  Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an
  outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian
  tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect
  encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and
  dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community.
  “_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._” Soon Priscillianists
  spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop
  Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned
  the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa
  in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of
  its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides
  an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the
  emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists
  the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not
  only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the
  arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul.
  Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian,
  who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the
  sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers
  beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance
  of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop,
  Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously
  promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and
  renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops
  who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other
  bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus
  to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of
  martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the
  barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they
  won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his
  _Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking
  for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests
  in other directions allowed to take but little part in this
  controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference
  of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop
  Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium
  Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council
  at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression
  of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has
  disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for
  some centuries longer.[169]




                V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.


                       § 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.

  Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of
persecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding
stateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so
much attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the
other developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and
sifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular
ways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public
spirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential
unity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into
harmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough
to make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling
endeavours of catholicity.

  The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point
  in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril’s
  prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine
  and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied
  itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was
  yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude
  its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to
  the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite
  error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church
  it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its
  presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only
  develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints,
  images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc.,
  but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of
  dogmas not yet established, _e.g._ in the doctrine of the church,
  of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s
  Supper, etc., etc.


            § 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.

  The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory
of special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous
period found expression (§ 37), but it now passed into the background
all the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in
the richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference
in the development of East and West occasioned each to take its
own particular course, determined in the one case very much by a
Jewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency.
Nevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling
of these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that
the three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both
churches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development
of the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly
from one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more
unreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and
pattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained
a richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and
inwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth
of saints’ days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its
ideal.

  § 56.1. =The Weekly Cycle.=--Constantine the Great issued a law
  in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and
  municipal business was stopped on =Sunday=. At a later period
  he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the
  prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the
  =Sabbath= was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the
  churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The
  _Dies stationum_, Wednesday and Friday (§ 37), were observed in
  the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and
  introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast.

  § 56.2. =Hours and Quarterly Fasts.=--The number of appointed
  _hours of prayer_ (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan.
  vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during
  the 5th century to eight (_Horæ canonicæ: Matutina_ or matins
  at 3 a.m.; _Prima_ at 6 a.m.; _Tertia_ at 9 a.m.; _Sexta_ at
  12 noon; _Nona_ at 3 p.m.; _Vesper_ at 6 p.m.; _Completorium_
  at 9 p.m.; and _Mesonyktion_ or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet
  generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to
  preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This
  arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics.
  The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the
  Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the
  material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting
  of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and
  saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated
  so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name _Breviarium_
  commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged
  mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually
  throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the
  field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in
  A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently
  many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally
  charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new
  redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would
  be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in
  A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form
  in which it is still current.--In the West the year was divided
  into three-monthly periods, _quatuor tempora_, corresponding to
  the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were
  harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance
  with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the
  Great brought this institution to perfection. The _quatuor
  tempora_, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima,
  in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and
  10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on
  Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil.

  § 56.3. =The Reckoning of Easter.=--At the Council of Nicæa in
  A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that
  of Asia Minor (§ 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method
  were regarded as a sect (_Quartadecimani_ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται).
  The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the
  spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the
  festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday
  following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical
  determination of the festival on each occasion, because there
  astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He
  published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter,
  _Liber paschalis_, giving to the other churches the result of
  the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity
  to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all
  at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination
  of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was
  introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the
  new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday
  but eight days later,--a practice which Rome also, and with her
  a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (§ 77, 3).
  A further difference existed as to the point of time with
  which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning.
  The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (§ 31, 3) had calculated it in
  a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years’ cycle
  of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would
  again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more
  exact nineteen-years’ cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according
  to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one
  day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by
  the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three
  intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was
  made as the basis of an eighty-four years’ cycle which had indeed
  the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of
  the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other
  hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had
  fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was
  also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March
  was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at
  Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 ✕ 19)
  years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine,
  was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing
  the advantage of the eighty-four years’ cycle above referred
  to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in
  every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th
  of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (§ 47, 23), finally,
  in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning
  by setting up a ninety-five years’ cycle (5 ✕ 19), and this cycle
  was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville
  and the Venerable Bede (§ 90, 2). The error occasioned by the
  inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian
  reform of the calendar (§ 149, 3).

  § 56.4. =The Easter Festivals.=--The pre-eminence of the
  Christian festival of victory (the resurrection) over that
  of suffering, especially among the Greeks, led, even in the
  4th century to the former as the fruit of the latter being drawn
  into the paschal season, and distinguished as πάσχα ἀναστάσιμον
  from that as πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, and also at last to the adoption
  of the one name of Paschal or Easter Festival and to the regarding
  of the whole Quadragesima season as a preparation for Easter.
  The Saxon name Easter is derived from the old German festival
  of Ostara the goddess of spring which was celebrated at the same
  season.--With the beginning of the Quadragesima the whole mode
  of life assumes a new form. All amusements were stopped, all
  criminal trials sisted and the din of traffic in streets and
  markets as far as possible restricted. The East exempted Sunday
  and Sabbath from the obligation of fasting, with the exception
  of the last Sabbath as the day of Christ’s rest in the grave,
  but the West exempted only Sunday. Gregory the Great, therefore,
  fixed the beginning of the Quadragesima on Wednesday of the
  seventh week before Easter, _Caput jejunii, Dies cinerum_, Ash
  Wednesday, so called because the bishop strewed ashes on the
  heads of believers with a warning reference to Gen. iii. 19,
  comp. xviii. 27. With the Tuesday preceding, Shrove Tuesday
  (from _shrive_, to confess), ended the carnival season (_carni
  valedicere_) which, beginning with 6th Jan. or the feast of the
  three holy kings, reached its climax in the last days, from three
  to eight, before Ash Wednesday. On this closing day the people
  generally sought indemnification for the approaching strict
  fast by an unmeasured abandoning of themselves to pleasure. From
  Italy where this custom arose and was most fully carried out,
  it subsequently found its way into the other lands of the West.
  In opposition to these unspiritual proceedings the period of
  the Easter festivals was begun three weeks earlier with the 10th
  Sunday before Easter (_Septuagesima_). The Hallelujah of the Mass
  was silenced, weddings were no more celebrated (_Tempus clausum_),
  monks and clerics already began the fast. The Quadragesima
  festival reached its climax in the last, the _great_ week. It
  began with Palm Sunday (ἑορτὴ τῶν βαΐων) and ended with the great
  Sabbath, the favourite time for baptisms (Rom. vi. 3). Thursday
  as the memorial day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper,
  and Friday as the day of Christ’s death, Good Friday, were days
  of special importance. A solemn night service, Easter vigils,
  marked the transition to the joyous Easter celebrations. The old
  legend that on this night Christ’s second coming would take place
  rendered the service peculiarly solemn. Easter morning began with
  the jubilant greeting: The Lord is risen, and the response, He is
  risen indeed. On the following Sunday, the Easter Octave, _Pascha
  clausum_, ἀντίπασχα, the Easter festival was brought to a close.
  Those baptized on the great Sabbath wore for the last time their
  white baptismal dress. Hence this sabbath was called _Dominica
  in albis_; subsequently, in accordance with the Introitus
  from 1 Pet. ii. 2, Quasimodogeniti; and by the Greeks, καινὴ
  κυριακή. The joyous celebrations of Easter extended over all
  the Quinquagesima period between Easter and Pentecost. Ascension
  day, _Festum ascensionis_, ἑορτὴ τῆς ἀναλήψεως, and Pentecost,
  πεντεκοστή, were introduced as high festivals by vigil services;
  and the latter was concluded by the Pentecost-Octave, by the
  Greeks called κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτυρησάντων and at a much later
  date styled by the Latins Trinity Sunday. The Festival-Octaves,
  ἀπολύσεις, had an Old Testament pattern in the עֲצֶרֶת of the Feast
  of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 26.

  § 56.5. =The Christmas Festivals.=--The first traces of the
  Christmas festival (_Natalis Christi_, γενέθλια) in the Roman
  church are found about A.D. 360. Some decades later they appear
  in the Eastern church. The late introduction of this festival
  is to be explained from the disregard of the birthday and the
  prominence given to the day of the death of Christ in the ancient
  church; but Chrysostom even regarded it as the μητρόπολις πασῶν
  τῶν ἑορτῶν. Since the 25th of March as the spring equinox was
  held as the day of creation, the day of the incarnation, the
  conception of Christ, the second Adam, as the beginning of the
  new creation was held on the same day, and hence 25th Dec. was
  chosen as the day of Christ’s birth. The Christian festival thus
  coincided nearly with the heathen _Saturnalia_, in memory of
  the Golden Age, from 17th to 23rd Dec., the _Sigillaria_, on
  the 24th Dec., when children were presented with dolls and images
  of clay and wax, sigilla, and the _Brumalia_, on 25th Dec., _Dies
  natalis invicti solis_, the winter solstice. It was considered
  no mere chance coincidence that Christ, the eternal Sun,
  should be born just on this day. The Christmas festival too
  was introduced by a vigil and lasted for eight days, which in
  the 6th century became the _Festum circumcisionis_. The revelling
  that characterised the New Year Festival of the pagans, caused
  the ancient church, to observe that day as a day of penance and
  fasting. The feast of the Epiphany on the 6th Jan. (§ 37, 1) was
  also introduced in the West during the 4th century but obtained
  there a Gentile-Christian colouring from Luke ii. 21 and was
  kept as the festival of the first fruits of the Gentiles and
  received the name of the Festival of the three holy kings. For
  even Tertullian in accordance with Ps. lxxii. 10 had made the
  Magi kings; it was concluded that they were three because of
  the three gifts spoken of; and Bede, about A.D. 700, gives their
  names as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. By others this festival
  was associated with Christ’s first miracle at the marriage in
  Cana, and also with the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness.
  After the analogy of the Easter festival since the 6th century
  a longer preliminary celebration has been connected with the
  Christmas festival. In the Eastern church, beginning with the
  14th of Nov., it embraced six Sundays with forty fast days, as
  the second Quadragesima of the year. In the Latin church, as
  the season of Advent, it had only four Sundays, with a three
  weeks’ fast.

  § 56.6. =The Church Year= was in the East a symbolic adaptation
  of the natural year only in so far as it brought with it the
  Christianising of the Jewish festivals and the early recognition
  of Western ideas about the feasts. Only on the high festivals,
  Christmas, Easter and Pentecost are they retained; on the
  other Sundays and festivals they never obtained expression.
  The Easter festival was considered the beginning of the church
  year; thereafter the Quadragesima or Epiphany; and finally,
  the Old Testament beginning of the year in September. The whole
  church year was divided into four parts according to the _Lectio
  continua_ of the gospel, and the Sundays were named thereafter.
  The κυριακὴ πρώτη τοῦ Ματθαίου was immediately after Pentecost.
  The =Latin Church Year= begins with the season of Advent, and
  distinguishes a _Semestre Domini_ and a _Semestre ecclesiæ_.
  But only the former was fully developed: Christmas, Easter,
  Pentecost with the Sundays belonging to them, representing the
  founding, developing and completing of the history of salvation.
  To a corresponding development of the second half we find early
  contributions, _e.g._ the Feast of Peter and Paul on 29th June
  as festival of the founding of the church by the Apostles, the
  Feast of the leading martyr Laurentius (§ 22, 5) on 10th August
  as memorial of the struggle prescribed to the _Ecclesia militans_,
  and the Feast of Michael on 29th September with reference to the
  completion in the _Ecclesia triumphans_. That in these feasts we
  have already the germs of the three festivals of the community
  of the church which were to correspond to the three festivals of
  the Lord’s history appears significantly in the early designation
  of the Sundays after Pentecost as _Dominica post Apostolos, post
  Laurentium, post Angelos_. But it never was distinctly further
  carried out. This deeply significant distribution was overlaid
  by saint worship, which overflowed the _Semestre Domini_. The
  principle of Christianising the Pagan rites was legitimated by
  Gregory the Great. He instructed the Anglo-Saxon missionaries
  to the effect (§ 77, 4), that they should convert the heathen
  temples into churches and heathen festivals into ecclesiastical
  festivals and days of martyrs, _ut duræ mentes gradibus vel
  passibus non autem saltibus eleventur_. The saints henceforth
  take the place of gods of nature and the church year reproduced
  with a Christian colouring all the outstanding points in the
  natural year.--As the last festival connected with the history
  of the Lord, the Feast of the Glorification, ἁγία μεταμόρφωσις,
  was held in the East on 6th August. According to tradition
  the scene was enacted on Mt. Tabor, hence the feast was called
  Θαβώριον. The Latin church adopted it first in the 15th century
  (_F. transfigurationis_).[170]

  § 56.7. =The Church Fasts= (§ 37, 3).--In the Greek church the
  ordinance of fasting was more strict than in the Latin. In one
  period, however, we have a system of fasts embracing four great
  fasting seasons: The Quadragesima of Easter and of Christmas, the
  period of from three to five weeks from the Pentecost Octave (the
  Greek Feast of All Saints) to that of Peter and Paul on 29th June,
  and the fourteen days before the Ascension of Mary on 15th August.
  There were also the νηστεῖαι προεόρτιοι on the evenings previous
  to other festivals; and finally, the weekly recurring fasts
  of Wednesday and Friday. The strictest was the pre-Easter fast,
  observed with gradually advancing rigidness. On Sexagesima Sunday
  flesh was eaten for the last time, then followed the so-called
  Butter week, when butter, cheese, milk and eggs were still
  allowed; but thereafter complete avoidance of all fattening
  food was enjoined, reaching during the great week to the
  utmost possible degree of abstinence. In the West instead
  of Wednesday, Saturday was taken along with Friday, and down
  to the 13th century it was enjoined that nothing should be
  eaten on these two days of the week, as also on the quarterly
  days (_quatuor tempora_) and the evenings preceding the feasts
  of the most famous Apostles and martyrs, the vigil fasts, until
  3 p.m. (_Semijejunium_) or even till 6 p.m. (_Plenum jejunium_);
  while in the longer seasons of fasting before Easter and before
  Christmas the injunction was restricted to avoidance of all fat
  foods (_Abstinentia_).--Continuation § 115, 1.


            § 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.[171]

  Though with the times of persecution martyrdom had ceased, asceticism
where it was preached with unusual severity gave a claim to canonisation
which was still bestowed by the people’s voice regarded as the voice of
God. Forgotten saints were discovered by visions, and legend insensibly
eked out the poverty of historical reminiscences with names and facts.
The veneration of martyrs rose all the higher the more pitiable the
present generation showed in its lukewarmness and worldliness over
against the world-conquering faith of that great cloud of witnesses.
The worship of Mary, which came in as a result of the Nestorian
controversy, was later of being introduced than that of the martyrs,
but it almost immediately shot far ahead and ranked above the adoration
of all the other saints. The adoration of Angels, of which we find the
beginnings even in Justin and Origen, remained far behind the worship
of the saints. Pilgrimages were zealously undertaken, from the time
when the emperor’s mother Helena, in A.D. 326, went as a pilgrim to
holy places in Palestine and afterwards marked these out by building
on them beautiful churches. The worship of images was introduced first
in the age of Cyril of Alexandria and was carried out with peculiar
eagerness in the art-loving East. The Western teachers, however,
and even Gregory the Great himself, only went the length of becoming
decoration, using images to secure more impressiveness in teaching and
greater liveliness in devotion. In the West, however, still more than
in the East, veneration of relics came into vogue.

  § 57.1. =The Worship of Martyrs and Saints= (§ 39, 5).[172]--At
  a very early period churches were built upon the graves of
  Martyrs (_Memoria_, _Confessio_, μαρτύριον), or their bones
  were brought into churches previously built (_Translationes_).
  New edifices were dedicated in their names, those receiving
  baptism were named after them. The days of their death were
  observed as special holy seasons with vigil services, Agape
  and oblations at their graves. In glowing discourses the orators
  of the church, in melodious hymns the poets, sounded forth
  their praises. The bones of the martyrs were sought out with
  extraordinary zeal and were looked upon and venerated as
  supremely sacred. Each province, each city and each calling
  had its own patron saint (_Patronus_). Perhaps as early as the
  3rd century several churches had their martyr calendars, _i.e._
  lists of those who were to have the day of their death celebrated.
  In the 4th century this custom had become universal, and from the
  collection of the most celebrated calendars, with the addition
  of legendary stories of the lives and sufferings of martyrs or
  saints (_Legendæ_, so called because they were wont to be _read_
  at the memorial services of the individuals referred to), sprang
  up the _Martyrologies and Legends of the Saints_, among the
  Greeks called _Menologies_ from μήν, a month. Most esteemed
  in the West was the martyrology of the Roman church, whose
  composition has been recently put down, equally with and upon
  the same grounds as that of the so called _Liber Comitis_,
  § 59, 3, to the time of Jerome as the chief representative of
  Western theological learning. This collection formed the basis
  of the numerous Latin martyrologies of the Middle Ages (§ 90, 9).
  A rich choice was afforded by these catalogues of saints to
  those wishing names to use at baptism or confirmation; the saint
  preferred became thereby the patron of him who took his name. The
  three great Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West were
  the first to open the floodgates for the invocation of saints
  by their proclaiming that the glorified saints through communion
  with the Lord shared in His attribute of omniprescence and
  omniscience; while Augustine rather assigned to the angels
  the task of communicating the invocations of men to the saints.
  In the liturgies prayers for the saints were now displaced by
  invocations for their intercession. In this the people found
  a compensation for the loss of hero, genius and _manes_ worship.
  The church teachers at least wished indeed to make a marked
  distinction between _Adoratio_ and _Invocatio_, λατρεία and
  δουλεία, rendering the former to God only. A festival of All the
  Martyrs was celebrated in the East as early as the 4th century
  on the Pentecost octave (§ 56, 4). In the West, Pope Boniface IV.,
  in A.D. 610, having received from the Emperor Phocas the Pantheon
  as a gift and having converted it into a church of the most
  Blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs, founded a _Festum omnium
  Sanctorum_, which was not, however, generally recognised before
  the 9th century (1st Nov.). Owing to the great number of saints
  one or more had to be assigned to each day in the calendar. The
  day fixed was usually that of the death of the saint. The only
  instance of the celebration of a birthday was the festival
  of John the Baptist (_Natalis S. Joannis_). The 24th June was
  fixed upon by calculating from Christmas (acc. to Luke i. 26),
  and its occurring in the other half of the year from that of
  Christ afforded a symbolical parallel to John iii. 30. As an
  appendage to this we meet even in the 5th century with the
  _F. decollationis S. Joannis_ on 29th Aug. On the second day
  of the Christmas festival the Feast of the Proto-martyr Stephen
  was celebrated as the first fruits of the incarnation of God;
  on the third, the memory of the disciple who lay on the Master’s
  breast; on the fourth, the innocent children of Bethlehem
  (_F. innocentium_) as the _flores_ or _primitiæ martyrum_. The
  festival of the Maccabees (πανήγυρις τῶν Μακκαβαίων) leads yet
  further back as the memorial of the heroic mother and her seven
  sons under Antiochus Epiphanes. It was observed as early as the
  4th century and did not pass out of use till the 13th. Among the
  festivals of Apostles that of Peter and Paul (_F. Apost. Petri
  et Pauli_) on 29th June, as the solemnization of their common
  martyrdom at Rome, was universally observed. But Rome celebrated
  besides a double _F. Cathedræ Petri_, for the _Cathedra Romana_
  on 18th Jan., and for the _Cathedra Antiochena_ on 22nd Feb.
  For a long time a symbolical arrangement of the calendar days
  prevailed; the patriarchs of the Old Testament were put in the
  time before Christmas, the later saints of the old dispensation
  in the Quadragesima, and the Apostles and Founders of the church
  after Pentecost, then the Martyrs, next the Confessors, and
  finally, the Virgins as prototype of the perfected church.

  § 57.2. =The Worship of Mary and Anna.=[173]--The εὐλογουμένη ἐν
  γυναιξί who herself full of the Holy Ghost had prophesied: ἰδοὺ
  γὰρ, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσι με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί, was regarded
  as the highest ideal of all virginity. All the reverence, which
  the church accorded to virginity, culminated therefore in her.
  Even Tertullian alongside of the Pauline contrasts Adam and
  Christ, placed this other, Eve and Mary. The _perpetua virginitas
  b. Mariæ_ was an uncontested article of faith from the 4th century.
  Ambrose understood of her Ezek. xliv. 3, and affirmed that she
  was born _utero clauso_; Gregory the Great saw an analogy between
  this and the entering of the Risen One through closed doors
  (John xx. 19); and the second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,
  confessed: ἀλόχευτον τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου θεῖον τόκον εἶναι.
  Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, had indeed
  still found something in her worthy of blame, but even Augustine
  refuses to admit that she should be reckoned among sinners: _Unde
  enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum
  omni ex parte peccatum?_ Yet for a long time this veneration of
  Mary made little progress. This was caused partly by the absence
  of the glory of martyrdom, partly by its development in the
  church being forestalled and distorted by the heathenish and
  godless Mariolatry of the Collyridians, an Arabian female sect
  of the 4th century, which offered to the Holy Virgin, as in
  heathen times to Ceres, cakes of bread (κολλυρίδα). Epiphanius,
  who opposed them, taught: ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς
  καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσθω, τὴν δὲ Μαρίαν οὐδεὶς προσκυνείτω.
  On the Antidicomarianites, see § 62, 2. The victory of those who
  used the term θεοτόκος in the Nestorian controversy gave a great
  impulse to Mariolatry. Even in the 5th century, the festival
  of the Annunciation, _F. annunciationis, incarnationis_, ἑορτὴ
  τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ, τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, was held on the 25th March.
  With this was also connected in the West the festival of the
  Purification of Mary, _F. purificationis_ on 2nd Feb., according
  to Luke ii. 22. On account of the candles used in the service
  it was called the Candlemas of Mary, _F. candelarum, luminum_,
  Luke ii. 32. In consequence of an earthquake and pestilence in
  A.D. 542, Justinian founded the corresponding ἑορτὴ τῆς ὑπαπάντης,
  _F. occursus_, only that here the meeting with Simeon and Anna
  (Luke ii. 24) is put in the foreground. Both festivals, the
  Annunciation and the Purification, had the same dignity as those
  dedicated to the memory of our Lord. From the endeavour to put
  alongside of each of the festivals of the Lord a corresponding
  festival of Mary, about the end of the 6th century the Feast
  of the Ascension of Mary (πανήγυρις κοιμήτεως, _F. assumptionis,
  dormitionis M._) was introduced and celebrated on 15th Aug.;
  and in the 7th century, the Feast of the Birth of Mary (_F.
  nativitatis M._), on 8th Sept. The former was founded on the
  apocryphal legend (§ 32, 4), according to which Christ with the
  angels brought the soul of his just departed mother, and, on the
  following day, its glorified body, to heaven, and there united
  it again with the soul.--The first traces of a =veneration of
  Anna= around whom, as the supposed wife of Joachim and mother of
  the Virgin, the apocryphal gospels of the childhood had already
  gathered a mass of romantic details, are found in the 4th century
  in Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius. Justinian I. in A.D. 550
  built a church of St. Anna in Constantinople. In the East the
  25th of July was celebrated as the day of her death, the 9th Sept.
  as the day of her marriage, and the 9th Dec. as the day of her
  conception. In the West the veneration of Anna was later of being
  introduced. It became popular in the later Middle Ages and was
  made obligatory on the whole catholic church by Gregory XIII.
  in A.D. 1584. The day fixed was 26th July. Yet Leo III. in the
  8th century had allowed a pictorial representation of the legend
  of St. Joachim and St. Anna to be put in the church of St. Paul
  in Rome.--Continuation § 104, 7, 8.

  § 57.3. =Worship of Angels.=--The idea of guardian angels
  of nations, cities, individuals, was based on Deut. xxxii. 8
  (in the LXX.); Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10;
  Acts xii. 15, even as early as the 2nd century. Ambrose
  required the invocation of angels. But when the Phrygian sect
  of the Angelians carried the practice the length of idolatrous
  worship, the Council at Laodicea in the 4th century opposed
  it, and Epiphanius placed it in his list of heresies. Supposed
  manifestations of the Archangel Michael led to the institution
  from the 5th century of the feast of Michael observed on 29th
  Sept., as a festival of the angels collectively representing
  the idea of the church triumphant.

  § 57.4. =Worship of Images= (§ 38, 3).--The disinclination of
  the ancient church to the pictorial representations of the person
  of Christ as such, and also the unwillingness to allow religious
  pictures in the churches, based upon the prohibition of images
  in the decalogue, was not yet wholly overcome in the 4th century.
  Eusebius of Cæsarea, with reference to the statues of Paneas
  (§ 13, 2) and other images of Christ and the Apostles, speaks
  of an ἐθνικὴ συνηθεία. He administered a severe reproof to the
  emperor’s sister, Constantia, and referred to the prohibition
  of the decalogue, when she expressed a wish to have an image
  of Christ. Asterius, bishop of Amasa in Pontus († A.D. 410),
  earnestly declaimed against the custom of people of distinction
  wearing clothes embroidered with pictures from the gospel history,
  and recommends them rather to have Christ in their hearts. The
  violent zealot, Epiphanius, the most decided opponent of all
  religious idealism, tore the painted curtain of a Palestinian
  village church in Anablatha with the injunction to wrap therewith
  a beggar’s corpse. But Greek love of art and the religious needs
  of the people gained the victory over Judaic-legal rigorism
  and abstract spiritualism. Here too the age of Cyril marks
  the turning point. In the 5th century authentic miraculous
  pictures of Christ, the Apostles and the God-mother (εἰκόνες
  ἀχειροποίητοι), made their appearance, and with them began image
  worship properly so called, with lighting of candles, kissing,
  burning incense, bowing of the knee, prostrations (προσκύνησις
  τιμητική). Soon all churches and church books, all palaces
  and cottages, were filled with images of Christ and the saints
  painted or drawn by the monks. Miracle after miracle was wrought
  beside, upon or through them. In this, however, the West did not
  keep pace with the East. Augustine complains of image worship
  and advises to seek Christ in the bible rather than in images.
  Gregory the Great, while blaming the violence of Serenus, bishop
  of Massilia in breaking the images, wishes that in churches
  images should be made to serve _ad instruendas solummodo mentes
  nescientium_. The Nestorians who were strongly opposed to images,
  expressly declared that the hated Cyril was the originator of
  _Iconolatry_.

  § 57.5. =Worship of Relics= (§ 39, 5).--The veneration for
  relics (λείψανα) proceeded from a pious feeling in human nature
  and is closely associated with that higher reverence which the
  church paid to its martyrs. It began with public assemblies
  at the graves of martyrs, memorial celebrations and services
  in connection with the translations of their bones held in
  the churches. Soon no church, no altar (Rev. vi. 9), could be
  built without relics. When the small number of known martyrs
  proved insufficient, single parts of their bodies were divided
  to different churches. But dreams and visions showed rich stores
  previously unthought of in remnants of the bones of martyrs
  and saints. The catacombs especially proved inexhaustible mines.
  Miracles and signs vouched for their genuineness. Theodosius I.
  already found it necessary in A.D. 386, to prohibit the traffic
  in relics. Besides bones, were included also clothes, utensils,
  instruments of torture. They healed the sick, cast out devils,
  raised the dead, averted plagues, and led to the discovery of
  offenders. The healed expressed their gratitude in votive tablets
  and in presentations of silver and golden figures of the healed
  parts. A scriptural foundation was sought for this veneration of
  relics in 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ecclesiastic. xlvi. 14; Acts xix. 12.
  According to a legend commonly believed in the 5th century,
  but unknown to Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333,
  Helena, mother of Constantine, found in A.D. 326 the Cross of
  Christ along with the crosses of the two thieves. The one was
  distinguished from the others by a miracle of healing or of
  raising from the dead. The pious lady left one half of the cross
  to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and sent the rest with the
  nails to her son, who inlaid the wood in his statues and some of
  the nails in his diadem, while of the rest he made a bit for his
  horse. Since the publication of the _Doctrina Addaei_, § 32, 6,
  it has become apparent that this Helena legend is just another
  version of the old Edessa legend about the Byzantine saint,
  according to which the wife of the emperor Claudius converted
  by Peter is represented in precisely similar circumstances as
  having found the cross. To pious and distinguished pilgrims
  permission was given to take small splinters of the wood
  kept in Jerusalem, so that soon bits of the cross were spread
  and received veneration throughout all the world. According
  to a much later report a σταυρώσιμος ἡμέρα on 14th Sept. was
  observed in the East as early as the 4th century in memory of
  the finding of the cross. From the time of Gregory the Great a
  _F. inventionis S. Crucis_ was observed in the West on 3rd May.
  The festival of the exaltation of the cross, σταυροφανεία, _F.
  exaltationis S. Crucis_, on 14th Sept., was instituted by the
  emperor Heraclius when the Persians on their being conquered
  in A.D. 629, were obliged to restore the cross which they had
  taken away.

  § 57.6. =The Making of Pilgrimages.=--The habit of making
  pilgrimages (pilgrim=peregrinus) to sacred places also rested
  upon a common tendency in human nature. The pilgrimage of Helena
  in A.D. 326 found numerous imitators, and even the conquest
  of Palestine by the Saracens in the 7th century did not quench
  pilgrims’ ardour. Next to the sacred places in Palestine, Sinai,
  the grave of Peter and Paul at Rome (_Limina Apostolorum_), the
  grave of Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) and the supposed scene in
  Arabia of the sufferings of Job, as a foreshadowing of Christ’s,
  were the spots most frequented by pilgrims. Gregory of Nyssa
  in an Epistle Περὶ τῶν ἀπιόντων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα most vigorously
  opposed the immoderate love of pilgrimages, especially among
  monks and women. In the strongest language he pointed out the
  danger to true religion and morality; and even Jerome so far
  gave way to reason as to say: _Et de Hierosolymis et de Brittania
  æqualiter patet aula cœlestis_. Chrysostom and Augustine, too,
  opposed the over estimating of this expression of pious feeling.




               § 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.

  During this period nothing was definitely established as to the idea
and number of the sacraments (μυστήρια). The name was applied to the
doctrines of grace in so far as they transcended the comprehension of
the human understanding, as well as to those solemn acts of worship by
which grace was communicated and appropriated in an incomprehensible
manner to believers, so that only in the 12th century (§ 104, 2) were
the consecrations and blessings hitherto included therein definitely
excluded from the idea of the sacrament under the name Sacramentalia.
It was, however, from the first clearly understood that Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper were essentially the sacramental means of grace. Yet even
in the 3rd century, anointing and laying on of hands as an independent
sacrament of Confirmation (_Confirmatio_, χρίσμα) was separated
from the idea of baptism, and in the West, from the administration
of baptism. The reappearance of the idea of a special priesthood as
a divine institution (§ 34, 4) gave also to Ordination the importance
of a sacrament (§ 45, 1). Augustine whom the Pelagians accused
of teaching by his doctrine of original sin and concupiscence that
God-ordained marriage was sinful, designated Christian marriage, with
reference to Eph. v. 32, a sacrament (§ 61, 2) in order more decidedly
to have it placed under the point of view of the nature sanctified by
grace. Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 6th century (§ 47, 11), enumerates six
sacraments: Baptism, Chrism, Lord’s Supper, Consecration of Priests
and Monks and the Anointing of the Dead (τῶν κεκοιμημένων). On Extreme
Unction, comp. § 61, 3.

  § 58.1. =Administration of Baptism= (§ 35, 4).--The postponing
  of baptism from lukewarmness, superstition or doctrinal prejudice,
  was a very frequent occurrence. The same obstacles down to the
  6th century stood in the way of infant baptism being regarded
  as necessary. Gregory of Nyssa wrote Πρὸς τοὺς βραδύνοντας
  εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα, and with him all the church fathers earnestly
  opposed the error. In case of need (_in periculo mortis_) it
  was allowed even by Tertullian that baptism might be dispensed
  by any baptized layman, but not by women. The institution of
  godfather was universal and founded a spiritual relationship
  within which marriage was prohibited not only between the
  godparents themselves, but also between those and the baptized
  and their children. The usual ceremonies preceding baptism were:
  The covering of the head by the catechumens and the uncovering
  on the day of baptism; the former to signify the warding
  off every distraction and the withdrawing into oneself. With
  exorcism was connected the ceremony of breathing upon (John
  xx. 22), the touching of the ears with the exclamation: Ephphatha
  (Mark vii. 34), marking the brow and breast with the sign of
  the cross; in Africa also the giving of salt acc. to Mark ix. 50,
  in Italy the handing over of a gold piece as a symbol of the
  pound (Luke xiii. 12 f.) entrusted in the grace of baptism. The
  conferring of a new name signified entrance into a new life.
  At the renunciation the baptized one turned him to the setting
  sun with the words: Ἀποτάσσομαί σοι Σατανᾶ καὶ πασῇ τῇ λατρείᾳ
  σου; to the rising sun with the words: Συντάσσομαί σοι Χριστέ.
  The dipping was thrice repeated: in the Spanish church, in the
  anti-Arian interest, only once. Sprinkling was still confined
  to _Baptismus Clinicorum_ and was first generally used in the
  West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still
  retained the custom of immersion.

  § 58.2. =The Doctrine of the Supper= (§ 36, 5).--The doctrine
  of the Lord’s Supper was never the subject of Synodal discussion,
  and its conception on the part of the fathers was still in a high
  degree uncertain and vacillating. All regarded the holy supper as
  a supremely holy, ineffable mystery (φρικτόν, _tremendum_), and
  all were convinced that bread and wine in a supernatural manner
  were brought into relation to the body and blood of Christ; but
  some conceived of this relation spiritualistically as a dynamic
  effect, others realistically as a substantial importation to
  the elements, while most vacillated still between these two
  views. Almost all regarded the miracle thus wrought as μεταβολή,
  _Transfiguratio_, using this expression, however, also of the
  water of baptism and the anointing oil. The spiritualistic theory
  prevailed among the Origenists, most decidedly with Eusebius of
  Cæsarea, less decidedly with Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen,
  and again very decidedly with Pseudo-Dionysius. In the West
  Augustine and his disciples, even including Leo the Great, favour
  the spiritualistic view. With Augustine the spiritualistic view
  was a consequence of his doctrine of predestination; only to the
  believer, _i.e._ to the elect can the heavenly food be imparted.
  Yet he often expresses himself very strongly in a realistic
  manner. The realistic view was divided into a dyophysitic or
  consubstantial and a monophysitic or transubstantial theory.
  A decided tendency toward the idea of transubstantiation was
  shown by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers,
  and Ambrose. The view of Gregory of Nyssa is peculiar: As by
  Christ during His earthly life food and drink by assimilation
  passed into the substance of His body, so now bread and wine
  by the almighty operation of God by means of consecration is
  changed into the glorified body of Christ and by our partaking
  of them are assimilated to our bodies. The opposing views were
  more sharply distinguished in consequence of the Nestorian
  controversy, but the consistent development of dyophysitism
  in the eucharistic field was first carried out by Theodoret
  and Pope Gelasius († A.D. 496). The former says: μένει γὰρ
  ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας; and the latter: _Esse non desinit
  substantia vel natura panis et vini.... Hoc nobis in ipso Christo
  Domino sentiendum_ (Christological), _quod in ejus imagine_
  (Eucharistical), _profitemur_. The massive concrete popular
  faith had long before converted the μεταβολή into an essential,
  substantial transformation. Thence this view passed over into
  the liturgies. Gallican and Syrian liturgies of the 5th century
  express themselves unhesitatingly in this direction. Also
  the tendency to lose the creaturely in the divine which still
  continued after the victory of Dyophysitism at Chalcedon, told
  in favour of the development of the dogma and about the end of
  our period the doctrine of Transubstantiation was everywhere
  prevalent.[174]--Continuation § 91, 3.

  § 58.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass= (§ 36, 6).--Even in the
  4th century the body of Christ presented by consecration in
  the Supper was designated a sacrifice, but only in the sense
  of a representation of the sacrifice of Christ once offered.
  Gradually, however, the theory prevailed of a sacramental
  memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ in that of
  an unbloody but actual repetition of the same. To this end
  many other elements than those mentioned in § 36, 6 co-operated.
  Such were especially the rhetorical figures and descriptions
  of ecclesiastical orators, who transferred the attributes of the
  one sacrifice to its repeated representations; the re-adoption of
  the idea of a priesthood (§ 34, 4) which demanded a corresponding
  conception of sacrifice; the pre-eminent place given to the
  doctrine of sacraments; the tendency to place the sacrament
  under the point of view of a magically acting divine power, etc.
  The sacrificial idea, however, obtained its completion in its
  application to the doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory the Great
  (§ 61, 4). The _oblationes pro defunctis_ which had been in use
  from early times became now masses for the souls of individuals;
  their purpose was not the enjoyment of the body and blood
  of Christ by the living and the securing thereby continued
  communion with the departed, but only the renewing and repeating
  of the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of the souls of the
  dead, _i.e._ for the moderating and shortening of purgatorial
  sufferings. The redeeming power of the sacrifice of the eucharist
  was then in an analogous manner applied to the alleviation of
  earthly calamities, sufferings and misfortunes, in so far as
  these were viewed as punishments for sin. For such ends, then,
  it was enough that the sacrificing priest should perform the
  service (_Missæ solitariæ_, Private Masses). The partaking
  of the membership was at last completely withdrawn from the
  regular public services and confined to special festival
  seasons.--Continuation § 88, 3.

  § 58.4. =The Administration of the Lord’s Supper.=--The sharp
  distinction between the _Missa Catechumenorum_ and the _Missa
  Fidelium_ (§ 36, 2, 3) lost its significance after the general
  introduction of infant baptism, and the name _Missa_, mass, was
  now restricted to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper properly so
  called. In the Eastern and North African churches the communion
  of children continued common; the Western church forbade it in
  accordance with 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. The _Communis sub una_ (sc.
  _specie_), _i.e._ with bread only, was regarded as a Manichæan
  heresy (§ 29, 3). Only in North Africa was it exceptionally
  allowed in children’s communion, after a little girl from natural
  aversion to wine had vomited it up. In the East, as early as the
  4th century, one observance of the Lord’s Supper in the year was
  regarded as sufficient; but Western Councils of the 5th century
  insisted upon its observance every Sunday and threatened with
  excommunication everyone who did not communicate at least on
  the three great festivals. The elements of the supper were still
  brought as presents by the members of the church. The bread
  was that in common use, therefore usually leavened. The East
  continued this practice, but the West subsequently, on symbolical
  grounds, introduced the use of unleavened bread. The colour of
  the wine was regarded as immaterial. Subsequently white wine was
  preferred as being free from the red colouring matter. The mixing
  of the wine with water was held to be essential, and was grounded
  upon John xix. 34; or regarded as significant of the two natures
  in Christ. Only the Armenian Monophysites used unmixed wine.
  The bread was broken. To the sick was often brought in the
  East instead of the separate elements bread dipped in wine.
  Subsequently also, first in children’s communion and in the
  Greek church only, bread and wine together were presented in
  a spoon. The consecrated elements were called εὐλογίαι after
  1 Cor. x. 16. The εὐλογίαι left over (περισσεύουσα) were after
  communion divided among the clergy. At a later period only so
  much was consecrated as it was thought would be needed for use
  at one time. The overplus of unconsecrated oblations was blessed
  and distributed among the non-communicants, the catechumens
  and penitents. The name εὐλογίαι was now applied to those
  elements that had only been blessed which were also designated
  ἀντίδωρα. The old custom of sending to other churches or bishops
  consecrated sacramental elements as a sign of ecclesiastical
  fellowship was forbidden by the Council at Laodicea in the
  4th century.--Continuation § 104, 3.


                § 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL.

  The text of the sermon was generally taken from the bible portion
previously read. The liturgy attained a rich development, but the
liturgies of the Latin and Greek churches were fundamentally different
from one another. Scripture Psalms, Songs of Praise with Doxologies
formed the main components of the church service of song. Gnostics
(§ 27, 5), Arians (§ 50, 1), Apollinarians and Donatists found hymns
of their own composition very popular. The church was obliged to outbid
them in this. The Council at Laodicea, however, in A.D. 360, sought to
have all ψαλμοὶ ἰδιωτικοί banished from the church, probably in order
to prevent heretical poems being smuggled in. The Western church did
not discuss the subject; and Chrysostom at least adorned the nightly
processions which the rivalry of the Arians in Constantinople obliged
him to make, with the solemn singing of hymns.

  § 59.1. =The Holy Scriptures= (§ 36, 7, 8).--The doubts about
  the genuineness of particular New Testament writings which
  had existed in the days of Eusebius, had now greatly lessened.
  Fourteen years after Eusebius, Athanasius in his 39th Festal
  Letter of A.D. 367 gave a list of canonical scriptures in which
  the Eusebian antilegomena of the first class (§ 36, 8) were
  without more ado enumerated among the κανονιζόμενα. From these
  he distinguished the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther,
  Judith, and Tobit, as well as the Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν Ἀποστόλων
  and the Shepherd of Hermas as ἀναγινωσκόμενα, _i.e._ as books
  which from their excellent moral contents had been used by
  the fathers in teaching the catechumens and which should be
  recommended as affording godly reading. The Council at Laodicea
  gave a Canon in which we miss only the Apocalypse of John,
  objected to probably on account of the unfavourable view of
  chiliasm entertained by the church at that time (§ 33, 9);
  as regards the Old Testament it expressly limited the public
  readings in churches to the 22 bks. of the Hebrew canon. The
  Council at Hippo, in A.D. 393, gave synodic sanction for the
  first time in the West to that Canon of the New Testament which
  has from that time been accepted.--The question as to the value
  of the books added to the Old Testament in the LXX. remained
  undecided down to the time of the Reformation. The Greek church
  kept to the Athanasian distinction of these as ἀναγινωσκόμενα
  from the κανονιζόμενοι, until the confession of Dositheus in
  A.D. 1629 (§ 152, 3) in its anti-Calvinistic zeal maintained
  that even those books should be acknowledged as γνήσια τῆς
  γραφῆς μέρη. In the North African church Tertullian and Cyprian
  had characterized them without distinction as holy scripture.
  Augustine followed them, though not altogether without hesitation:
  _Maccab. scripturam non habent Judæi ... sed recepta est ab
  ecclesia non inutilitor, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur_; and
  the Synods at Hippo in A.D. 393 and at Carthage in A.D. 397 and
  A.D. 419 put them without question into their list of canonical
  books, adding this, however, that they would ask the opinion of
  the transmarine churches on the matter. Meanwhile too in Rome
  this view had prevailed and Innocent I. in A.D. 405 expressly
  homologated the African list. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus on
  the other hand upheld the view of Athanasius, and Jerome in his
  _Prologus galeatus_ after enumerating the books of the Hebrew
  Canon went so far as to say: _Quidquid extra hos est, inter
  Apocrypha ponendum_, and elsewhere calls the addition to Daniel
  merely _næniæ_. In the _Præfatio in libros Salom._, he expresses
  himself more favourably of the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,
  Judith, Tobit and Maccabees: _legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter
  canonicas scripturas non recipit ... legat ad ædificationem
  plebis sed non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confirmandam_. This
  view prevailed throughout the whole of the Middle Ages among
  the most prominent churches down to the meeting of the Council
  of Trent (§ 136, 4); whereas the Tridentine fathers owing
  to the rejection of the books referred to by the Protestants
  (§ 161, 8), and their actual or supposed usefulness in supporting
  anti-Protestant dogmas, _e.g._ the meritoriousness of good works,
  Tob. iv. 11, 12; intercession of saints, 2 Macc. xv. 12-14;
  veneration of relics, Ecclus. xlvi. 14; xlix. 12; masses
  for souls and prayers for the dead, 2 Macc. xii. 43-46, felt
  themselves constrained to pronounce them canonical.--The
  inconvenient _Scriptio continua_ in the biblical Codices led
  first of all the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, about A.D. 460,
  by stichometric copies of the New Testament in which every line
  (στίχος) embraced as much as with regard to the sense could
  be read without a pause. He also undertook a division of the
  Apostolic Epistles and the Acts into chapters (κεφάλαια). An
  Alexandrian church teacher, Ammonius, even earlier than this,
  in arranging for a harmony of the gospels had divided the gospels
  in 1,165 chapters and added to the 355 chapters of Matthew’s
  gospel the number of the chapter of parallel passages in the
  other gospels. Eusebius of Cæsarea completed the work by his
  “Evang. Canon,” for he represents in ten tables which chapters
  are found in all the four, in three, in two or in one of the
  gospels.[175]--Jerome made emendations upon the corrupt text
  of the Itala by order of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and then made
  from the Hebrew a translation of the =Old Testament= of his own,
  which, joined to the revised translation of the New Testament,
  after much opposition gradually secured supremacy throughout all
  the West under the name of the =Vulgata=. The Monophysite Syrians
  got from Polycarp in A.D. 508 at the request of bishop Xenajas
  or Philoxenus of Mabug, a new slavishly literal translation of
  the New Testament. This so-called Philoxenian translation was,
  in A.D. 616, corrected by Thomas of Charcal, provided after
  the manner of the Hexapla of Origen with notes--the Harclensian
  translation--and in A.D. 617 enlarged by a translation of the
  Old Testament executed by bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia
  according to the Hexapla text of the LXX.--Diligent =Scripture
  Reading= was recommended by all the fathers, with special fervour
  by Chrysostom, to the laity as well as the clergy. Yet the
  idea gained ground that the study of Scripture was the business
  of monks and clerics. The second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,
  forbade under severe penalties that scripture should be understood
  and expounded otherwise than had been done by the old fathers.

  § 59.2. =The Creeds of the Church.=

      I. =The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed.=--The Nicene Creed
         (§ 50, 1, 7) did not =in the East= succeed in dislodging
         the various forms of the Baptismal formula (§ 35, 2);
         indeed, owing to the statement of this third article
         restricting itself to a mere καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον
         it was little fitted to become a universal symbol. But
         what the _Nicænum_ in spite of its unexampled pretensions
         never won, the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_
         of A.D. 451, not being chargeable with the deficiency
         referred to, actually achieved. The idea prevailing
         until quite recently that this Symbol originated at
         the so-called second œcumenical Council at Constantinople
         in A.D. 381 as an enlargement of the Nicene confession,
         has now been shown to be quite erroneous. After the Romish
         theologian Vincenzi laboured to prove that this was a
         production forged by the Greeks in the interests of their
         “heretical” doctrine of the procedure of the Holy Spirit
         from the Father only (§ 50, 7), Harnack on the basis of
         the researches of Caspari and Hort reached the following
         results: The so-called Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed is
         identical with the creed recommended by Epiphanius in his
         _Anchoratus_, about A.D. 373, as genuinely apostolic-Nicene;
         the creed of the Anchoratus is that which forms the subject
         of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures (§ 47, 10), probably at
         a later date revised, enriched by the introduction of the
         most important phrases from the Nicænum and an additional
         section on the Holy Spirit (comp. § 50, 5, 7), and
         issued in his own name by Cyril while bishop of Jerusalem
         (A.D. 351-386) as a Baptismal formula for the church of
         Jerusalem; this new recension of the Jerusalem Symbol
         was probably laid before the Council at Constantinople
         in A.D. 381 by Cyril as a proof of his own orthodoxy that
         had always been somewhat questionable and as such passed
         over into the Acts which are now lost; thus at least is
         it most simply explained how even in A.D. 451 it could be
         quoted in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon alongside
         of the Nicene as the Constantinopolitan; in proportion
         then as the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 came
         to be regarded as an œcumenical Council (§ 50, 4), this
         creed, erroneously ascribed to that Council, had accorded
         to it the rank of an œcumenical Symbol.

     II. =The Apostles’ Creed.=--The Roman church and with it the
         whole =West=, standing upon the supposed Apostolic origin
         of their symbol, did not suffer it to be dislodged by the
         Nicænum nor to be assimilated by any importations from
         it. Nevertheless during the period when the Roman chair
         was dominated by the Byzantine court theology (§ 52, 3)
         the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_ succeeded in
         displacing the old Western creed, aided by the opposition
         to the Arianism that was being driven forward by the
         Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain (§ 76, 2, 7),
         which demanded a more decidedly anti-Arian formula.
         After this danger had been long overcome, the desire
         was expressed in the 9th century for a shorter creed
         that might serve as a baptismal formula and as the basis
         of catechetical teaching. They fell back, however, not
         upon the old Roman creed, but upon a more modern Gallic
         expansion of it, which forms what is called by us now
         the Apostles’ Creed. Owing to the reverence shown to the
         Roman church this creed soon found its way throughout
         all the West, and arrogated to itself here the name
         of an œcumenical Symbol, although it has never been
         acknowledged by the Greek church. The legend of its
         apostolic origin was carried out still further by the
         assertion that each of the twelve Apostles composed one
         article as his contribution to the formula (συμβολή).
         Laurentius Valla and Erasmus were the first to dispute
         its apostolic origin.

    III. =The Athanasian Creed.=--The so-called Athanasian Symbol,
         which from its opening words is also known as _Symb._
         “_Quicunque_,” sprang up in the end of the 5th century
         out of the opposition of Western Catholicism to German
         Arianism, so that it is doubtful whether it had its
         origin in Gaul, Spain or North Africa. In short, sharply
         accentuated propositions it sets forth first of all the
         Nicene-Constant. doctrine of the Trinity in its fuller
         form as developed by Augustine (§ 50, 7), then in the
         second part the dogmatic results of the Nestorian and
         Eutychian controversies (§ 52, 3, 4), and in the severest
         terms makes eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance
         of all these beliefs. The earliest certain trace of its
         existence is found in Cæsarius of Arles (A.D. 503-543) who
         quotes some sentences borrowed from it as of acknowledged
         authority. The idea that Athanasius was its author arose
         in the 8th century and was soon accepted throughout the
         West as an undoubted truth. It was first taken notice of
         by the Greek church in the 11th century, and on account
         of the _filioque_ (§ 67, 1) was pronounced heretical.[176]

  § 59.3. =Bible Reading in Church and Preaching.=--The =Reading=
  of non-canonical books in church, which had previously been
  customary (§ 36, 3), was now forbidden. The _Lectio continua_,
  _i.e._ the reading of entire biblical books was the common
  practice down to the 5th century. In the Latin church at each
  service there were usually two readings, one from the Gospels,
  the other from the Epistles or the Prophets. The _Apostolic
  Constitutions_ (§ 43, 4) have three, the Prophets, Epistles,
  and Gospels; so too the Gallican and Spanish churches; while
  the Syrian had four, the additional one being from Acts. As
  the idea of the Christian Year was carried out, however, the
  _Lectio continua_ gave place to the _Lectio propria_, _i.e._
  a selection of passages which correspond to the character
  of the particular festival. In the West this selection was
  fixed by the _Lectionaries_ among which the so-called _Liber
  comitis_, which tradition assigned to Jerome, in various
  forms and modifications, found acceptance generally throughout
  the West. In the East where the _Lectio continua_ continued
  much more prevalent, lectionaries came into use first in the
  8th century. The lesson was read by a reader from a reading desk;
  as a mark of distinction, however, the gospel was often read by
  the deacon. For the same purpose, too, lights were often kindled
  during this reading.--The =Sermon= was generally by the bishop,
  who might, however, transfer the duty to a presbyter or deacon.
  Monks were forbidden to preach in the church. They were not
  hindered from doing so in the streets and markets, from roofs,
  pillars and trees. The bishop preached from his episcopal throne,
  but often, in order to be better heard, stood at the railing of
  the choir (_Cancelli_). Augustine and Chrysostom often preached
  from the reading desk. In the East preaching came very much to
  the front, lasted often for an hour, and aimed at theatrical
  effects. Very distracting was the practice, specially common
  in Greece of giving loud applause with waving of handkerchiefs
  and clapping of hands (κρότος, _Acclamatio_). In the West the
  sermon consisted generally of short simple addresses (_Sermones_).
  Extempore discourses (ὁμιλίαι σχεδιασθεῖσαι) were greatly
  appreciated, more so than those repeated from memory; reading
  was quite an exceptional occurrence. Even the emperors after
  Constantine’s example gave sometimes sermonic lectures in
  extra-ecclesiastical assemblies. Among the Syrians sermons in
  verse and strophically arranged, with equal number of syllables
  in the lines but unrhymed, were very popular.

  § 59.4. =Hymnology.=[177]--Ephraëm [Ephraim] the Syrian
  († A.D. 378) introduced melodious orthodox hymns in place
  of the heterodox hymns of the Syrian Gnostics Bardesanes and
  Harmonius (§ 27, 5). On the later Syrian hymn writers, see
  § 48, 7. The introduction of their hymns into the public service
  caused no trouble. For the Greeks orthodox hymns were composed
  by Gregory Nazianzen and Synesius of Ptolemais. The want of
  popularity and the ban of the Laodicean Council hindered their
  introduction into the services of the church; but this ban was
  removed as early as the 5th century. Under the name of Troparies,
  from τρόπος=art of music, shorter, and soon also longer, poems
  of their own composition were introduced alongside of the church
  service of Psalms (§ 70, 2). But unquestionably the palm for
  church hymn composition belongs to the Latin church. With Hilary
  of Poitiers († A.D. 368) begins a series of poets (Ambrose,
  Damasus, Augustine, Sedulius, Eunodius, Prudentius, Fortunatus,
  Gregory the Great) who bequeathed to their church a precious
  legacy of spiritual songs of great beauty, spirituality, depth,
  power, grandeur and simplicity.

  § 59.5. =Psalmody and Hymn Music.=[178]--From the time when
  clerical _cantores_ (§ 34, 3) were appointed the symphonic
  singing of psalms by the congregation seems to have been on
  the wane. The Council of Laodicea forbade it altogether, without,
  however, being able quite to accomplish that. Antiphonal or
  responsive singing was much enjoyed. Hypophonic singing of the
  congregation in the responses with which the people answered the
  clerical intonings, readings and prayers, and in the beating of
  time with which they answered the clerical singing of psalms, was
  long persisted in in spite of clerical exclusiveness. The singing
  of prayers, readings and consecrations was first introduced
  in the 6th century. At first church music was simple, artless,
  recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox
  church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art.
  Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularisation of Church
  music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the
  introduction of instrumental accompaniments. Even part singing
  was at this time excluded from the church. In the West psalmody
  took a high flight with a true ecclesiastical character. Even in
  A.D. 330, bishop Sylvester erected a school at Rome for training
  singers for the churches. Ambrose of Milan was the author of a
  new kind of church music full of melodious flow, with rhythmical
  accent and rich modulation, nobly popular and grandly simple
  (_Cantus Ambrosianus_). Augustine speaks with enthusiasm of the
  powerful impression made on him by this lively style of singing,
  but expresses also the fear that the senses might be spellbound
  by the pleasant sound of the tune, and thus the effect of
  the words on the mind be weakened. And in fact the Ambrosian
  chant was in danger during the 6th century through increasing
  secularisation of losing its ecclesiastical character. Then
  appeared Gregory the Great as reformer and founder of a new
  style of music (_Cantus Romanus, ferinus, choralis_) for which
  at the same time, in order that he might fix it in a tune book
  (_Antiphonarium_), he invented a special notation, the so-called
  _Neumæ_, either from πνεῦμα as characterizing the music, or from
  νεῦμα as characterizing the musical notes, a wonderful mixture
  of points, strokes and hooks. The Gregorian music is in unison,
  slow, measured and uniform without rhythm and beat, so that
  it approaches again the old recitative mode of psalm singing,
  while still at the same time its elaboration of the art with
  much richer modulation marks an important step in advance. The
  Ambrosian briskness, freshness and popular style were indeed
  lost, but all the more certainly the earnestness, dignity and
  solemnity of Church music were preserved. But it was a very great
  defect that the Gregorian music was assigned exclusively to well
  equipped choirs of clerical singers, hence _Cantus choralis_, for
  the training of which Gregory founded a school of music in Rome.
  The congregation was thus deprived of that lively participation
  in the public service which up to that time it had enjoyed.

  § 59.6. =The Liturgy.=--The numerous liturgies that had sprung
  up since the 4th century were reared on the basis of one common
  type which we find in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions
  (§ 43, 4). The most important orthodox liturgies are: the
  Jerusalem liturgy which is ascribed to the Apostle James, the
  Alexandrian which claims as its author Mark, disciple of the
  Apostles (§ 16, 4), the Byzantine which professes to have been
  composed by Basil and abbreviated by Chrysostom, which ultimately
  dislodged all others from the orthodox church of the East.
  Among Western liturgies the following are distinguished for
  antiquity, reputation and significance: the Gallican Masses
  of the 5th century, the Milan liturgy, professedly by Barnabas,
  probably by Ambrose, and the Roman or that of St. Peter, to the
  successive revisions of which are attached the names of the great
  popes Leo the Great, † A.D. 461, Gelasius I., † A.D. 496, and
  Gregory the Great, † A.D. 604. It gradually obtained universal
  ascendancy in the West. Its components are: The _sacramentarium_,
  prayers for the service of the Mass, the _antiphonarium_, the
  _lectionarium_, and the _Ordo Romanus_, guide to the dispensation
  of the Mass. The uniting of these several writings to the _Missale
  Romanum_ belongs to a later period.--=The Greek Liturgy= in the
  combining of the vesper, matins and principal service of worship
  represents a threefold religious drama in which the whole course
  of the sacred history from the creation of the world to the
  ascension of our Lord is brought to view. In the lighting and
  extinguishing of candles, in opening and closing of doors,
  in the figured cloth covering the altar space, (§ 60, 1), in
  burning of incense and presentations, in the successive putting
  on of various liturgical vestments, in the processions and
  genuflections of the inferior clergy, in the handling of the
  sacramental elements, etc., the chief points of the gospel
  history are symbolically set forth. The word accompanying the
  ceremonies (intonations, responses, prayers, readings, singing)
  has a subordinate significance and forms only a running commentary
  on the drama.--=The Latin Church= changed the dramatic character
  of the liturgy into a dogmatic one. It is no longer the objective
  history of salvation which is here represented, but the subjective
  appropriation of salvation. The sinner in need of redemption
  comes to the altar of the Lord, seeks and finds quickening and
  instruction, forgiveness and grace. The real pillar of the whole
  service is therefore the word, and to the symbol is assigned only
  the subordinate part of accompanying the word with a pictorial
  representation. The components of the liturgy are partly such
  as invariably are repeated in every Mass, partly such as change
  with the calendar and the requirements of particular festivals.
  Among the former the canon of the Mass forms the real centre of
  the whole Mass. It embraces the eucharistic forms of consecration
  with the prayer offered up in connection with the offering of it
  up.--Among the liturgical writings are specially to be named the
  =Diptychs= (δὶς ἀπτύσσω, to fold twice), writing tablets which
  were covered on the inside with wax. They were the official lists
  of persons of the ancient church, and were of importance for the
  liturgy inasmuch as the names written upon them were the subject
  of special liturgical intercession. We have to distinguish,
  δίπτυχα ἐπισκόπων, in which are written the names of the foreign
  bishops with whom church fellowship is maintained, and δίπτυχα
  ζώντων or lists of their own church members as the offerers, and
  δίπτυχα νεκρῶν.[179]

  § 59.7. =Liturgical Vestments.=--A special clerical costume which
  made the clergy recognisable even in civil life arose from their
  scorning to submit to the whims of fashion. The transition from
  this to a compulsory liturgical style of dress was probably
  owing to the fact that the clergy in discharging their official
  functions wore not their every-day attire, but a better suit
  reserved for the purpose. If in this way the idea of sacred
  vestments was arrived at it was an easy step to associate
  them with the official costume of the Old Testament priesthood,
  attributing to them, as to the dress of the Jewish priests, a
  symbolico-mystical significance, to be diversified according to
  their patterns as well as according to the needs of the worship
  and their hierarchical rank. In the West the proper dress for
  Mass was and continued the so-called _Alba_, among the Greeks
  στοιχάριον or στιχάριον, a white linen shirt reaching down
  to the feet after the pattern of the old Roman _Tunica_ and
  corresponding to the long coat of the Old Testament priest,
  with a girdle (_Cingulum_). The shorter _Casula_ or _Pineta_,
  among the Greeks φελώνιον, over the Alba took the place of the
  _Toga_. It was originally without sleeves, simply a coloured
  garment of costly material furnished with an opening for the
  head, but in later times made more convenient by being slit half
  way down on both sides. The _Orarium_, ὀράριον, afterwards called
  _Stola_, is a long wide strip of costly cloth which the deacon
  threw over his left shoulder and on his right thigh, but the
  priest and the bishop wore it over both shoulders and at the
  sacrifice of the Mass in the form of the cross over the breast.
  Over these priestly vestments the bishop wore as representing
  the high priest’s ephod the so-called _Dalmatica_, among the
  Greeks σάκκος, a costly sleeved robe; and the archbishop also
  the _Pallium_, ὠμοφόριον. This last was originally a complete
  robe, but in order not to conceal the episcopal and priestly
  ornaments it was reduced to a small white woollen cape with two
  strips hanging down on the breast and the back. To episcopal
  ornaments of the Greeks besides belonged the ἐπιγονάτιον, a
  square-shaped piece of cloth, hanging down from the σάκκος on
  the left side, ornamented with a picture of Christ sewed on
  stiff pasteboard; and to correspond to the high priest’s Urim
  and Thummim, the πανάγιον, a painting in enamel of a saint,
  hung to the breast by a golden chain. Among the Latins the place
  of the latter is taken by the golden cross for the breast or
  _Pectorale_. As covering of the head the priest had the Barretta
  (_birretum_), the bishop the mitre, _mitra_ (§ 84, 1). The ring
  and staff (marriage ring and shepherd’s staff) were in very early
  times made the insignia of the episcopal office. The settling of
  the various liturgical colours for the successive festivals of
  the Christian year was first made during the 12th century.[180]

  § 59.8. =Symbolical Acts in Worship.=--The fraternal kiss
  was a general custom throughout the whole period. On entering,
  the church door or threshold was kissed; during the liturgical
  service the priest kissed the altar, the reader the Gospel. Even
  relics and images were kissed. When one confessed sin he beat
  upon his breast. The sign of the cross was made during every
  ecclesiastical action and even in private life was frequently
  used. The custom of washing the hands on entering God’s house
  and lighting candles in it, was very ancient. No quite certain
  trace of sprinkling with holy water is found before the 9th
  century. The burning of incense (_thurificari_) is first found
  late in the 4th century. In earlier times it was supposed to draw
  on and feed the demons; afterwards it was regarded as the surest
  means of driving them away. The consecration of churches and the
  annual commemoration thereof are referred to even by Eusebius
  (ἐγκαινίων ἑορταί). Even so early as the times of Ambrose the
  possession of relics was regarded as an indispensable condition
  to such services.

  § 59.9. =Processions= are of early date and had their
  prototypes in the heathen worship in the solemn marches
  at the high festivals of Dionysos, Athene, etc., etc. First at
  burials and weddings, they were practised since the 4th century
  at the reception of bishops or relics, at thanksgivings for
  victories, especially at seasons of public distress and calamity
  (_Rogationes_, _Supplicationes_). Bishop Mamertus of Vienna about
  A.D. 450 and Gregory the Great developed them into regularly
  recurring institutions whose celebration was rendered more solemn
  by carrying the gospels in front, costly crosses and banners,
  blazing torches and wax candles, relics, images of Mary and the
  saints, by psalm and hymn singing. The prayers arranged for the
  purpose with invocation of saints, and angels and the popular
  refrain, _Ora pro nobis!_ were called _Litanies_.


               § 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS
                         AND WORKS OF ART.[181]

  Church architecture made rapid advance as a science in the times
of Constantine the Great. The earliest architectural style thus
developed is found in the Christian _Basilicas_. Whether this was
a purely original kind of building called forth by the requirements
of congregational worship, or whether and how far it was based upon
previously existing styles, is still a subject of discussion. In later,
and especially oriental, church buildings the flat roof of the basilica
was often changed into a cupola. Of the plastic arts painting was the
next to be represented.

  § 60.1. =The Basilica.=--The original form of the Christian
  basilica was that of an oblong four-sided building running from
  west to east. It was divided lengthwise by rows of pillars, into
  three parts or aisles, in such a way as to leave the middle aisle
  at least double the breadth of each of the other two. The middle
  aisle led up to a semicircular recess (κόγχη, ἀψίς, _Concha_,
  _Absida_), curved out of the eastern side wall, which was
  separated from the middle aisle proper by a railing (κιγκλίδες,
  _Cancelli_) and a curtain (καταπέτασμα, _Velum_), and, because
  raised a few steps, was called βῆμα (from βαίνω). From the 5th
  century the pillars running down the length of the house were
  not carried on to the eastern gable, and thus a cross passage
  or transept was formed, which was raised to the level of the
  Bema and added to it. This transept now in connection with the
  middle aisle and the recess imprints upon the ground plan of the
  church the significant form of the cross. At the entrance at the
  western end there was a porch which occupied the whole breadth
  of the house. Thus then the whole fell into three divisions.
  The =Bema= was reserved for the clergy. The elevated seat of
  the bishop (θρόνος, _Cathedra_) stood in the middle of the
  round wall forming the recess, lower seats for the presbyters
  on both sides (σύνθρονοι), the altar in the centre or in front
  of the recess. As a place reserved for the altar and the clergy
  the βῆμα had also the names ἅγιον, ἄδυτον, ἱερατεῖον, _Sacrarium_,
  _Sanctuarium_, the name “Handbook of Painting: Italian Schools.
  Based on Kügler’s Handbook.” by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard,
  2 vols., Lond., 1886.] of Choir being first given it in the Middle
  Ages. Under the Apse or Bema there was usually a subterranean
  chamber, κρυπτή, _Memoria_, _Confessio_, containing the bones of
  martyrs. The altar space in later times in the Eastern churches
  instead of being marked off by railings or curtains was separated
  by a wooden partition which because adorned with sacred pictures
  painted often on a golden ground and inlaid with most precious
  stones, was called the picture screen (εἰκονόστασις). It had
  usually three doors of which the middle one, the largest of the
  three, the so-called “Royal” door, was reserved for the bishop
  and for the emperor when he communicated. The =Nave= or main
  part of the building, consisting of three, less frequently of
  five, aisles (νάος, ναῦς, _Navis_, so called partly from its
  oblong form, partly and chiefly on account of the symbolical
  significance of the ship as a figure of the means of salvation,
  Gen. vii. 23), was the place where the baptized laity met, and
  were arranged in the different aisles according to sex, age
  and rank. In the Eastern churches galleries (ὑπερῶα) were often
  introduced along the sides for the women. The =Porch= (πρόναος,
  _Vestibulum_) which from its great width was also called νάρθηξ
  or _Ferula_, properly the hollow stalk of an umbelliferous plant,
  was the place occupied by the catechumens and penitents. In front
  of it, in earlier times unroofed, afterwards covered, was the
  enclosure (αἴθριον, αὐλή, _Atrium_, _Area_) where a basin of
  water stood for washing the hands. Here too the penitents during
  the first stage of their discipline, as well as the _energumeni_,
  had to stand. That the Atrium was also called _Paradisus_, as
  Athanasius tells us, is best explained by supposing that here
  for the warning of penitents there was a picture of Adam and
  Eve being driven out of Paradise. The porch and the side aisles
  just to the height of the pillars, were shut in with tesselated
  rafters and covered with a one-sided slanting roof. But middle
  aisle and transept were heightened by side walls resting on the
  pillars and rising high above the side roofs and covered with a
  two-sided slanting roof. In order that the pillars might be able
  to bear this burden, they were bound one to another by an arched
  binding. The walls of the middle aisle and transepts rising above
  the side roofs were supplied with windows, which were usually
  wanting in the lower walls.--Utility was the main consideration
  in the development of the plan of the basilicas, but nevertheless
  at the same time the idea of symbolical significance was also
  in many ways very fully carried out, such as the form of the
  cross in the ground plan, and the threefold division into middle
  and side aisles. In the bow-shaped binding of the pillars the
  idea of pressing forward (Phil. iii. 13, 14) was represented,
  for there the eye was carried on from one pillar to the other
  and led uninterruptedly forward to the recess at the east end,
  where stood the altar, where the Sun of righteousness had risen
  (Mal. iv. 2). The semicircle of the recess to which the eye was
  carried forward reminded of the horizon from which the sun rose
  in his beauty; and the bold rising of the walls of the middle
  aisle, which rested on the arched pillars, pointed the eye
  upwards and gave the liturgical _sursum corda_ which the bishop
  called out to the congregation a corresponding expression in
  architectural form. This significance was further intensified
  by the light falling down from above into the sacred place.

  § 60.2. =Secular Basilicas.=--All spaces adorned with pillared
  courts were called among the ancient Romans basilicas. In
  the private houses of distinguished Romans the name _Basilica
  domestica_ was given to the so-called Oëcus, _i.e._ the chamber
  reserved for solemn occasions with the peristyle in front,
  the inner open court surrounded by covered pillared halls;
  while public markets and courts of justice were called _Basilicæ
  forenses_. The latter were oblong in shape; at the end opposite
  the entrance the dividing wall was broken through and in the
  opening a semicircular recess was carved out with an elevated
  platform, and in this were the tribunal of the prætor and seats
  for the assessors and the jury. In the covered pillared courts
  along the two sides were the wares exposed for sale and in the
  usually uncovered large middle space the buyers and lookers-on
  moved about. Outside of the enclosing wall before the entrance
  was often a pillared porch standing by itself for a lobby.--From
  having the same name and many correspondences in construction
  the later Christian basilica was supposed to have been copied
  from the forensic basilica. Zestermann was the first to contest
  this theory and in this found hearty support especially on
  the Catholic side. According to him the Christian basilica
  had nothing in common with the forensic, but was called forth
  quite independently of any earlier style of building by the
  requirements of Christian worship. Now certainly on the one
  side the similarity had been quite unduly over-estimated.
  For almost everything that gave its symbolically significant
  character to the ecclesiastical basilica,--the transept and
  the form of the cross brought out by it, the bow-shaped binding
  of the pillars, the walls of the middle aisle resting on the
  pillars rising sheer into the heights, as well as the entirely
  new arrangement of the whole house, are the essential and
  independent product of the Christian spirit. But on the other
  hand, differences have been greatly exaggerated and features
  which the ecclesiastical basilica had in common with the forensic,
  which were demonstrably copied from the latter, have been ignored.
  On both sides, too, the importance for our question of the
  _basilicæ domesticæ_ used for worship before regular churches
  were built, has been overlooked. Here the peristyle with its
  pillared courts with the oëcus attached supplied the divisions
  needed for the different classes attending divine service (clergy,
  congregation, penitents, catechumens). What was more natural
  than that this form of building, brought indeed into more perfect
  accord with the Christian idea and congregational requirements,
  should be adopted in church building and with it also the name
  with a new application to Christ the heavenly King? But one
  and indeed a very essential feature in the later basilica style
  is wanting generally in the oëcus of private houses, viz. the
  Apse. One would naturally suppose that it was borrowed from the
  forensic basilica in consideration of its purpose there, scruples
  against such procedure being lessened as the heathen state passed
  over to Christianity. Thus too it is easily explained how the
  earliest basilicas, like that of Tyre consecrated in A.D. 313,
  of which Eusebius’ description gives us full information, have
  as yet no Apse.

  § 60.3. =The Cupola Style.=--We meet with the first example of
  the cupola style among Christian buildings in the form of Roman
  mausoleums in chapels or churches raised over martyrs’ graves.
  This style, however, was in many ways unsuitable for regular
  parish churches. The necessarily limited inner space embraced
  within the circular or polygonal walls would not admit of
  the significant shape of the nave being preserved; it could
  not be proportionally partitioned among clergy, congregation,
  catechumens and penitents. In an ideal point of view only
  the centre of the whole space was suitable for the bema with
  the altar, bishop’s throne, etc. In that case, however, the
  half of the congregation present would have to stand behind
  the officiating clergy and so this arrangement was not to be
  thought of. In the later ecclesiastical buildings, therefore,
  of the cupola style the ground plan of the basilica was adopted,
  with atrium and narthex at the west end and bema and apse at
  the east end. The old basilica style, though capable of so
  much artistic adornment, passed now indeed more and more into
  desuetude before the overpowering impression made upon one
  entering the building by the cupola (θόλος, _Cuppula_) like
  a cloud of heaven overspanning at a giddy height the middle
  space, pierced by many windows and resting on four pillars
  bound by arches one to another. Besides this main and complete
  cupola there were often a number of semi- and secondary cupolas,
  which gave to the whole building from without the appearance
  of a rich well ordered organism. The greatest masterpiece
  in this style, which Byzantine love of art and beauty valued
  far more than the simple basilica, is the church of Sophia at
  Constantinople (Σοφία=Λόγος), at the completion of which in
  A.D. 587 Justinian I. cried out: Νενίκηκά σε Σαλομών.

  § 60.4. =Accessory and Special Buildings.=--Alongside of the main
  building there generally were additional buildings for special
  purposes (ἐξέδραι), surrounded by an enclosing wall. Among these
  isolated extra buildings _Baptistries_ (βαπτιστήρια, φωτιστήρια)
  held the first rank. They were built in rotunda form after the
  pattern of the Roman baths. The baptismal basin (κολυμβήθρα,
  _Piscina_) in the middle of the inner space was surrounded by
  a series of pillars. In front there was frequently a roomy porch
  used for the instruction of catechumens. When infant baptism
  became general, separate baptistries were no longer needed. Their
  place was taken by the baptismal font in the church itself on the
  north side of the main entrance. For the custody of church jewels,
  ornaments, robes, books, archives, etc. in the larger churches
  there were special buildings provided. The spirit of brotherhood,
  the _Philadelphia_, expressed itself in the πτωχοτροφεῖα,
  ὀρφανοτροφεῖα, γηροκομεῖα, βρεφοτροφεῖα (Foundling Hospitals),
  νοσοκομεῖα, ξενοδοχεῖα. The burying ground (κοιμητήριον,
  _Cimeterium_, _Dormitorium_, _Area_) was also usually within
  the wall enclosing the church property. The privilege of burial
  within the church was granted only to emperors and bishops. When
  clocks came into vogue towers were introduced, but these were at
  first simply attached to the churches, occasionally even standing
  quite apart.

  § 60.5. =Church furniture.=--The centre of the whole house of
  God was the _Altar_ (ἁγία τράπεζα, θυσιαστήριον, _Ara_, _Altare_),
  since the 5th century commonly of stone, often overlaid with gold
  and silver. The altar stood out at the east end, the officiating
  priest behind it facing the congregation. The introduction of
  the _Missæ solitariæ_ (§ 58, 3) made it necessary in the West to
  have a large number of altars. In the Greek church the rule was
  to have one altar. Moveable altars, for missionaries, crusaders,
  etc., were necessary since the consecration of the altar had
  been pronounced indispensable. The Latins used for this purpose
  a consecrated stone plate with a cover (_Palla_); the Greeks
  only a consecrated altar cloth (ἀντιμήνσιον). The altar cloth
  was regarded as essential, a _denudatio alteris_ as impious
  desecration; according to liturgical rule, however, the altar
  was bared on Friday and Saturday of Passion Week. From the
  altar cloth was distinguished the _Corporale_, εἰλητόν, for
  covering the oblations. On the altar stood the _Ciborium_, a
  canopy supported by four feet, to which by a golden chain was
  attached a dove-shaped vessel (περιστήριον) with the consecrated
  sacramental elements for the communion of the sick. The
  _Thuribulum_ was for the burning of incense, cross for marches
  and processions (_Cruces stationales_) and banners (_Vexilla_).
  In the nave were seats for the congregation; in the narthex
  there were none. The pulpit or reading desk (_Pulpitum_) at
  first movable, afterwards permanently fixed to the railings
  in the middle of the bema in the basilica was called the _Ambo_
  from ἀναβαίνω, or _Lectorium_, our English Lectern. In many
  churches two ambos were erected, on the north or left side for
  the gospel, and on the south or right side for the epistle. In
  larger churches, however, the ambo was often brought forward into
  the nave. Our chancel had its origin late in the Middle Ages by
  a separate preaching Ambo being erected beside the lectern, and
  raised aloft in order that the preacher might be better seen and
  heard.--The introduction of church clocks (_Nolæ_, _Campanulæ_,
  because commonly made of Campanian brass which was regarded as
  the best) is sometimes ascribed to bishop Paulinus of Nola in
  Campania, who died in A.D. 431, sometimes to Pope Sabinianus,
  who died in A.D. 606. In the East they were first introduced
  in the 9th century. In early times the hours of service were
  announced by _Cursores_, ἀνάδρομοι, afterwards by trumpets or
  beating of gongs.

  § 60.6. =The Graphic and Plastic Arts= (§ 38, 3; § 57, 4).--The
  Greek church forbade all nudity; only face, hands and feet
  could be left uncovered. This narrowness was overcome in the
  West. Brilliancy of colour, costliness of material and showy
  overloading of costume made up for artistic deficiencies.
  The εἰκόνες ἀχειροποίητοι afforded stereotyped forms for the
  countenances of images of Christ, Mary and the Apostles. The
  _Nimbus_, originally a soft mist or transparent cloud, with which
  pagan poets and painters surrounded the persons or heads of the
  gods, in later times also those of the Roman emperors, made its
  appearance during the 5th century in Christian painting as the
  _halo_, in the form of rays, of a diadem or of a circle, first
  of all in figures of Christ. Images of the Saviour bound to the
  cross were first introduced about the end of the 6th century.
  The symbol was previously restricted to the representation of
  a lamb at the foot of the cross, a bust of Christ at the top or
  in the middle of the cross, or the full figure of Christ holding
  His cross before Him. _Anastasius Sinaita_ in the 7th century,
  to show his opposition to the monophysite doctrine that only the
  body had been crucified, painted a figure of the crucified which
  straightway came to be regarded in the Eastern church as the
  pattern figure, without the crown of thorns, with nimbus, the
  wound of the spear with blood streaming forth, the cross with an
  inscription on both sides--JC. XC.--and a sloping peg as support
  for the feet, and under the cross the skull of Adam. The Western
  crucifix figures, on the other hand, though likewise governed
  by a special type, show greater freedom in artistic development.
  Wall or fresco painting was most extensively carried on in
  the Catacombs during the 4th-6th centuries. Mosaic painting,
  _Musivum_, λιθοστράτια, with its imperishable beauty of colouring,
  was used to decorate the long flat walls of the basilicas,
  the vaulted ceilings of the cupolas and the curving sides of
  the apse (glass-mosaic on a gold ground). Liturgical books were
  adorned with miniature figures. Sublimity came more and more
  to characterize ecclesiastical art; it became more majestic,
  dignified and dispassionate, but also stiffer and less natural.
  Statues seemed to the ancient church heathenish, sensuous and
  realistic. The Greek church at last prohibited them entirely
  and would not suffer even a single crucifix, but only simple
  crosses with a sloping transverse beam at the foot. The West
  had more liberal views, yet even there Christian statues were
  only quite isolated phenomena. There was less scruple in regard
  to bas-reliefs and alto-reliefs (ἀναγλυφαί) especially on
  sarcophagi and ecclesiastical furniture.




                § 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.[182]

  When whole crowds of worldly-minded men, who only sought worldly
advantages from professing Christ, were drawn into the church after
the State had become Christian, the Christian life lost much of the
earnestness, power and purity, by which it had conquered the old
world of heathenism. More and more the church became assimilated
and conformed to the world, church discipline grew more lax, and moral
decay made rapid progress. Passionate contentions, quarrels and schisms
among bishops and clergy filled also public life with party strife,
animosity and bitterness. The immorality of the court poisoned by its
example the capital and the provinces. Savagery and licentiousness
grew rampant amid the devastating raids of the barbarians. Hypocrisy
and bigotry speedily took the place of piety among those who strove
after something higher, while the masses consoled themselves with
the reflection that every man could not be a monk. But in spite of
all Christianity still continued to act as a leaven. In public and
civil life, in the administration of justice and the habits of the
people, the Christian spirit, theoretically at least, and often also
practically, was still everywhere present. The requirements of humanity
and the rights of man were recognised; slavery was more and more
restricted; gladiatorial shows and immoral exhibitions were abolished;
the limits of proud exclusive nationality were broken through; polygamy
was never tolerated, and the sanctity of marriage was insisted upon,
the female sex obtained its long unacknowledged rights; benevolent
institutions (§ 60, 4) flourished; and the inveterate vices of ancient
paganism could at least be no longer regarded as the sound, legitimate
and natural conditions and expressions of civil and social life. Even
the pagan, who, adopting the profession of Christianity, remained
pagan at heart, was obliged at least to submit himself to the forms
and requirements of the church, to its discipline and morals. The shady
side of this period is glaring enough, but a bright side and noble
personages of deep piety, moral earnestness, resolute denial of self
and the world, are certainly not wanting.

  § 61.1. =Church Discipline.=--The Penitential Discipline of
  the 3rd century (§ 39, 2) dealt only with public offences which
  had become common scandal. But even those who were burdened in
  conscience with heavy but hidden sins and thereby felt themselves
  excluded from church fellowship, were advised to seek deliverance
  from this secret excommunication by public confession of sin
  before the church in the form of _exomologesis_ and to submit to
  whatever humiliation the church should lay upon them. In presence
  of this hard and unreasonable demand the need must have soon
  become apparent of a secret and private tribunal in place of
  this public one, which when once introduced would soon drive
  the earlier out of the field. The first step in this direction
  was taken in the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th century
  in the Eastern church by the appointment of a special penitential
  presbytery (πρεσβ. ἐπὶ τῆς μετανοίας), who under an oath of
  secresy heard the confession of such sinners and laid upon them
  the proper penances. But when in A.D. 391, a female penitent, a
  married lady of good family in Constantinople, having committed
  adultery in the church with a deacon during her time of penance,
  confessed this sin also to a priestly confessor and so brought
  about the excommunication of the guilty deacon, the Patriarch
  Nectarius was obliged on account of the popular feeling excited
  to again abolish the whole institution and to leave to the
  consciences of such sinners themselves the question of partaking
  in the sacraments. But it was evident that this could not
  exclude pastoral advice and guidance by the clergy. In the
  West, notwithstanding the confident assertions of Socrates,
  we never meet with a penitential priest expressly appointed
  to such duties. Jerome on Matt. xvi. 19 calls it pharisaic
  pride in a bishop or presbyter to arrogate the judicial function
  of forgiving sins, “_cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed
  reorum vita quæratur_.” Augustine distinguishes three kinds of
  penance corresponding to the three classes in the congregation.

    1. The penance of catechumens; all their previous sins are
       atoned for by baptism.

    2. The penance of believers whose venial sins (_peccata
       venialia_) occasioned by the universal sinfulness of human
       nature obtain forgiveness in daily prayer.

    3. The penance of those who on account of serious actual
       breaches of the decalogue (_peccata gravia s. mortalia_)
       are punished with ecclesiastical excommunication.

  In estimating the church discipline to be exacted of this last
  class of offenders he lays down the principle that the degree
  of its publicity is to be measured in accordance with the degree
  of publicity of the offence committed, and according to the
  magnitude of the scandal which it has occasioned. And when
  some Italian bishops demanded “_in pœnitentia, quæ a fidelibus
  postulatur_” the reading before the congregation of a written
  confession of their sin, Leo the Great forbade this extreme
  practice, as unevangelical as it was unreasonable, declaring
  that it was quite enough to confess the sin first to God and
  then in secret confession to the priest. But when Leo added the
  assertion: _divina bonitate ordinatum esse, ut indulgentia Dei
  nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri; et salvatorem
  ipsum, qui hane præpositis ecclesiæ tradidit potestatem, ut
  et confidentibus actionem pœnitentiæ durent, et eosdem salubri
  satisfactione purgatos ad communionem sacramentorum per januam
  reconciliationis admitterent, huic utique operi incessabiliter
  intervenire_,--we have here the first foundation laid of the
  present Roman Catholic doctrine of penance. But this _confessio
  secreta_ is still something very different from the later
  so-called Auricular Confession. Leo’s ordinance treats only of
  the confession of grave offences, which, if openly committed or
  proclaimed, would have called forth punishment from the judicial
  tribunal; _quibus_, says Leo, _possint legum constitutione
  percelli_. But still more important is the distinction that even
  Leo does not confer upon the priest absolute power of forgiving
  sin as God’s vicegerent, but only allows him to officiate as
  “_peccator pro delictis pœnitentium_.” Besides Leo’s view of
  the unconditional necessity of confession in order to obtain
  divine forgiveness of heinous sins by no means gained universal
  acceptance in the church. The opinion that it was enough to
  confess sins to God alone, and that confession to a priest,
  while helpful and wholesome, was not absolutely necessary, was
  universally prevalent in the East, where Chrysostom especially
  maintained it, and even in the West down to the time of Gratian,
  A.D. 1150, and Petrus [Peter] Lombardus [Lombard], † A.D. 1164,
  had numerous and important representatives among the teachers
  of the church (§ 104, 4). An important step onwards on the path
  opened up by Leo was taken soon after him in the West when not
  merely actual sins but even sinful dispositions and desires,
  ambition, anger, pride, lust, etc., of which Joh. Cassianus
  enumerates eight as _vitia principalia_, as well as the sinful
  thoughts springing from them, were included in the province
  of secret confession. A system of confession as a regular
  and necessary preparation for observing the sacrament did
  not as yet exist.--The so-called Penitential books from the
  6th century afforded a guide to determine the penances to
  be imposed upon the penitents in the form of fasts, prayers,
  almsgiving, etc., according to the degree of their guilt. The
  first Penitential book for the Greek church is ascribed to
  the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joh. the Faster or Jejunator,
  † A.D. 595, and is entitled: Ἀκολουθία καὶ τάξις ἐπὶ τῶν
  ἐξομολογουμένων.[183]--Continuation § 89, 6.

  § 61.2. =Christian Marriage.=--The ecclesiastical consecration
  of the marriage tie (§ 39, 1) performed after, as well as before,
  civil marriage by mutual consent before two secular witnesses,
  was made more solemn by being separated from the ordinary
  worship and celebrated at a special week-day service (_missa
  pro sponsis_), and a rich ritual grew up which gradually
  developed itself into an independent liturgy. Into this many
  bridal customs hitherto despised as heathenish were introduced,
  the wedding ring, veiling the bride, the crowning both betrothed
  parties with wreaths, bridal sashes, bridal torches, bridesmaids
  or παράνυμφοι. The granting of the wedding ceremony was regarded
  as an honour which would be refused in the case of marriages not
  approved by the church. But neither the refusal nor the neglect
  of the ceremony on the part of those newly married interfered
  with the validity of the marriage. Charlemagne was the first
  in the West and Leo VI. (§ 70, 2) was the first in the East,
  to make the church ceremony obligatory. Marriage between free
  and bond, which was regarded by the state as concubinage, was
  regarded by the church as perfectly valid. Blood relationship by
  consanguinity and affinity was regarded as hindrance to marriage;
  artificial relationship by adoption and spiritual relationship
  by baptismal and confirmational sponsorship (§ 58, 1) were also
  hindrances. Marriage between brothers’ or sisters’ children was
  pronounced unbecoming by Augustine. Gregory the Great forbade
  it on physiological grounds, and permitted marriage only in the
  third or fourth degree of relationship. With gradually increasing
  strictness the prohibition was extended even to the seventh
  degree, but finally was fixed at the fourth by Innocent III.
  in A.D. 1215. In direct opposition to the Roman law of hereditary
  claims which established the degree of relationship according
  to the number of actual descendants, so that father and son were
  counted as related in the first degree to one another, brothers
  and sisters as in the second degree, uncle and niece or nephew
  as in the third, brothers’ or sisters’ children as in the fourth
  degree, the canon law on hindrances to marriage begins this
  reckoning after the withdrawal of the common parents, so that
  brother and sister are related in the first degree, uncle and
  niece in the second, etc. Several Councils of the 4th century
  wished to make the contracting of a second marriage occasion
  of church discipline; subsequently this demand was abandoned.
  Many canonists, however, contest even yet the legitimacy of a
  third marriage, and a fourth was almost universally admitted to
  be sinful and unallowable (§ 67, 2). The contracting of mixed
  marriages, with heathens, Jews or heretics, demanded penance,
  and was strictly forbidden by the second Trullan Council in
  A.D. 692. Only adultery was usually admitted as affording ground
  for divorce; and also for the most part, unnatural vice, murder
  and apostasy. The Council at Mileve in Africa in A.D. 416 for
  the first time forbade divorced persons marrying again, even
  the innocent party, and Pope Innocent I. † A.D. 417, made this
  prohibition applicable universally.--Continuation § 89, 4.

  § 61.3. =Sickness, Death and Burial.=--The anointing the sick
  with oil (Mk. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14) as means of charismatic bodily
  healing is met with down to the 5th century. Innocent I. put
  it in a decretal of A.D. 416, for the first time as a sacrament
  for the dispensation of spiritual blessing to the sick. But many
  centuries passed before the anointing of the sick was generally
  observed as the sacrament of Extreme Unction (§ 70, 2; 104, 5).
  On the other hand, the Areopagite (§ 47, 11) reckoned the
  anointing of the dead a sacrament. The closing of the eyes
  implied that death was a sleep with the hope of an awakening
  in the resurrection. The fraternal kiss sealed the communion
  of Christians even beyond the grave. The putting garlands on
  the corpse as expressive of victory still met with opposition.
  Several Synods found it necessary to forbid the absurdity of
  squeezing the consecrated elements into the lips of the dead
  or laying them in the coffin. Passionate lamentation, rending
  of garments, wearing sackcloth and ashes, hired mourners, cypress
  branches, etc., were regarded as despairing, heathenish customs.
  So too festivals of the dead by night were condemned, while on
  the contrary funeral processions by day, with torches, lamps,
  palm and olive branches, were in high repute. Julian and the
  Vandals prohibited them. In the 4th century the celebration of
  the Agape and Supper at the grave was still frequent. In their
  place afterwards we find mourning feasts, but these, on account
  of their being abused, were disallowed by the church.

  § 61.4. =Purgatory and Masses for Souls.=--The connection of the
  custom already referred to by Tertullian of not only praying in
  family worship for members of the family that had fallen asleep,
  but also by oblations of sacramental elements on the memorial
  days of the dead (_Oblationes pro defunctis_) of giving to the
  intercessions at the Supper in public worship a special direction
  to them, with the doctrine of =Purgatory= (_Ignis purgatorius_)
  which had developed itself in the West since the 5th century,
  gave rise to the institution of masses for souls (§ 58, 3). The
  idea of a place of punishment between death and the resurrection,
  in which the venial sins (_peccata venialia_) of believers must
  be atoned for, was quite unknown to the whole ancient church down
  to the age of Augustine and to the Greek church till even after
  his day (§ 67, 6). Mention is made indeed even by Origen of a
  future πῦρ καθάρσιον or καθαρτικόν; but he means by it a mere
  spiritual burning, from which even a Paul and a Peter were not
  exempted. In the West it was first Augustine who deduced from
  Matt. xii. 32, that even in the hereafter forgiveness of sins
  is possible, holding in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 13-15 that
  it is not incredible, but yet always questionable, that many
  believers who took over with them into the hereafter a sinful
  connection with their earthly past life, might there he purified
  by an “_ignis purgatorius_” of longer or shorter duration
  as the continuation and completion of the earthly “_ignis
  tribulationis_,” fiery trial, from the earthly dross still
  adhering to them, and so might be saved. With greater confidence
  _Cæsarius of Arles_ teaches that believers who during their
  earthly life had neglected to atone for their minor offences
  by almsgiving and other good works, must be purified by a
  lingering fire in the next world, in order to win admission
  into eternal blessedness. Finally, Gregory the Great raised
  this idea into an established dogma of the Western church, while
  he, at the same time, taught that by the intercession of the
  living for the dead, and especially by the sacrifices of the
  mass offered for them their purgatorial pains would be moderated
  and curtailed. He too referred to Matt. xii. and 1 Cor. iii.
  The reference to 2 Maccabees xii. 41-46 belongs to a later
  period.--Continuation, § 106, 2, 3.


                       § 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS.

  During the 4th century a spirit of opposition to the dominant
ecclesiastical system was awakened, but as it manifested itself in
isolated forms, it had no abiding result and was soon stamped out.
This spirit showed itself in various attempts which passed beyond what
evangelical principles could vindicate. It directed its attacks partly
against the secularization of the church, branching out often into
wild fanaticism and rigorism, and partly against superstition and
externalism. Disgusted with the interminable theological controversies
and heresy huntings of that age, many came to regard the distinction
between orthodoxy and heresy as a matter of indifference so far
as religion is concerned, and to look for the core and essence of
Christianity not so much in doctrine as in morals.

  § 62.1. =Audians and Apostolics.=--As fanatical opponents of the
  secularizing of the church, besides the Montanists (§ 40, 1) and
  the Novatians (§ 41, 3) still surviving as isolated communities
  down to the 5th century, we meet during the 4th century with the
  Donatists (§ 63, 1), the Audians and the Apostolics. The sect
  of the =Audians= was founded about A.D. 340 by a layman, a monk,
  Audius or Udo from Mesopotamia. Having been challenged for his
  crude anthropomorphic views, in support of which he referred to
  Gen. i. 26 and other passages, he allowed himself to be chosen
  and ordained bishop over his adherents. Placed thus in a directly
  hostile relation to the Catholic church, they accused the church
  of most arrant worldliness and degeneracy, called for a return
  to apostolic poverty and avoided all communion with its members.
  They also rejected the Nicene canon on the observance of Easter
  and adopted the quartodeciman practice (§ 56, 3). On the motion
  of several Catholic bishops the emperor banished the founder
  of the sect to Scythia, where he laboured earnestly for the
  conversion of the Goths, founded also some bishoprics and
  monasteries with strict rules, and died in A.D. 372. The
  persecution of the Christians under Athanaric, in A.D. 370
  (§ 76, 1), pressed sorely upon the Audians. Still remnants of
  them continued to exist down to the end of the 5th century.--The
  so-called =Apostolics= of Asia Minor in the 4th century went
  even further than the Audians. Of their origin nothing certain
  is known. They declared that the holding of private property and
  marriage are sinful, and unconditionally refused readmission to
  all excommunicated persons.

  § 62.2. =Protests against Superstition and External
  Observances.=--About the end of the 4th century lively protests
  were made against the superstitions and shallow externalism of
  the church. They were directed first of all to the worship of
  Mary, especially the now wide-spread belief in her _perpetua
  virginitas_ as mother of Jesus (§ 57, 2). The first protesters
  against this doctrine that we meet with are the so-called
  =Antidicomarianites= in Arabia, whom Epiphanius sought to turn
  from their heresy by a doctrinal epistle incorporated in his
  history of heresies. In the West too there sprang up several
  opponents of this dogma of the church. One of the most prominent
  of these was a layman =Helvidius= in Rome in A.D. 380, a scholar
  of Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. Then about A.D. 388 the
  Roman monk =Jovinian= opposed on substantial doctrinal grounds
  the prevailing notions about the merit of works and external
  observances, especially monasticism, asceticism, celibacy
  and fasting. And finally, =Bonosus=, bishop of Sardica, about
  A.D. 390, wrought in the same direction, though at a later period
  he seems to have given his adhesion to the Ebionite error that
  Jesus had been an ordinary man whom God adopted as His Son on
  account of His merit (_Filius Dei adoptivus_). At least his
  younger contemporary Marius Mercator describes him as an advocate
  of these views alongside of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. We
  also find many allusions during the 7th century to a sect of
  Bonosians teaching similar doctrines in Spain and Gaul, who are
  frequently associated with the Photinians. Even before Jovinian,
  =Aërius=, a presbyter of Sebaste in Armenia, about A.D. 360,
  entered his protest against the doctrine of the merit of external
  observances. He objected to prayer and oblations for the dead,
  would have no compulsory fasting, and no distinction of rank
  between bishops and presbyters. In this way he was brought into
  collision with his bishop Eustathius (§ 44, 3). Persecuted on all
  sides, his adherents betook themselves to the caves and forests.
  The two monks of Milan, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, about A.D. 396,
  were perhaps scholars of Jovinian, were at least of the same
  mind with him. Finally, =Vigilantius=, presbyter at Barcelona
  about A.D. 400, with passionate violence opposed the veneration
  of relics, the invocation of saints, the prevailing love of
  miracles, the vigil services, the celibacy of the clergy and the
  merit of outward observances.--The counterblast of the church was
  hot and violent. Epiphanius wrote against the Audians and Aërians;
  Ambrose against Bonosus and the followers of Jovinian; Jerome
  with unparalleled bitterness and passion against Helvidius,
  Jovinian and Vigilantius; Augustine with greater moderation
  discussed the views of Jovinian which in their starting point
  were related to his own soteriological views.[184]

  § 62.3. =Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine.=--Even
  in the times of Athanasius a certain Rhetorius made his appearance
  with the assertion that all heretics had a right to their opinion,
  and Philastrius [Philaster] speaks of a sect of =Rhetorians= in
  Egypt who, perhaps with a reference to Phil. i. 18, set aside
  altogether the idea of heresy and placed the essence of orthodoxy
  in fidelity to convictions. The =Gnosimachians= were related to
  them in the depreciation of dogma, but went beyond them by wholly
  withdrawing themselves from the domain of dogmatics and occupying
  themselves exclusively with morals. They are put in the list of
  heretics by Joh. Damascenus. This sect had sprung up during the
  monophysite and monothelite controversies, and maintained that
  since God requires of a Christian nothing more than a righteous
  life (πράξεις καλάς), all striving after theoretical knowledge
  is useless and fruitless.


                             § 63. SCHISMS.

  The Novatian and the Alexandrian Meletian Schisms (§ 41, 3, 4)
continued to rage down into our period. Then in consequence of the
Arian controversy there arose among the orthodox three new schisms
(§ 50, 8). Among them was a Roman schism, followed later by several
others that grew out of double elections (§ 46, 4, 6, 8, 11). The
most threatening of all the schisms of this period was the Donatist in
North Africa. On the Johannite schism in Constantinople, see § 51, 3.
Owing to various diversities in the development of doctrine (§ 50, 7),
constitution (§ 46), worship (§ 56 ff.), and discipline (§ 61, 1),
material was accumulating for the grand explosion that was to burst
up the connection of East and West (§ 67). The imperial union attempts
during the Monophysite controversy caused a thirty-five years’ schism
between the two halves of the Christian world (§ 52, 5), and want of
character in the Roman bishop Vigilius split off the West for half a
century (§ 52, 6). The split between the East and West over the union
with the Monothelite party (§ 52, 8) was soon indeed overcome. But
soon thereafter the second Trullan Council at Constantinople, A.D. 692,
which, as the continuation of the 5th and 6th œcumenical Councils
(σύνοδος πενθέκτη, _Concilium quinisextum_), occupied itself exclusively
with questions of constitution, worship, and discipline, which had
not there been discussed, gave occasion to the later incurable and
disastrous schism.

  § 63.1. =The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415.=--In North Africa,
  where echoes of the Montanist enthusiasm were still heard, many
  voluntarily and needlessly gave themselves up to martyrdom during
  the Diocletian persecution. The sensible bishop of Carthage
  Mensurius and his archdeacon Cæcilian [Cæcilius] opposed this
  fanaticism. Both had given up heretical books instead of the
  sacred books demanded of them. This was sufficient to make the
  opposite party denounce them as _traditores_. Mensurius died
  in A.D. 311, and his followers chose Cæcilian [Cæcilius] as
  his successor, and had him hastily ordained by bishop Felix
  of Aptunga, being sorely pressed by the machinations of the
  other party. The opposition, with a bigoted rich widow Lucilla
  at its head, denounced Felix as a traditor, and so treated his
  ordination as invalid. It put up a rival bishop in the person of
  the reader Majorinus, who soon got, in A.D. 313, a more powerful
  successor in Donatus, called by his own followers the Great. The
  schism spread from Carthage over all North Africa. The peasants,
  sorely oppressed by exorbitant taxes and heavy villeinage,
  took the side of the Donatists (_Pars Donati_). Constantine
  the Great at the very first declared himself against them. When
  they complained of this, the emperor convened for the purpose of
  special investigation a clerical commission at Rome in A.D. 313,
  under the presidency of the Roman bishop Melchiades, and then a
  great Western Synod at Arles in A.D. 314. Both decided against
  the Donatists. They appealed to the immediate decision of the
  emperor, who also heard the two parties at Milan, but decided
  in accordance with previous judgments in A.D. 316. Now followed
  severe measures, taking churches from them and banishing
  their bishops which powerfully excited and increased their
  fanaticism. Constantine resorted therefore to milder and
  more tolerant procedure, but in their fanatical zeal they
  repudiated all compromises. Under Constans the matter became
  still more formidable. Ascetics mad with enthusiasm, drawn from
  the very dregs of the people, who called themselves _Milites
  Christi_, _Agonistici_, swarmed as beggars through the country,
  _Circumcelliones_, roused the oppressed peasants to revolt,
  preached freedom and fraternity, forced masters to do the work
  of slaves, robbed, murdered, and burned. Political revolution
  was carried on under the cover of a religious movement. An
  imperial army put down the revolt, and an attempt was made
  in A.D. 348 to pacify the needy Donatists by imperial gold.
  But Donatus flung back the money with indignation, and the
  rebellion was renewed. A severe sentence was now passed upon
  the heads of the party, and all Donatist churches were closed
  or taken from them. Julian restored the churches and recalled
  the exiled bishops. He allowed the Donatists with impunity to
  take violent revenge upon the Catholics. Julian’s successor
  however again issued strict laws against the sectaries, and
  schisms arose among themselves. Toward the end of the 4th
  century bishop Optatus of Mileve opposed them in his treatise
  _De Schismate Donatistarum Ll. VII._ In A.D. 400 Augustine,
  bishop of Hippo Regius, began his unwearied attacks upon this
  sect. The mildest terms were offered to induce the Donatists to
  return to the church. Many of the more moderate took advantage
  of the opportunity; but this only made the others all the
  more bitter. They refused repeated invitations to a discussion,
  fearing Augustine’s masterly dialectic. Augustine, who at first
  maintained that force should not be used in matters of faith, was
  moved by the persistent stiffneckedness and senseless fanaticism
  of his opponents to change his opinion, and to confess that
  in order to restore such heretics to the church, to salvation,
  recourse must be had to violent compulsion (_coge intrare_,
  Lk. xiv. 23). A synod at Carthage in A.D. 405 called upon the
  Emperor Honorius to take proceedings against this stiffnecked
  sect. He did so by imposing fines, banishing their clergy,
  and taking their churches. Augustine renewed the challenge to
  a public disputation. The Donatists were at last compelled by
  the emperor to enter the lists. Thus came about the three days’
  _Collatio cum Donatistis_ of A.D. 411 at Carthage. There appeared
  279 Donatist and 286 Catholic bishops. Petilian and Primian were
  the chief speakers on the side of the Donatists, Augustine and
  Aurelian of Carthage on the other. The imperial commissioner
  assigned the victory to the Catholics. In vain the Donatists
  appealed. In A.D. 414 the Emperor declared that they had
  forfeited all civil rights, and in A.D. 415 he threatened
  all who attended their meetings with death. The Vandals, who
  conquered Africa in A.D. 429, persecuted Catholics and Donatists
  alike, and a common need furthered their reconciliation and
  secured a good mutual understanding.--The Donatists started from
  the principle that no one who is excommunicated or deserves to
  be excommunicated is fit for the performance of any sacramental
  action. With the Novatians they demanded the absolute purity
  of the church, but admitted that repentance was a means for
  regaining church fellowship. They maintained that they were
  the pure and the Catholics were schismatics, who had nothing
  in common with Christ, whose administration of the sacraments
  was therefore invalid and useless, so that they even rebaptized
  those who had Catholic baptism. The partiality of the state for
  their opponents and confused blending of the ideas of the visible
  and invisible church led them to adopt the view that church
  and state, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, had
  nothing in common with one another, and that the state should not
  interfere in religious matters.

  § 63.2. =The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692.=--This Council
  claimed to be regarded as œcumenical and was recognised as such
  even by Pope Sergius I. The Greeks had not yet got over their
  vexation at the triumph which Rome had won at the last œcumenical
  Council (§ 52, 8). It thus happened that among the multitude of
  harmless decrees the following six were smuggled in which were
  in flat contradiction to the Roman practice.

    1. In enumerating the sources of the canon law alone valid
       almost all the Latin Councils and Papal Decretals were
       omitted, and the whole 85 _Canones Apostt._ (§ 43, 4)
       included, whereas Rome had pronounced only the first
       50 valid.

    2. The Roman custom of enforcing celibacy on presbyters and
       bishops is condemned as unjustifiable and inhuman (§ 45, 2).

    3. Fasting on the Saturdays of the Quadragesima is forbidden
       (§ 56, 4).

    4. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which makes the
       patriarch of Constantinople equal to the bishop of Rome is
       repeated and anew enforced (§ 46, 1, 7).

    5. The Levitical prohibition against blood and things strangled
       is sanctioned as still binding upon Christians, although it
       had never been enforced by the Roman church.

    6. Images of Christ in the shape of a lamb, which were very
       common in the West, were forbidden. The papal legates
       subscribed the decrees of the Council; but the Pope forbade
       their publication in all the churches of the West. Compare
       further § 46, 11.




            VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[185]


                § 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST.

  The real missionarizing church of this period was the Western
(§ 75 ff.). It was pre-eminently fitted for this by its practical
tendency and called to it by its intimate connection with the hordes
of the migrating peoples. Examples of organized missionary activity in
the East are rare. Yet other more occasional ways were opened for the
spread of Christianity outside of the empire, by Christian fugitives
and prisoners of war, political embassies and trade associations.
Anchorets, monks and stylites, too, who settled on the borders of
the empire or in deserts outside, by their extraordinary appearance
made a powerful impression on the surrounding savage tribes. These
streamed in in crowds, and those strange saints preached Christ to
them by word and work.

  § 64.1. =The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.=[186]--About A.D. 316
  a certain Meropius of Tyre on a voyage of discovery to the
  countries south of Egypt was murdered with his whole ship’s
  company. Only his two nephews Frumentius and Aedesius were spared.
  They won the favour of the Abyssinian king and became the tutors
  of the heir apparent, Aizanas. Frumentius was subsequently, in
  A.D. 438, ordained by Athanasius bishop of the country. Aizanas
  was baptised, the church spread rapidly from Abyssinia to
  Ethiopia and Numidia. A translation of the bible into the Geez
  dialect, the language of the country, is attributed to Frumentius.
  Closely connected with the Egyptian mother church, it fell with
  it into Monophysitism (§ 52, 7). In worship and discipline,
  besides much that is primitive, it has borrowed many things
  from Judaism, and retained many of the old habits of the country,
  _e.g._ observing the Sabbath alongside of the Sunday, forbidding
  certain meats, circumcision, covenanting. Their canon comprised
  81 books: besides the biblical, there are 16 patristic writings
  of the Pre-Chalcedonian age.

  § 64.2. =The Persian Church.=--The church had taken root in
  Persia as early as the 3rd century. With the 4th century there
  came a sore time of bloody persecution, which was constantly fed
  partly by the fanatical Magians, partly by the almost incessant
  wars with the Christian Roman empire, which aroused suspicion of
  foreign sympathies hostile to the country. The first great and
  extensive persecution of the Christians broke out in A.D. 343
  under Shapur or Sapores [Sapor] II. It lasted 35 years and during
  this dreadful time 16,000 of the clergy, monks and nuns were
  put to death, but the number of martyrs from the laity was far
  beyond reckoning. Only shortly before his death Shapur [Sapor]
  stopped the persecution and proclaimed universal religious
  toleration. During 40 years’ rest the Persian church attained
  to new vigour; but the fanaticism of Bishop Abdas of Susa who
  caused a fire-temple to be torn down in A.D. 418, occasioned
  a new persecution, which reached its height in A.D. 420 under
  Bahram or Baranes V. and was carried on for 30 years with the
  most fiendish ingenuity of cruel tortures. The generosity of a
  Christian bishop, Acacius of Amida in Mesopotamia, who by the
  sale of the church property redeemed a multitude of Persian
  prisoners of war and sent them to their homes, at last moved
  the king to stop the persecution. The Nestorians driven from the
  Roman empire found among the Persians protection and toleration,
  but were the occasion under king Firuz or Peroz of a new
  persecution of the Catholics, A.D. 465. In A.D. 498 the whole
  Persian church declared in favour of Nestorianism (§ 52, 3),
  and enjoyed forthwith undisturbed toleration, developed to an
  unexpected extent, retained its bloom for centuries, gave itself
  zealously to scientific studies in the seminaries at Nisibis,
  and undertook successfully mission work among the Asiatic tribes.
  The war with the Byzantines continued without interruption.
  Chosroes II. advanced victoriously as far as Chalcedon in
  A.D. 616 and persecuted with renewed cruelty the Catholic
  Christians of the conquered provinces. Finally the emperor
  Heraclius plucked up courage. By the utter rout of A.D. 628
  the power of the Persians was broken (§ 57, 5), and in A.D. 651
  the Khalifs overthrew the dynasty of the Sassanidæ.

  § 64.3. =The Armenian Church.=--There were flourishing Christian
  churches in Armenia so early as Tertullian’s time. The Arsacian
  ruler Tiridates III., from A.D. 286, was a violent persecutor
  of the Christians. During his reign, however, Gregory the
  Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia, carried on his successful
  labours. He was the son of a Parthian prince, who, snatched
  when a child of two years’ old by his nurse from the midst
  of a massacre of his whole family, received in Cappadocia a
  Christian training. In A.D. 302 he succeeded in winning over
  to Christianity the king and the whole country. He left behind
  him the church which he thus founded in a most prosperous
  condition. His grandson Husig, his great grandson Nerses I.
  and his son Isaac the Great held possession of the patriarchal
  dignity and flourished even in the hard times, when Byzantines,
  Arsacides, and Sassanidæ fought for possession of the country.
  Mesrop, with the help of Isaac, whose successor he became in
  A.D. 440 (dying in A.D. 441), gave to his church a translation
  of the bible into their own tongue, for which he had to invent
  a national alphabet. Under his successor, the patriarch Joseph,
  the famous religious war with the Persian Sassanidæ broke
  out, who wished to lead back the Armenians to the doctrine
  of Zoroaster. In the fierce battle at the river Dechmud in
  A.D. 451 the holy league was defeated. But Armenia still
  maintained amid sore persecution its Christian confession.
  In A.D. 651 the overthrow of the Sassanidæ brought it under
  the rule of the Khalifs.--The Armenian church had vigorously
  and earnestly warded off Nestorianism, but willingly opened
  its arms to Monophysitism introduced from Byzantine Armenia.
  At a synod at Feyin, in A.D. 527, it condemned the Chalcedonian
  dogma.--Gregory the Illuminator had excited among the Armenians
  an exceedingly lively interest in culture and science, and when
  Mesrop gave them an independent system of writing, the golden age
  of Armenian literature dawned (the 5th century). Not only were
  many works of classical and patristic Greek and Syrian literature
  made the property of the Armenians through translations, but
  numerous writers built up a literature of their own. The history
  of the conversion of Armenia was written in the 4th century
  by Agathangelos, private secretary of the king. Whether this
  was composed in Greek or in Armenian is doubtful; both texts
  are still extant, evidently much interpolated with fabulous
  matter and also in many points conflicting with one another.
  In the 5th century Eznik in his “Overthrow of Heretics” addressed
  a vigorous polemic against pagans, Persians, Marcionites and
  Manichæans. Moses of Chorene, also a scholar of Mesrop, composed
  from the archives a history of Armenia, and Elisaeus described
  the Armeno-Persian religious war, in which, as secretary of the
  Armenian commander in chief, he had taken part. On the service
  done by the Mechitarists to the old Armenian literature, see
  § 164, 2.[187]

  § 64.4. =The Iberians=, in what is now called Georgia and Grusia,
  received Christianity about A.D. 326 through an Armenian female
  slave Nunia, whose prayer had healed many sick. The church then
  extended from Iberia to the =Lazians= in what is now Colchias
  and among the neighbouring =Abasgians=. In =India= Theophilus
  of Diu (an island of the Arabian Gulf?) found in the middle
  of the 4th century several isolated Christian communities. He
  was sent by his fellow-citizens as hostage to Constantinople and
  there was educated for the Arian priesthood. He then returned
  home and carried on a successful mission among the Indians.
  The relations of the Indian to the Persian church led to the
  former becoming affected with Nestorianism (§ 52, 3). Cosmas
  Indicopleustes (§ 48, 2) found in the 6th century three Christian
  churches still surviving in India. Theophilus also wrought in
  =Arabia=. He succeeded in converting the king of the Himyarite
  kingdom at Yemen. In the 6th century, however, a Jew Dhu-Nowas
  obtained for himself the sovereignty of Yemen and persecuted the
  Christians with unheard of barbarity. At last Eleesban king of
  Abyssinia interfered; the crowned Jew was slain, and from that
  time Yemen had Christian kings till the Persian Chosroes II. made
  it a Persian province in A.D. 616. Anchorets, monks and stylites
  wrought successfully among the Arab nomadic hordes.


           § 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.[188]

  Abu Al’ Kasem Mohammed from Mecca made his appearance as a prophet in
A.D. 611, and founded a mixed religion of arid Monotheism and sensual
Endæmonism drawn from Judaism, Christianity and Arabian paganism.
His work first gained importance when driven from Mecca he fled to
Medina (Hejira, 15th July, A.D. 622). In A.D. 630 he conquered Mecca,
consecrated the old Heathen Kaaba as the chief temple of the new
religion, Islam (hence Moslems), and composed the Coran, consisting
of 114 suras, which had been collected by his father-in-law, Abu Bekr.
At his death all Arabia had accepted his faith and his rule. As he made
it the most sacred duty of his adherents to spread the new religion by
the sword and had inspired them with a wild fanaticism, his successors
snatched one province after another from the Roman empire and the
Christian church. Within a few years, A.D. 633-651, they conquered
all Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Persia, then, in A.D. 707, North Africa,
and, in A.D. 711, Spain. Farther, however, they could not go for the
present. Twice they unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople, A.D. 669-676,
and A.D. 717-718, and, in A.D. 732, Charles Martel at Tours completely
crushed all their hopes of extending further into the West. But the
whole Asiatic church was already reduced by their oppressions to the
most miserable condition, and three patriarchates, those of Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem, were forced to submit to their caprices. Amid
manifold oppressions the Christians in those conquered lands were
tolerated on the payment of a tax, but fear and an eye to worldly
advantages led whole crowds of nominal Christians to profess Islam.

  § 65.1. =The Fundamental Principle of Islam= is an arid
  Monotheism. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are regarded as God-sent
  prophets. The miraculous birth of Jesus, by a virgin, is also
  accepted, and Mary is identified with Miriam the sister of Moses.
  The ascension of Christ is also received. Mohammed, the last and
  highest of all the prophets, of whom Moses and Christ prophesied,
  has restored to its original purity his doctrine, which had
  been corrupted by Jews and Christians. At the end of the days
  Christ will come again to conquer Antichrist and give universal
  sovereignty to Islam. Most conspicuous among the corruptions
  of the doctrine of Jesus is the dogma of the Trinity, which
  is without more ado pronounced Tritheism, and conceived of as
  including the mother of Jesus as the third person. So too the
  incarnation of God is regarded as a falsification. The doctrine
  of divine providence is strongly emphasized, but is contorted
  into the grossest fatalism. The Mussulman is in need of no
  atonement. Faith in the one God and His prophet Mohammed secure
  for him the divine favour, and his good works win for him the
  most abundant fulness of eternal blessedness, which consists in
  absolutely unrestricted sensual enjoyments. The constitution is
  theocratic; the prophet and his successors the Khalifs are God’s
  vicegerents on earth. Worship is restricted to prayers, fastings
  and washings. The Sunna or tradition of oral utterances of the
  prophet is acknowledged as a second principal source for Islam,
  alongside of the Coran. The opposition of the Shiites to the
  Sunnites is rooted in the non-recognition of the first three
  Khalifs and the prophet’s utterances only witnessed to by them.
  Mysticism was first fostered among the Ssufis. The Wechabites,
  who first appear in the 12th century, are the Puritans of Islam.

  § 65.2. =The Providential Place of Islam.=--The service under
  Providence rendered by Mohammedanism which first attracts
  attention is the doom which it executed upon the debased church
  and state of the East. But it seems also to have had a positive
  task which must be sought mainly in its relation to heathenism.
  It regarded the abolition of idolatry as its principal task.
  Neither the prophet nor his successors gave any toleration to
  paganism. Islam converted a mass of savage races in Asia and
  Africa from the most senseless and immoral idolatries to the
  worship of the one God, and raised them to a certain stage of
  culture and morality to which they could never have risen of
  themselves. But also upon yet another side, though only in a
  passing way, it has served a providential purpose, in spurring
  on mediæval Christianity by its example of devotion to scientific
  pursuits. Syncretic, as its religious and intellectual life
  originally was, during its flourishing period from A.D. 750,
  under the brilliant dynasty of the Abassidean Khalifs at Bagdad
  in Asia, and from A.D. 756 (comp. § 81) under the no less
  brilliant dynasty of the Ommaiadean Khalifs at Cordova in Spain,
  driven out by the Abassidæ from Damascus, it readily appropriated
  the elements of culture which the classical literature of
  the ancient Greeks afforded it (§ 42, 4), and with youthful
  enthusiasm its scholars for centuries on this foundation kept
  alive and advanced scientific studies--philosophy, astronomy,
  mathematics, natural science, medicine, geography, history--and
  by their appropriation of those researches the Latin Middle Ages
  reached to the height of their scientific culture (§ 103, 1).
  But also the reawakening of classical studies in the Byzantine
  Middle Ages (§ 68, 1), which is of still more importance for the
  West (§ 120, 1), is preeminently due to the impetus given by the
  scientific enthusiasm of the Moslems of Bagdad, who shamed the
  Greeks into the study of their own literature. With the overthrow
  of those two dynasties, the culture period of the Moslems closed
  suddenly and for ever, but not until it had accomplished its task
  for the Christian world.[189]




                             THIRD SECTION.

                 HISTORY OF THE GRÆCO-BYZANTINE CHURCH
                       IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES
                            (A.D. 692-1453).


           I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination
                           with the Western.


     § 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).[190]

  The worship of images (§ 57, 4) had reached its climax in the East
in the beginning of the 8th century. Even the most zealous defenders
of images had to admit that there had been exaggerations and abuses.
Some, _e.g._, had taken images as their godfathers, scraped paint off
them to mix in the communion wine, laid the consecrated bread first
on the images so as to receive the body of the Lord from their hands,
etc. A powerful Byzantine ruler, who was opposed to image worship from
personal dislike as well as on political grounds, applied the whole
strength of his energetic will to the uprooting of this superstition.
Thus arose a struggle that lasted more than a hundred years between
the enemies of images (εἰκονοκλάσται) and the friends of images
(εἰκονολάτραι), in which there stood, on the one side, the emperor
and the army, on the other, the monks and the people. Twice it seemed
as if image worship had been completely and for ever stamped out;
but on both occasions a royal lady secured its restoration. In practice
indeed the Roman church remained behind the Greek, but in theory
they were agreed, and in the struggle it gave the whole weight of
its authority to the friends of images. On the part taken by the
Frankish church, see § 92, 1.

  § 66.1. =Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.=--Leo, who was
  one of the most powerful of the Byzantine emperors, after the
  attack of the Saracens on Constantinople, in A.D. 718, had
  been successfully repelled, felt himself obliged to take other
  measures against the aggressions of Islam. In the worship of
  images abhorred by Jews and Moslems he perceived the greatest
  obstacle to their conversion, and, being personally averse to
  image worship, he issued an edict, in A.D. 726, which first
  ordered the images to be placed higher in the churches that
  it might be impossible for the people to kiss them. But the
  peaceable overcoming of this deeply rooted form of devotion
  was frustrated by the unconquerable firmness of the ninety-year
  old patriarch Germanus in Constantinople, as well as by the
  opposition of the people and the monks. The greatest dogmatist
  of this age, Joh. Damascenus, who was secured from the rage
  of the emperor in Palestine under Saracen rule, issued three
  spirited tracts in defence of the images. A certain Cosmas
  took advantage of a popular rising in the Cyclades, had himself
  proclaimed emperor and went with a fleet against Constantinople.
  But Leo conquered and had him executed, and now in a second edict
  of A.D. 730 ordered all images to be removed from the churches.
  Now began a war against images by military force, which went
  to great excess in fanatical violence. Repeated popular tumults
  were quelled in blood. Only in Rome and North Italy did the
  powerful arm of the emperor make no impression. Pope Gregory II.,
  A.D. 715-731, treated him in his letters like a stupid,
  ill-mannered school-boy. In proportion as the bitterness
  against the emperor increased enthusiasm for the pope increased,
  and gave expression to itself in the most vehement revolts
  against the imperial Council. A great part of the exarchate
  (§ 46, 9) surrendered voluntarily to the Longobards and so
  much of it in the north as remained with the emperor proved
  more obedient to the pope than to the sovereign. Gregory III.,
  A.D. 731-741, at a Synod in Rome in A.D. 731 excommunicated
  all enemies of images. The emperor fitted out a powerful fleet
  to chastise him, but a storm broke it up. He now deprived the
  pope of all his revenues from Southern Italy, severed Illyria
  (§ 46, 5) in A.D. 732 from the papal chair and gave it to the
  patriarch of Constantinople, but in doing so he cut the last
  cord that bound the Roman chair to the interests of the Byzantine
  Court (§ 82, 1).

  § 66.2. =Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.=--To the son and successor
  of Leo the monks gave the unsavoury names of Copronymus and
  Caballinus in token of their hatred, the latter on account
  of his love of horses, the former because it was said that
  at his baptism he had defiled the water. He was like his father
  a powerful ruler and soldier, and in the battle against images
  yet more reckless and determined. He conquered his brother-in-law
  who had rebelled with the aid of the friends of the images, and
  caused him to be cruelly treated and blinded. As popular tumults
  still continued, he thought to get ecclesiastical sanction
  for his principles from an œcumenical Council. About 350 bishops
  assembled in Constantinople, A.D. 754. But, as the chair of
  Constantinople had just become vacant, while Rome, which had
  excommunicated the enemies of images, refused to answer the
  summons, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were under Saracen
  rule, there was not a single patriarch present at the Synod.
  The Council excommunicated all who made images of Christ, for
  it declared that the Supper was the only true image of Christ,
  and condemned every kind of veneration of images. These decrees
  were now relentlessly carried out with savage violence. Thousands
  of monks were scourged, imprisoned, banished, chased through
  the circus with nuns in their arms for the sport of the people,
  or forced into marriage, many had their eyes gouged out, or had
  their nose or ears cut off, and the monasteries were turned into
  barracks or stables. Even in private houses no image of a saint
  was any longer to be seen. From Rome Stephen II. protested
  against the decisions of the Council, and Stephen III. from
  a Lateran Synod of A.D. 769 thundered a fearful anathema against
  the enemies of images. But in the Byzantine empire monkery and
  image worship were well nigh extinguished.

  § 66.3. =Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.=--The son of
  Constantine was of the same mind with his father, but wanted
  his energy. His wife =Irene= was an eager friend of the images.
  When the emperor discovered this, he began to take active
  measures, but his suspiciously sudden death put a stop to
  operations. Irene now used the freedom which the minority
  of her son Constantine VI. afforded her for the introduction
  of image worship. She called a new Council at Constantinople
  in A.D. 786, which also Hadrian I. of Rome attended, while the
  other patriarchs, being under Saracen rule, took no part in it.
  But the imperial guard attacked the place where they were sitting,
  and broke up the Council. Irene now arranged for the =Seventh
  Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, A.D. 787=. The eighth and last
  session was held in the imperial palace at Constantinople, after
  the guards had been withdrawn from the city and disarmed. The
  Council annulled the decisions of A.D. 754, and sanctioned image
  worship for it allowed the bowing and prostration before the
  images (τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις) as a token of the reverence
  which was due to the original, and declared that this in no
  way interfered with that worship (λατρεία) which was due to
  God alone.[191]

  § 66.4. The next emperors were friendly to image worship, but
  the victory had departed from their standards. Then the army,
  which had always been hostile to images, proclaimed =Leo V.,
  the Armenian, A.D. 813-820=, emperor, an avowed opponent of
  images. He proceeded very cautiously, but the soldiers set aside
  his prudence and launched out into violent raids against images.
  At the head of the patrons of images was Theodorus Studita, abbot
  of the monastery of Studion (§ 44, 2), a man of unfeigned piety
  and unfaltering decision of character, the most acute apologist
  of image worship, who had even in exile been eagerly promoting
  the interests of his party. He died in A.D. 826. Leo lost his
  life at the hand of conspirators. His successor, =Michael II.,
  Balbus, A.D. 820-829=, allowed at least that images should be
  reverenced in private. His son =Theophilus, A.D. 829-842=, on
  the other hand, made it the business of his life to root out
  entirely every trace of image worship. But his wife =Theodora=,
  who after his death conducted the government as regent, had it
  formally reintroduced by a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 842.
  Since then all opposition to it has ceased in the Greek church,
  and the day of the Synodal decision, 19th February, was appointed
  a standing festival of orthodoxy.


          § 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND
                 ATTEMPTS AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.[192]

  The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 had given the first occasion
to the great schism which rent the Christian world into two halves
(§ 63, 2); Photius gave it a doctrinal basis in A.D. 867; and Michael
Cærularius in A.D. 1053 completed its development. The increasing
need of the Byzantine government drove it to make repeated attempts
at reconciliation, but these either were never concluded or the union,
if at all completed, proved a mere paper union. The Sisyphus labour of
union efforts ended only with the overthrow of the Byzantine empire in
A.D. 1453. The three stages referred to--the early misunderstandings,
the avowed doctrinal divergence, and the final decisive separation--as
well as the persistent rejection of attempts at reunion, were not
wholly owing to the importance of ceremonial differences. After as
well as before there had been free church communion between them.
It was not owing to the importance of the almost solitary point of
doctrinal difference between them, in reference to the _filioque_
(§ 50, 7), where if there had been good will a common understanding
might easily have been won. It was really the papal claims to the
primacy to which the Greeks absolutely refused to submit.

  § 67.1. =Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.=--During the
  minority of the emperor Michael III., son of Theodora (§ 66, 4),
  surnamed the Drunkard, his uncle Bardas, Theodora’s brother,
  directed the government. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople
  at that time, himself descended from the imperial family, lashed
  severely the godless, vicious life of the court, and in A.D. 857
  kept back from the communion the all-powerful Bardas, who lived
  in incestuous intercourse with his own daughter-in-law. He was
  then deposed and banished. =Photius=, the most learned man of his
  age, previously commander of the imperial bodyguard, was raised
  to the vacant chair, and inherited the hatred of all the friends
  of Ignatius. He made proposals of agreement which were proudly
  and scornfully rejected. He then held a Synod in A.D. 859, which
  confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and excommunicated him. But
  nothing in the world could make his party abandon his claims. Now
  Photius wished to be able to lay in the scales the Roman bishop’s
  approval of his questionable proceedings. He therefore laid
  an account of matters highly favourable to himself before Pope
  =Nicholas I.=, and sought his brotherly love and intercessions.
  The pope answered that he must first examine the whole affair.
  His two legates, Rhodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, were
  bribed and at a Council at Constantinople in A.D. 861 gave their
  consent to the deposition of Ignatius. Nicholas, however, had
  other reporters. He excommunicated his own legates and pronounced
  Ignatius the lawful patriarch. Bitterness of feeling reached its
  height in Constantinople, when soon thereafter the Bulgarians
  broke their connection with the Byzantine mother church and
  submitted to the pope (§ 73, 3). Photius now by an Encyclica
  of A.D. 866 called the patriarchs of the East to a Council
  at Constantinople, and charged the Roman church with the most
  extreme heresies; that it enjoined fasting on Saturday (§ 56, 1),
  allowed milk, butter and cheese to be eaten during the first
  week of the Quadragesima (§ 56, 7), did not acknowledge married
  priests (§ 45, 2), did not prohibit the clergy from shaving the
  beard (§ 45, 1), pronounced anointing by a presbyter invalid
  (§ 35, 4), but above all, that by the addition of the _filioque_
  (§ 50, 7) it had falsified the creed, recognising thus two
  principles and so falling back into dualism. With such heresies
  too the pope had now infected the Bulgarians. The meeting of the
  Council took place in A.D. 867. Three monks, tutored by Photius,
  represented the patriarchs under Saracen rule. Excommunication
  and deposition were hurled against the pope, and this sentence
  was communicated to the Western churches. The pope was evidently
  alarmed. He justified himself before the Frankish clergy and
  insisted that they should answer the charges of the Greeks
  in a scholarly reply. This was done by several, most ably by
  Ratramnus, monk at Corbie. But during that year, A.D. 867, the
  emperor Michael was murdered. His murderer and successor Basil
  the Macedonian undertook the patronage of the party of Ignatius,
  and asked of Pope Hadrian II. a new investigation and decision.
  A =Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 869=, counted by the Latins
  the 8th œcumenical, condemned Photius and restored Ignatius.
  The deciding about the Bulgarians, however, was not committed
  to the Council but to the reputed representatives of the Saracen
  patriarchs as impartial umpires. They naturally decided in favour
  of the Byzantine patriarch. In vain the legates remonstrated.
  Photius in other respects under misfortune displays a character
  worthy of our esteem. For several years he languished without
  company, without books, under the strictest monastic rules.
  Yet he reconciled himself to Ignatius. Basil entrusted him with
  the education of his children, and on the death of Ignatius in
  A.D. 878, restored him to the patriarchate. But still the ban of
  an œcumenical Council lay upon him. Only a new œcumenical Council
  could vindicate him. John VIII. agreed to this against the
  remonstrances of the Bulgarians. But at the ninth =Council
  at Constantinople, A.D. 879=, the eighth according to the Greeks,
  the papal legates were completely duped. There was no mention of
  the Bulgarians, the Council of A.D. 869 was repudiated, and every
  one excommunicated who dared add anything to the creed. The pope
  afterwards indeed launched an anathema against the patriarch,
  his Council, and his followers. The succeeding emperor, Leo the
  Philosopher, A.D. 886-911, again deposed Photius in A.D. 886, but
  only that he might put an imperial prince in his place. Photius
  died in monastic exile in A.D. 891.

  § 67.2. =Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.=--This emperor
  was three times married without having any children. He married
  the fourth only when he had assured himself that she would not
  be barren. The patriarch Nicolaus [Nicolas] Mysticus refused
  (§ 61, 2) to celebrate the marriage and was deposed. A Synod
  at Constantinople in A.D. 906, attended by the legates of Pope
  Sergius III., approved the marriage and the deposition. But
  on his deathbed Leo repented of his violence. His brother and
  successor Alexander restored the patriarch Nicolas, and Pope
  John X. attended a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 920, which
  condemned the Council of A.D. 906, and pronounced a fourth
  marriage absolutely unallowable, but showed no inclination to
  make any concessions to the pope. New negociations were begun
  by the emperor =Basil II.= In consideration of a large sum of
  money the venal pope John XIX. was willing to acknowledge the
  Byzantines as œcumenical patriarchs of the East, and to resign
  all claims of the chair of Peter upon the Eastern church. But the
  affair became known before it was concluded. The removal of the
  new Judas was loudly demanded throughout the West, and the pope
  was compelled to break off his negociations.

  § 67.3. =Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.=-Though so many
  anathemas had been flung at Rome by Byzantium and at Byzantium
  by Rome, they had hitherto been directed only against the persons
  and their followers, not against the respective churches as
  such. This defect was now to be supplied. The emperor Constantine
  Monómachus sought the papal friendship which he thought necessary
  to the success of his warlike undertakings. But the patriarch
  =Michael Cærularius= frustrated his efforts. In company with the
  Metropolitan of the Bulgarians, Leo of Achrida, he addressed in
  A.D. 1053 an epistle to bishop John of Trani in Apulia, in which
  he charged the Latins with the worst heresies, and adjured the
  Western bishops to separate from them. To the heresies already
  enumerated by Photius, he added certain others; the use of blood
  and things strangled, the withdrawal of the Hallelujah during
  the fast season, and above all the use of unleavened bread in
  the Supper (§ 58, 4), on account of which he invented for the
  heretics the name of Azymites. This letter fell into the hands
  of Cardinal =Humbert=, who translated it and laid it before pope
  Leo IX. A violent correspondence followed. The emperor offered
  to do anything to restore peace. At his request the pope sent
  three legates to Constantinople, among them the occasion of the
  strife, Humbert (§ 101, 2), and Cardinal Frederick of Lothringen,
  afterwards pope Stephen IX. (§ 96, 6). These fanned the flame,
  instead of quenching it. Imperial pressure indeed brought the
  abbot of Studion, Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his controversial
  treatise before the legates, but no threat nor violence could
  move to submission the patriarchs, on whose side were the people
  and the clergy. The legates finally laid a formal decree of
  excommunication on the altar of the church of Sophia, which
  Michael together with the other Eastern patriarchs solemnly
  returned, A.D. 1054.

  § 67.4. =Attempts at Reunion.=--The crusades increased the breach
  instead of healing it. Many negociations were begun but none of
  them came to much. At a Synod at Bari in Naples, in A.D. 1098,
  Anselm of Canterbury (§ 101, 1), who then lived as a fugitive
  in Italy, proved to the Greeks there present the correctness
  of the Latin doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
  In A.D. 1113, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Archbishop of Milan,
  vindicated it in a complete discourse before the emperor at
  Constantinople. And in A.D. 1135, Anselm of Havelberg, who
  went to Constantinople as ambassador for Lothair II., disputed
  with the Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia, and afterwards at the
  command of the pope wrote down the disputation with creditable
  faithfulness. The hatred and abhorrence of the Greeks reached
  its climax on the erection of the Latin empire at Constantinople,
  A.D. 1204-1261 (comp. § 94, 4). Nevertheless =Michael Palæologus,
  A.D. 1260-1282=, who brought this dynasty to an end, strove
  on political grounds in every way possible to overcome this
  ecclesiastical schism. The patriarch Joseph of Constantinople
  and his librarian, the celebrated =Joannes Beccus=, stubbornly
  withstood him. The latter indeed in imprisonment became convinced
  that the differences were unessential and that a union was
  possible. This change of mind secured for him the patriarch’s
  chair. Meanwhile the negotiations of the emperor with the pope,
  Gregory X., in which he acknowledged the Roman chair to be the
  highest court of appeal in doctrinal controversies, were brought
  to a point in the œcumenical =Council at Lyons, A.D. 1274=,
  reckoned by the Latins the fourteenth. The imperial legates here
  acknowledged the primacy of the pope and subscribed a Roman creed,
  while to them was granted liberty to use their creed without the
  addition and to practise their peculiar ecclesiastical customs.
  Beccus vindicated this union in several treatises. But a change
  of dynasty overthrew him in A.D. 1283. Joseph was restored and
  the union of Lyons was broken up leaving no trace behind.

  § 67.5. The advance of the Turks made it absolutely necessary
  for the East Roman emperors to secure the support of the West
  by reconciling and uniting themselves with the papacy. But the
  powerful party of the monks, supported by popular prejudice
  against the proposal, thwarted the imperial wishes on all sides.
  The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem too were
  zealous opponents, not only animated by the old bitterness toward
  their more prosperous rivals on the chair of Peter, but also
  influenced against the views of the emperor by the policy of
  their Saracen rulers. The emperor =Andronicus III. Palæologus=
  won to his side the abbot =Barlaam= of Constantinople, hitherto,
  though born in Calabria and there educated in the Roman Catholic
  faith, a zealous opponent of the Western doctrine. Barlaam went
  at the head of an imperial embassy to Avignon where the pope
  at that time, Benedict XIII., resided, A.D. 1339. Negotiations,
  however, broke down through the obstinacy of the pope, who
  demanded of the Greeks above all unconditional submission in
  doctrine and constitution, and also showed not once any wish
  for renewing the conference.--On Barlaam, comp. § 69, 2.--The
  political difficulties of the emperor, however, continually
  increased, and so =Joannes V. Palæologus= took further steps.
  He himself in A.D. 1369 in Rome passed over to the Latin church,
  but neither did he get his people to follow him, nor did pope
  Urban V. get the Western princes to give help against the Turks.

  § 67.6. The union attempts of =Joannes VII. Palæologus= had more
  appearance of success. The emperor had won over the patriarch
  Joseph of Constantinople, as well as the clever and highly
  cultured archbishop =Bessarion= of Nicæa, and went personally
  in company with the latter and many bishops, in A.D. 1438,
  to the papal Council at =Ferrara= (§ 110, 8), where the pope,
  Eugenius IV., fearing lest the Greeks might join the reformatory
  Council at Basel, showed himself very gracious. The Council,
  nominally on account of the outbreak of a plague at Ferrara
  was transferred to =Florence=, and here the union was actually
  consummated in A.D. 1439. The primacy of the pope was acknowledged,
  though not altogether without dubiety of expression, the ritual
  differences as well as the priestly marriages of the Greeks
  tolerated, the doctrinal difference reduced to a misunderstanding
  and the orthodoxy of both churches maintained. In the Latin text
  of the decree referred to the pope was acknowledged as “Successor
  of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the vicar of Christ,”
  as “head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all
  Christians, to whom plenary power was given by our Lord Jesus
  Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church”--yet
  with the significant addition “in such a way as it is set forth
  in the œcumenical Councils and in the sacred Canons,” by which
  certainly the Greeks thought only of the Canons of Nicæa and
  Chalcedon referred to in § 46, 1, but the Latins mainly of the
  Pseudo-Decretals of § 87, 2; and thus it happens that in most
  of the Greek texts the propositions that define the universal
  primacy of the pope are either wanting, or essentially modified.
  The first place after the pope is given to the patriarch of
  Constantinople. In regard to the doctrine of the Procession
  of the Holy Spirit it was admitted that the Greek formula “_ex
  Patre per Filium_” was essentially the same as the Latin “_ex
  Patre Filioque_,” and by the definition “_quod Sp. S. ex P. simul
  et F. et ex utroque æternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica
  spiratione procedit_,” the latter was saved from the charge of
  dualism. A new difference, however, came to light in reference
  to Purgatory (§ 61, 4). The intercessions of the living and the
  presenting of masses for the dead were allowed by the Greeks as
  helping to secure the forgiveness of their still unatoned for
  venial sins, but they decidedly opposed the view that any of the
  dead could obtain this by his own temporary endurance of penal
  sufferings, and they would not hear of a fire as a means for its
  attainment. The Latins also taught that the unbaptized or those
  dying in mortal sin immediately pass into eternal condemnation
  and the perfectly pious immediately pass into God’s presence;
  while the Greeks maintained that this happens only at the last
  judgment. After long disputes, the Greeks, urged by their emperor,
  at last gave in on both points. Without much difficulty they
  accepted the seven sacraments of the Westerns (§ 104, 2). Thus
  was the union consummated amid embracings and jubilant shoutings.
  But in reality everything remained as of old. A powerful party at
  whose head stood archbishop Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, who had
  been shouted down at Florence, roused the whole East against the
  union that had been made on paper. The new patriarch Metrophanes,
  whom they repudiated, was ridiculed as Μητροφόνος, and in
  A.D. 1443 the rest of the Eastern patriarchs at a Synod at
  Jerusalem excommunicated all who maintained the union. When
  moreover the hoped for help from the West did not come even
  the union party lost their interest in it. Bessarion passed
  over to the Roman church, became cardinal and bishop of Tuscoli,
  and was as such on two occasions very near being made pope.[193]

  § 67.7. The Byzantine Christian empire went meanwhile rapidly
  to decay. On the 29th May, 1453, Constantinople was stormed by
  Mohammed II. The last emperor, Constantine XI., fell in a heroic
  struggle against tremendous odds. Mohammed conferred upon the
  patriarch Gennadius (§ 68, 5) the spiritual primacy and even
  temporal supremacy and full jurisdiction over the whole orthodox
  inhabitants of the empire, making him, however, answerable for
  their conduct. The other two patriarchates of Jerusalem and
  Antioch were in religious matters co-ordinate, in political
  matters subordinate, to him. For the executing of his spiritual
  power he had around him a Synod of twelve archbishops, of whom
  four as holders of the four divisions of the patriarchal diocese
  resided in Constantinople. The Synod chose the patriarchs and
  the Sultan confirmed the elections.--All union negociations were
  now at an end, for the Porte could only wish for the continuance
  of the schism. The enormous crowds of Greek refugees who sought
  protection in foreign lands, especially in Italy, Hungary,
  Galicia, Poland, Lithuania, either went directly over to the
  Roman Catholic church, or formed churches of their own under
  the name of United Greeks, purchasing liberty to observe their
  old church constitution and liturgy by accepting the Romish
  doctrine and the papal primacy.




           II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the
                      Co-operation of the Western.


               § 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.

  The iconoclastic struggle, A.D. 726-842, was to some extent a war
against art and science. At least no period in the history of the Greek
Middle Ages is so poor in these as this. But about the middle of the
9th century Byzantine culture awoke from its deep torpor to a vigour
of which no one would have thought it capable. What is still more
wonderful, for six hundred years it maintained its position without
a break at this elevation and prosecuted literary and scientific
studies with a zeal that seemed to be quickened as its political
condition became more and more desperate. What specially characterized
the scholarly efforts of this time was the revival of classical studies
which from the 6th century had been almost entirely neglected. Now all
at once the decaying Greeks, who were threatened with intellectual as
well as political bankruptcy, began to realize the rich heritage which
their pagan forefathers had bequeathed them. They searched out these
treasures amid the dust of libraries and applied to them a diligence,
an enthusiasm, a pride, which fills us with astonishment. The Hellenic
intellect had, indeed, long lost its genial creative power. The most
ambitious effort of this age did not go beyond explanatory reproduction
and scholarship. Upon theology, however, bound hard and fast in
traditional propositions and Aristotelian formulæ, the revival of
classical studies had relatively little influence, and where it did
break the fetters it only gave entrance to a deluge of heathen Hellenic
views that paganized Christianity.

  § 68.1. The shame caused by the zeal with which the Khalifs
  of the Abassidean line at the end of the 8th century applied
  themselves to the classical Greek literature seems to have given
  the first impulse to the =Revival of Classical Studies=. Behind
  this we must suppose there was the influence of the Byzantine
  rulers, unless they had lost all trace of national feeling.
  Bardas, the guardian and co-regent of Michael III. (§ 67, 1),
  if there is nothing else in him worthy of praise, has the credit
  of having been the first to lay anew the foundation of classical
  studies by establishing schools and paying their teachers. Basil
  the Macedonian, although himself no scholar, patronized and
  protected the sciences. Photius was the teacher of his children,
  and implanted in them a love of study which they transmitted to
  their children and children’s children. Leo, the Philosopher, the
  son, and Constantine Porphyrogenneta, the grandson, of Basil were
  the brilliant scholars in the Macedonian dynasty. Their place was
  taken by the line of the Comneni from A.D. 1057, which introduced
  a most brilliant period in the history of scientific studies.
  The princesses of this house, Eudocia and Anna Comnena, won high
  fame as gifted and learned authors. What Photius was for the
  age of the Macedonians, Psellus was for the age of the Comneni.
  Thessalonica vied with Constantinople as a new Athens in
  the brilliancy of its classical culture. The rudeness of
  the crusaders threatened during the sixty years’ interregnum
  of the Latin dynasty, to undo the work of the Comneni. But
  when in A.D. 1261 the Palæologi again obtained possession of
  Constantinople, learning rose once more to the front and won
  an ever increasing significance. And when the Turks took it in
  A.D. 1453 crowds of learned Greeks settled in Italy and spread
  their carefully fostered culture all over the West.

  § 68.2. =Aristotle and Plato.=--The revival of classical studies
  secured again a preference for Plato, who seemed more classical,
  at least more Hellenic, than Aristotle. But the ecclesiastical
  imprimatur that had been given to Aristotle, which had been
  formally expressed by Joh. Damascenus, formed a barrier against
  the overflowing of Platonism into the theological domain. The
  church’s distrust of Plato, on the other hand, drove many of
  the more enthusiastic friends of classical studies into a sort
  of Hellenic paganism. The eagerness of the struggle reached its
  height in the 15th century. Gemisthus Pletho moved heaven and
  earth to drive the hated usurper Aristotle from the throne of
  science. He called for unconditional surrender to the wisdom of
  the divine Plato and expressed the confident hope that soon the
  time would come when Christianity and Islam would be conquered
  and the religion of pure humanity would have universal sway.
  Of similar views were his numerous scholars, of whom the most
  distinguished was Bessarion (§ 67, 6). But Aristotle also
  had talented representatives in George of Trebizond and his
  scholars. Numerous representatives of the two schools settled
  in Italy and there carried on the conflict with increasing
  bitterness.--Continuation § 120, 1.

  § 68.3. =Scholasticism and Mysticism= (μάθησις and
  μυσταγωγία).--By the application of the Aristotelian
  method which Joh. Philoponus (§ 47, 11) had suggested, and
  Joh. Damascenus had carried out, the scientific treatment of
  doctrine in the Greek church had taken a form which in many
  respects resembles the scholasticism of the Latin Middle Ages,
  without being able, however, to reach its wealth, power, subtlety
  and depth. But alongside of the dialectic scholastic treatment
  of dogma there was found, especially in the quiet life of the
  monasteries, diligent fostering of the mysticism based upon
  the pseudo-Areopagite (§ 47, 11). Its chief representative
  was Nicolas Cabasilas. This mysticism never ran counter to
  the worship or doctrine of the church, but rather rendered to
  it unconditional acknowledgment, and was specially characterized
  by its decided preference for the symbolical, to which it is
  careful to attach a thoroughly sacramental significance. No
  reason existed for any hostile encounters between dialectic
  and mysticism.

  § 68.4. =The Branches of Theological Science.=--About the
  beginning of our period Joh. Damascenus collected the results
  of previous =Dogmatic= labours in the Greek church by the use
  of the dialectic forms of Aristotle into an organic system. His
  Ecdosis is the first and last complete dogmatic of the old Greek
  church. The manifold intercourse with the Latin church occasioned
  by the union efforts was not, however, without influence on
  the Greek church. In spite of the keenest opposition on debated
  questions, the far more thoroughly developed statement by Latin
  scholasticism of doctrines in regard to which both were agreed
  communicated itself to the Greek church, so that all unwittingly
  it adopted on many points the same bases and tendencies of
  belief. =Polemics= were constantly carried on with Nestorians,
  Monophysites and Monothelites, and fresh subjects of debate were
  found in the iconoclastic disputes, newly emerging dualistic
  sects, the Latin schismatics and the defenders of the union. By
  the changed circumstances of the time =Apologetics= again came
  to the front as a theological necessity. The incessant advance
  of Islam and the Jewish polemic, which was now gaining boldness
  from the protection of the Saracens, urgently demanded the
  work of the Apologist, but the dominant scholastic traditional
  theology of the Greeks in its hardness and narrowness was little
  fitted to avert the storm of God’s judgment. Finally, too, the
  revival of classical studies and the introduction of pagan modes
  of thought were followed by a renewal of anti-pagan Apologetics
  (Nicolas of Methone). In =Exegesis= there was no independent
  original work. Valuable catenas were compiled by Œcumenius,
  Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. =Church History= lay
  completely fallow. Only Nicephorus Callisti in the 14th century
  gave any attention to it (§ 5, 1). Incomparably more important
  for the church history of those times are the numerous _Scriptores
  hist. Byzantinæ_. As a writer of legends Simeon Metaphrastes in
  the 10th century (?) gained a high reputation.

  § 68.5. The most distinguished theologian of the 8th century
  was =Joannes Damascenus=. He was long in the civil service of
  the Saracens, and died about A.D. 760 as monk in the monastery
  of Sabas in Jerusalem. His admirers called him _Chrysorrhoas_;
  the opponents of image worship who pronounced a thrice repeated
  anathema upon him at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 754,
  called him Mansur. His chief work, which ranks in the Greek
  church as an epoch-making production, is the Πηγὴ γνώσεως. Its
  first part, Κεφάλαια φιλοσοφικά, forms the dialectic, the second
  part, Περὶ αἱρέσεων, the historical, introduction to the third or
  chief part: Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, a systematic
  collection of the doctrines of faith according to the Councils,
  and the teachings of the ancient Fathers, especially of the three
  Cappadocians. His Ἱερὰ παράλληλα contain a collection of _loci
  classici_ from patristic writings on dogmatic and moral subjects
  arranged in alphabetical order. He wrote besides controversial
  tracts against Christological heretics, the Paulicians,
  the opponents of image worship, etc., and composed several
  hymns for church worship.[194]--Among the numerous writings
  of =Photius=, who died in A.D. 891, undoubtedly the most
  important is his Bibliotheca, Μυριοβίβλιον. It gives reports
  about and extracts from 279 Christian and pagan works, which
  have since in great part been lost. In addition to controversial
  treatises against the Latins and against the Paulicians,
  there are still extant his Ἀμφιλόχια, answers to more than
  300 questions laid before him by bishop Amphilochius, and his
  Nomo-canon (§ 43, 3) which is still the basis of Greek canon
  law, and was, about A.D. 1180, commented on by the deacon of
  Constantinople, Theodore Balsamon in his Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ
  θείων κανόνων.--The brilliant period of the Comnenian dynasty
  was headed by =Michael Psellus=, teacher of philosophy at
  Constantinople, a man of wide culture and possessed of an
  astonishingly extensive store of information which was evinced
  by numerous works on a variety of subjects, so that he was
  designated φιλοσόφων ὕπατος. He died in A.D. 1105. Among his
  theological writings the most important is Περὶ ἐνεργείας
  δαιμόνων (comp. § 71, 3). As this work is of the utmost
  importance for the demonology of the Middle Ages, so the
  Διδασκαλία παντοδαπή, a compendium of universal science on
  the basis of theology, is for the encyclopædic knowledge of that
  period. His contemporary =Theophylact=, archbishop of Achrida,
  in Bulgaria, left behind him an important commentary in the form
  of a catena. Euthymius Zigabenus, monk at Constantinople, in the
  beginning of the 12th century, composed, by order of the emperor
  Alexius Comnenus, in reply to the heretics, a Πανοπλία δογματικὴ
  τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἤτοι ὁπλοθήκη δογμάτων in 24 bks.,
  which gained for him great repute in his times. It is a mere
  compilation, and only where he combats the sects of his own
  age is it of any importance. His exegetical compilations are of
  greater value. The most important personality of the 12th century
  was =Eustathius=, archbishop of Thessalonica. As commentator on
  Homer and Pindar he has been long highly valued by philologists;
  but from the publication of his theological _Opuscula_ it appears
  that he is worthy of higher fame as a Christian, a theologian, a
  church leader and reformer of the debased monasticism of his age
  (§ 70, 4). His friend and pupil, =Michael Acominatus= of Chonæ,
  archbishop of Athens, treated with equal enthusiasm of the church
  and his fatherland, of Christian faith and Greek philosophy, of
  patristic and classical literature, and in a beautiful panegyric
  raised a becoming memorial to his departed teacher. His younger
  brother, =Nicetas Acominatus=, a highly esteemed statesman of
  Constantinople, wrote a Θεσαυρὸς ὀρθοδοξίας in 27 bks., which
  consists of a justificatory statement of the orthodox doctrine
  together with a refutation of heretics, much more independent
  and important than the similar work of Euthymius. He died in
  A.D. 1206. At the same time flourished the noble bishop =Nicolas
  of Methone= in Messenia, whose refutation of the attacks of the
  neo-Platonist Proclus, Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς θεολογικῆς στοιχειώσεως
  Πρόκλου is one of the most valuable productions of this period.
  His doctrine of redemption, which has a striking resemblance
  to Anselm of Canterbury’s theory of satisfaction (§ 101, 1), is
  worthy of attention. He also contributed several tracts to the
  struggle against the Latins. During the times of the Palæologi,
  A.D. 1250-1450, the chief subjects of theological authorship
  were the vindication and denunciation of the union. =Nicolas
  Cabasilas=, archbishop of Thessalonica and successor of Palamas,
  deserves special mention. He was like his predecessor the
  vindicator of the Hesychasts (§ 69, 2), and was himself one
  of the noblest mystics of any age. He died about A.D. 1354.
  His chief work is Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ζωῆς. His mysticism is
  distinguished by depth and spirituality as well as by reformatory
  struggling against a superficial externalism. He also shares the
  partiality of Greek mysticism for the liturgy as his _Expositio
  Missæ_ shows. From his contemporary =Demetrius Cydonius= we have
  an able treatise _De Contemnenda Morte_. Archbishop =Simeon of
  Thessalonica= belongs to a somewhat later time, about A.D. 1400,
  a thorough expert in classical and patristic literature and a
  distinguished church leader. His comprehensive work, _De Fide,
  Ritibus et Mysteriis Ecclesiast._ is an important source of
  information about the church affairs of the Greek Middle Ages.
  =Marcus Eugenicus= of Ephesus, the most capable opponent of the
  Florentine union (§ 67, 2), besides controversial tracts, wrote
  a treatise Περὶ ἀσθενείας ἀνθρώπου as a philosophico-dogmatic
  foundation of the doctrine of eternal punishment at which the
  emperor John VII. Palæologus had taken offence as incompatible
  with divine justice and human frailty. His disciple Gregorius
  [Gregory] Scholarius, known as a monk by the name =Gennadius=,
  was the first patriarch of Constantinople after it had been taken
  by the Turks. At the Council of Florence he still supported the
  union, but was afterwards its most vigorous assailant. In the
  controversy of the philosophers he contended against Pletho for
  the old-established predominance of Aristotle. At the request of
  the Sultan, Mohammed II., he laid before him a _Professio fidei_.

  § 68.6. A religious romance entitled =Barlaam and Josaphat=
  whose author is not named, but evidently belonged to the East,
  was included, even in the Middle Ages, among the works of
  Joh. Damascenus, read by many especially in the West, translated
  into Latin and rendered often in metrical form. It describes
  the history of the conversion of the Indian prince Josaphat
  by the eremite Barlaam with the object of showing the power of
  Christianity against the allurements of sin and its superiority
  to other religions. An uncritical age accepted the story as
  historical, and venerated its two heroes as saints. The Roman
  martyrology celebrated the 27th Nov. in their memory. Liebrecht
  has discovered that the romance so popular in its days was
  but a Christianized form of a legendary history of the life
  and conversion of the founder of Buddhism, which existed in
  pre-Christian times, and has come down to us under the title
  _Lalita ristara Purâna_, often copying its original even in the
  minutest details.


       § 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES.

  With the mental activity of the Comnenian age there was also
reawakened a love of theological speculation and discussion, and
several doctrinal questions engaged considerable attention. Then there
came a lull in the controversial strife for two hundred years, to be
roused once more by a question of abstruse mysticism.

  § 69.1. =Dogmatic Questions.=--Under the emperor Manuel
  Comnenus, A.D. 1143-1180, the question was discussed whether
  Christ presented His sacrifice for the sins of the world only to
  the Father and the Holy Spirit, or also at the same time to the
  Logos, _i.e._ to Himself. A Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1156
  sanctioned the latter notion.--Ten years later a controversy
  arose over the question whether the words of Christ: “The Father
  is greater than I,” refer to His divine or to His human nature
  or to the union of the two natures. The discussion was carried on
  by all ranks with a liveliness and passionateness which reminds
  one of the similar controversies of the 4th century (§ 50, 2).
  The emperor’s opinion that the words applied to the God-man
  gained the victory at a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1166.
  The dissentients were punished with the confiscation of their
  goods and banishment.--Manuel excited a third controversy by
  objecting to the anathema of “the God of Mohammed” in the formula
  of abjuration for converts from Mohammedanism. In vain did the
  bishops show the emperor that the God of Mohammed was not the
  true God. The formula had to be altered.

  § 69.2. =The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351.=--In the
  monasteries of Mount Athos in Thessaly the Areopagite mysticism
  had its most zealous promoters. Following the example given three
  centuries earlier by Simeon, an abbot of the monastery of Mesnes
  in Constantinople, the monks by artificial means put themselves
  into a condition that would afford them the ecstatic vision
  of God which the Areopagite had extolled as the highest end
  of all mystic endeavours. Kneeling in a corner of the solitary
  closed cell, the chin pressed firmly on the breast, the eyes set
  fixedly on the navel, and the breath held in as long as possible,
  they sank at first into melancholy and their eyes became dim.
  Continuing longer in this position the depression of spirit which
  they at first experienced gave way to an inexpressible rapture,
  and at last they found themselves surrounded by a bright halo of
  light. They called themselves _Resting Ones_, ἡσυχάζοντες, and
  maintained that the brilliancy surrounding them was the uncreated
  divine light which shone around Christ on Mount Tabor. Barlaam
  (§ 67, 5), just returned from his unfortunate union expedition,
  accused the monks and their defender, Gregorius [Gregory] Palamas,
  afterwards archbishop of Thessalonica, as Ditheistic heretics,
  scornfully styling them _navel-souls_, ὀμφαλόψυχοι. But a Council
  at Constantinople, in A.D. 1341, the members of which were
  unfavourable to Barlaam because of his union efforts, approved
  the doctrine of uncreated divine light which as divine ἐνεργεία
  is to be distinguished from the divine οὐσία. Barlaam, in order
  to avoid condemnation, recanted, but withdrew soon afterwards
  to Italy, where he joined the communion of the Latin church
  in A.D. 1348, and died as a bishop in Calabria. A disciple
  of Barlaam, Gregorius [Gregory] Acindynos and the historian
  Nicephorus Gregoras [Gregory] continued the controversy against
  the Hesychasts. Down to A.D. 1351 as many as three Synods had
  been held, which all decidedly favoured the monks.


                 § 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE.

  The Byzantine emperors had been long accustomed to carry out in a
very high-handed manner their own will even in regard to the internal
affairs of the church. The anointing with sacred oil gave them a
sacerdotal character and entitled them to be styled ἅγιος. Most of
the emperors, too, from Leo the Philosopher (§ 68, 1), possessed some
measure of theological culture. The patriarchate, however, if amid so
many arbitrary appointments and removals it fell into the proper hands,
was always a power which even emperors had to respect. What protected
it against all encroachments of the temporal power was the influence
of the monks and through them of the people. In consequence of the
controversies about images, Theodorus Studita (§ 66, 4) founded a
strong party which fought with all energy against every interference
of the State in ecclesiastical matters and against the appointing of
ecclesiastical officers by the temporal power, but only with temporary
success. The monks, who had been threatened by the iconoclastic
Isaurian with utter extermination, at the restoration grew and
prospered more than ever in outward appearance, but gave way more
and more to spiritual corruption and extravagance. The Eastern monks
had not that genial many-sided culture which was needed for the
cultivation of the fields and the minds of the barbarians. They
were deficient in those powers of tempering, renovating and ennobling,
whereby the monks of the West accomplished such wonderful results.
But, nevertheless, if in those debased and degenerate days one looks
for examples of fidelity to convictions, firmness of character,
independence and moral earnestness, he will always find the noblest
in the monasteries.--Public worship had already in the previous period
attained to almost complete development, but theory and practice
received enrichment in various particulars.

  § 70.1. =The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312.=--Michael
  Palæologus, after the death of the emperor Theodore Lascaris
  in A.D. 1259, assumed the guardianship of his six years’ old
  son John, had himself crowned joint ruler, and in A.D. 1261 had
  the eyes of the young prince put out so as to make him unfit
  for governing. The patriarch Arsenius then excommunicated him.
  Michael besought absolution, and in order to obtain it submitted
  to humiliating penances; but when the patriarch insisted that
  he should resign the throne, the emperor deposed and exiled
  him, A.D. 1267. The numerous adherents of Arsenius refused to
  acknowledge the new patriarch Joseph (§ 67, 4), seceded from the
  national church, and when their leader died in exile in A.D. 1273,
  their veneration for him expressed itself in burning hatred
  of his persecutors. When Joseph died in A.D. 1283, an attempt
  was made to decide the controversy by a direct appeal to God’s
  judgment. Each of the two parties cast a tract in defence of its
  position into the fire, and both were consumed. The Arsenians,
  who had expected a miracle, felt themselves for the moment
  defeated and expressed a readiness to be reconciled. But on
  the third day they recalled their admissions and the schism
  continued, until the patriarch Niphon in A.D. 1312 had the bones
  of Arsenius laid in the church of Sophia and pronounced a forty
  days’ suspension on all the clergy who had taken part against him.

  § 70.2. =Public Worship.=--In the Greek church preaching retained
  its early prominence; the homiletical productions, however, are
  but of small value. The objection to hymns other than those found
  in Scripture was more and more overcome. As in earlier times
  (§ 59, 4) Troparies were added to the singing of psalms, so now
  the New Testament hymns of praise and doxologies were formed
  into a so-called Κανών, _i.e._ a collection of new odes arranged
  for the several festivals and saints’ days. The 8th century was
  the Augustan age of church song. To this period belonged the
  celebrated ἅγιοι μελωδοί, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus,
  Cosmas of Jerusalem, and Theophanes of Nicæa. The singing after
  this as well as before was without instrumental accompaniment and
  also without harmonic arrangement.--There was a great diversity
  of opinion in regard to the idea of the sacraments and their
  number. Damascenus speaks only of two: Baptism and the Lord’s
  Supper. Theodorus Studita, on the other hand, accepts the
  six enumerated by the Pseudo-Areopagite (§ 58). Petrus [Peter]
  Mogilas in his Anti-Protestant _Confessio orthodoxa_ of A.D. 1643
  (§ 152, 3) is the first confidently to assert that even among
  the Latins of the Middle Ages the Sacraments had been regarded
  as seven in number. The Greeks differed from the Latins in
  maintaining the necessity of immersion in baptism, in connecting
  the chrism with the baptism, using leavened bread in the Supper
  and giving both elements to all communicants. From the time of
  Joh. Damascenus the teachers of the church decidedly subscribed
  to the doctrine of Transubstantiation; but in regard to penance
  and confession they stoutly maintained (§ 61, 1), that not the
  priest but God alone can forgive sins. The _Unctio inferiorum_,
  εὐχέλαιον, also made way in the Greek church, applied in the form
  of the cross to forehead, breast, hands and feet; yet with this
  difference that, expressly repudiating the designation “extreme”
  unction, it was given not only in cases of mortal illness, but
  also in less serious ailments, and had in view bodily cure as
  well as spiritual benefit.--The emperor Leo VI. the Philosopher
  made the benediction of the church (§ 61, 2) obligatory for a
  legally valid marriage.

  § 70.3. =Monasticism.=--The most celebrated of all the monastic
  associations were those of Mount Athos in Thessaly, which was
  covered with monasteries and hermit cells, and as “the holy
  mount” had become already a hallowed spot and the resort of
  pilgrims for all Greek Christendom. The monastery of Studion,
  too (§ 44, 3), was held in high repute. There was no want of
  ascetic extravagances among the monks. There were numerous
  stylites; many also spent their lives on high trees, δενδρίται,
  or shut up in cages built on high platforms (κιονῖται), or
  in subterranean caverns, etc. Others bound themselves to
  perpetual silence. Many again wore constantly a shirt of iron
  (σιδηρούμενοι), etc. A rare sort of pious monkish practice made
  its appearance in the 12th century among the =Ecetæ=, Ἱκέται.
  They were monks who danced and sang hymns with like-minded nuns
  in their monasteries after the pattern of Exod. xv. 20, 21.
  Although they continued orthodox in their doctrine and were
  never charged with any act of immorality, Nicetas Acominatus
  proceeded against them as heretics.

  § 70.4. =Endeavours at Reformation.=--In the beginning of
  the 12th century a pious monk at Constantinople, Constantinus
  Chrysomalus, protested against prevailing hypocrisy and formalism.
  A decade later the monk Niphon took a similar stand. Around both
  gathered groups of clergy and laymen who, putting themselves
  under their pastoral direction and neglecting the outward
  forms of the church, applied themselves to the deepening of
  the spiritual life. Both brought down on themselves the anathema
  of the church. The patriarch Cosmas, who was not convinced that
  Niphon was a heretic and so received him into his house and at
  his table, was deposed in A.D. 1150. Eustathius, archbishop of
  Thessalonica (§ 68, 5), carried on his reformatory efforts quite
  within the limits of the dominant institutions of the church,
  and so kept himself safe from the machinations of his enemies.
  Relentlessly and powerfully he struggled against the corruption
  in the Christian life of the people, and especially against
  the formalism and hypocrisy, the rudeness and vulgarity, the
  spiritual blindness and pride, and the eccentric caricatures of
  ascetism that were exhibited by the monks, though he was himself
  in heart and soul a monk. Two hundred years later Nicolas
  Cabasilas (§ 68, 5) yet more distinctly maintained that a
  consistent life was the test and love the root of all virtue.


                       § 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS.

  Remnants of the Gnostic-Manichæan heresy lingered on into the 7th
century in Armenia and Syria, where the surrounding Parseeism gave them
a hold and support. Constantinus of Mananalis near Samosata gathered
these together about the middle of the 7th century and reformed them
somewhat in the spirit of Marcion (§ 27, 11). The Catholics, sneeringly
called by them Ῥομαῖοι, gave the name of =Paulicians= to them because
they regarded Paul alone as a true apostle. Even before the rise of the
Paulicians, a sect existed in Armenia called =Children of the Sun= who
had mixed up the Zoroastrian worship with Christian elements. They, too,
during the 9th and 10th centuries, by reorganization reached a position
of more importance, and represented, like the Paulicians, a reformatory
opposition to the formal institutions of the Catholic church. A similar
attitude was assumed by the =Euchites= in Thrace during the 11th
century. Like the old Euchites (§ 44, 7), they got their name from
the unceasing prayers which they regarded as the token of highest
perfection. Their dualistic-gnostic system is met with again among
the =Bogomili= in Bulgaria. These were still more decidedly hostile
to the Catholic church, and had adopted the anthropological views
of Saturninus and the Ophites as well as the trinitarian theory
of Sabellius (§ 27, 6, 9; 33, 7). All these sects were accused by
their Catholic opponents with entertaining antinomian doctrines and
practising licentious orgies and unnatural abominations.

  § 71.1. =The Paulicians.=--They called themselves only Χριστιανοί,
  but were in the habit of giving to their leaders and churches the
  names of Paul’s companions and mission stations. They combined
  dualism, demiurgism and docetism with a mysticism that insisted
  upon inward piety, demanded a strict but not rigorous asceticism,
  forbade fasting and allowed marriage. Their worship was very
  simple, their church constitution moulded after the apostolic
  pattern, with the rejection of the hierarchy and priesthood. They
  were specially averse to the accumulation of ceremonies and the
  veneration of images, relics and saints in the Catholic church.
  They also urged the diligent study of Scripture, rejecting,
  however, the Old Testament, and the Jewish-Christian gospels
  and epistles of the New Testament. The Catholic polemists
  of the 9th century traced their origin and even their name
  (=Παυλοϊωάννοι) to a Manichæan family of the fourth century,
  a widow Callinice and her two sons Paul and John. None of the
  distinctive marks of Manichæism, however, are discoverable
  in them, and their founding by Constantine of Mananalis is a
  historic fact, as also that he, in A.D. 657, assumed the Pauline
  name of Sylvanus. The first church, which he called _Macedonia_,
  was founded by him at Cibossa in Armenia. From this point he made
  successful missionary journeys in all directions. The emperor
  Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, began a bloody persecution
  of the Paulicians. But the martyr enthusiasm of Sylvanus, who
  was stoned in A.D. 685, made such an impression upon the imperial
  officer Symeon, that he himself joined the sect, was made their
  chief under the name of Titus, and on the renewal of persecution
  in A.D. 690 joyfully died at the stake. His successor Gegnesius,
  who took the name of Timothy, was obliged by Leo the Isaurian to
  undergo an examination under the patriarch of Constantinople, had
  his orthodoxy attested, and received from the iconoclast emperor
  a letter of protection. Soon, however, divisions sprang up within
  the sect itself. One of their chiefs Baanes, on account of his
  antinomian practices, was nicknamed ὁ ῥυπαρός the smutty. But,
  about A.D. 801, Sergius Tychicus, converted in earlier years
  by a Paulician woman, who directed him to the Bible, made his
  appearance as a reformer and second founder of the sect. He
  died in A.D. 835. Leo the Armenian, A.D. 813-820, organized an
  expedition for their conversion. The penitents were received back
  into the church, the obstinate were executed. A mob of Paulicians
  murdered the judges, fled to the Saracen regions of Armenia, and
  founded at Argaum, the ancient Colosse, a military colony which
  made incessant predatory and retaliating raids upon the Byzantine
  provinces. They were most numerous in Asia Minor. The empress
  Theodora (§ 66, 4) carried out against them about A.D. 842 a
  new and fearfully bloody persecution. Many thousands were put to
  death. This too was the fate of an officer of high rank. His son,
  Carbeas, also an officer, incited by an ardent desire for revenge,
  gathered about 5,000 armed Paulicians around him in A.D. 844,
  fled with them to Argaum, and became military chief of the sect.
  New crowds of Paulicians streamed daily in, and the Khalifs
  assigned to them two other fortified frontier cities. With a
  well organized army, thirsting for revenge, Carbeas wasted the
  Byzantine provinces far and wide, and repeatedly defeated the
  imperial forces. Basil the Macedonian after two campaigns, at
  last in A.D. 871, hemmed in the Paulician army in a narrow pass
  and annihilated it. Their political power was now broken. The
  sect, however, still continued to gather members in Syria and
  Asia Minor. In A.D. 970, the emperor John Tzimisces transported
  the greater part of them as watchers of the frontier of Thrace,
  where Philippopolis became their Zion. They soon had possession
  of all Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, A.D. 1081-1118, was the first
  earnestly again to attempt their conversion. He himself appeared
  at Philippopolis in A.D. 1115, disputed a whole day with their
  leaders, promised and threatened, rewarded and punished, but
  all his efforts were fruitless. From that time we hear nothing
  more of them. Their remnants probably joined the Euchites and
  the Bogomili.

  § 71.2. =The Children of the Sun=, or Arevendi were a sect
  gathered and organized in the 9th century in Armenia by a
  Paulician Sembat in the country town of Thontrace into a separate
  community of Thontracians. In A.D. 1002 the metropolitan Jacob
  of Harkh gave a Christian tinge to their doctrine, went through
  the country preaching repentance and the performances of ritual
  observances, and obtained much support from clergy and laity. The
  Catholicus of the Armenian church caused him to be branded and
  imprisoned. He made his escape, but was afterwards slain by his
  opponents.

  § 71.3. =The Euchites=, Messelians [Messalians], Enthusiasts,
  attracted the attention of the government in the beginning of
  the 11th century as a sect widely spread in Thrace. In common
  with the earlier Euchites (§ 44, 7) they had great enthusiasm
  in prayer, but they were distinguished from them by their dualism.
  Their doctrine of the two sons of God, Satanaël and Christ, shows
  a certain relation to the form of Persian dualism, which derives
  the two opposing principles, Ormuzd and Ahriman, from one eternal
  primary essence, Zeruane Acerene. The germs of this sect may
  have come from the transplanting of Paulicians to Thrace by the
  emperor Tzimisces. The Byzantine government sent a legate to
  Thrace to suppress them. This may have been Michael Psellus
  (§ 68, 5) whose Διάλογος περὶ ἐνεργείας δαιμόνων is the only
  source of information we have regarding them.

  § 71.4. =The Bogomili=, θεόφιλοι, taught: that Satanaël, the
  firstborn son of God, as chief and head over all angels, clothed
  with full glory of the Godhead, sat at the right hand of the
  Father; but, swelling with pride, he thought to found an empire
  independent of his Father and seduced a portion of the angels to
  take part with him. Driven with them out of heaven, he determined
  after the pattern of the creation of the Father (Gen. i. 1) to
  create a new world out of chaos (Gen. ii. 3 ff.). He formed the
  first man of earth mixed with water. When he set up the figure,
  some of the water ran out of the great toe of the right foot
  and spread out over the ground; and after he had breathed his
  breath into it, that also escaped owing to the looseness of the
  figure by the toe, permeated the soil moistened with the water
  and animated it as a serpent. At Satanaël’s earnest entreaty the
  heavenly Father took pity on the miserable creature, and gave
  it life by breathing into it His own breath. Afterwards with
  the Father’s help Eve, too, was created. Satanaël in the form
  of the serpent seduced, deceived and lay with Eve in order that
  by his seed, Cain and his twin sister Calomina, Adam’s future
  descendants, Abel, Seth, etc., might be oppressed and brought
  into bondage. Jealous lest the latter should obtain that heavenly
  dwelling place from which they had been driven, Satanaël’s angels
  seduced their daughters (Gen. vi.). From this union sprang giants
  who rebelled against Satanaël, but were destroyed by him in the
  flood. Henceforth he reigned unopposed as κοσμοκράτωρ, seduced
  the greater part of mankind, and endowed Moses with the power of
  working miracles as the instrument of his tyranny. Only a few men
  under the oppression of his law attained the end of their being;
  the sixteen prophets and those named in Matt. i. and Luke iii.
  Finally, in the year 5,500 after the creation of man, the supreme
  God moved with pity caused a second son, the Logos, to go forth
  from His bosom, who as chief of the good angels is called Michael,
  and sent Him to earth for man’s redemption. He entered in an
  ethereal body through the right ear into the virgin to be born
  of her with the semblance of an earthly body. Mary noticed
  nothing of all this. Without knowing how or whence, she found
  the child in swaddling clothes before her in the cave. His
  death on the cross was naturally in appearance only. After his
  resurrection he showed himself to Satanaël in his true form,
  bound him with chains, robbed him of his divine power, and
  compelled him to abandon his divine designation, by taking the
  El from his name, so that he is henceforth called Satan. Then He
  returned to the Father, took the seat that formerly was Satanaël’s
  at His right hand, and sinks again into the bosom of the Father
  out of which He had come. This, however, did not take place
  before a new Aëon [Æon], the Holy Spirit, emanated from the
  Godhead, and was sent forth as continuator and completer of the
  work of redemption. This Spirit, too, after he has finished his
  task will sink back again into the Father’s bosom.--Of the Old
  Testament the Bogomili acknowledged only the Psalter and the
  Prophets; of the New Testament books they valued most the
  Gospel of John. Veneration of relics and images, as well as
  the sign of the cross they abhorred as demoniacal inventions.
  Church buildings were regarded by them as the residences of
  demons. Satanaël himself in earlier days resided in the temple
  of Jerusalem, later in the church of Sophia at Constantinople.
  Water baptism, which was introduced by John the Baptist a
  servant of Satanaël, they rejected; but the baptism of Christ is
  spiritual baptism (παράκλησις=_Consolamentum_). It was imparted
  by laying the Gospel of John on the head of the subject of
  baptism, with invocation of the Holy Spirit and chanting the
  Lord’s Prayer. They declared the Catholic mass to be a sacrifice
  presented to demons; the true eucharist consists in the spiritual
  nourishment by the bread of life brought down in Christ from
  heaven, to which also the fourth petition in the Lord’s Prayer
  refers. They placed great value upon prayer, especially the use
  of the Lord’s Prayer. So too they valued fasting. Their ascetism
  was strict and required abstinence from marriage and from
  the eating of flesh. But prevarication and dissimulation they
  regarded as permissible.--The emperor Alexius Comnenus caused
  their chief Basil to be brought to Constantinople, under the
  delusive pretext of wishing himself to become a proselyte of
  the sect, got him to open all his heart, and enticed him under
  the semblance of a purely private conference to make reckless
  statements, while behind the curtain a judge of heresies was
  taking notes. This first act in the drama was followed by a
  second. The sentence of death was passed upon all adherents of
  Basil who could be laid hold upon. Two great funeral piles were
  erected, one of which was furnished with the figure of the cross.
  The emperor exhorted them, at least to die as true Christians,
  and in token of this to choose the place of death provided with
  a cross. Those who did so were pardoned, the rest for the most
  part condemned to imprisonment for life. Basil himself, however,
  was actually burnt, A.D. 1118. The sect was not by any means thus
  rooted out. The Bogomili hid themselves mostly in monasteries,
  and Bulgaria long remained the haunt of dualistic heresy, which
  spread thence through the Latin church of the West.


       § 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST.

  The Nestorian and Monophysite churches of the East owed the
protection and goodwill of their Moslem rulers to their hostile
position in regard to the Byzantine national church. Among the Persian
Nestorians as well as among the Syrian and Armenian Monophysites we find
an earnest endeavour after scholarship and great scientific activity.
They were the teachers of the Saracens in the classical, philosophical
and medical sciences, and with no little zeal pursued the study
of Christian theology. The Nestorians also long manifested great
earnestness in missions. Only when the science-loving Khalifs gave
place to Mongolian and Turkish barbarians did those churches lose
their prestige, and that stagnation and torpidity passed over them in
which they still lie. In order to crown the Florentine union attempts
of A.D. 1439 (§ 67, 6), Rome solemnly proclaimed in the immediately
following year the complete union with all the detached churches of
the East. But this was a vain self-delusion or a bit of jugglery. Men
pretending to be deputed by those churches treated about restoration to
the bosom of the church, which was accorded them amid great applause.

  § 72.1. =The Persian Nestorians=, or Chaldean Christians
  (§ 64, 2), stood in peculiarly friendly relations to the Khalifs,
  who, in the Nestorian opposition to Theotokism, worship of saints,
  images and relics, and priestly celibacy, saw an approach to a
  rational Christianity more in accordance with the Moslem ideal.
  The Nestorian seminaries at Edessa, Nisibis, Seleucia, etc., were
  in high repute. The rich literature issued by them is, however,
  mostly lost, and what of it remains is known only by Asseman’s
  [Assemani’s] quotations (_Biblioth. Orientalia_). Among the later
  Nestorian authors the best known is Ebed Jesus, Metropolitan
  of Nisibis, who died in A.D. 1318. His writings treat of all
  subjects in the domain of theology. The missionary zeal of the
  Nestorians continued unabated down to the 13th century. Their
  chief mission fields were China and India. At the beginning
  of the 11th century they converted the prince of the Karaites,
  a Tartar tribe to the south of Lake Baikal, who as vassals of
  the great Chinese empire had the name Ung-Khan. A large number
  of the people followed their prince. The Mongol conqueror
  Genghis-Khan married the daughter of the Karaite prince, but
  quarrelled with him, drove him from his throne, and took his life,
  A.D. 1202.--With the overthrow of the Khalifs by Genghis-Khan
  in A.D. 1219, the prosperity of the Nestorian church came to an
  end. At first the Nestorians attempted missionary operations not
  unsuccessfully among the Mongols. But the savage Tamerlane, the
  Scourge of Asia, A.D. 1369-1405, drove them into the inaccessible
  mountains and wild ravines of the province of Kurdistan.[195]

  § 72.2. Among the =Monophysite Churches= the most important was
  the =Armenian= (§ 64, 3). It boasted, at least temporarily and
  partially, of political independence under national rulers. The
  Armenian patriarch from the 12th century had his residence in
  the monastery of Etshmiadzin at the foot of Ararat. The literary
  activity in the translation of classical and patristic writings,
  as well as in the production of original works, reached a
  particularly high point in the 8th and then again in the 12th
  century. To the earlier period belong the patriarch Johannes
  Ozniensis and the metropolitan Stephen of Sünik, to the later,
  the still more famous name of the patriarch Nerses IV. Clajensis,
  whose epic “Jesus the Son” is regarded as the crown of Armenian
  poetry, and his nephew, the metropolitan Nerses of Lampron. The
  two last named readily aided the efforts for reunion with the
  Byzantine church, but owing to the troubles of the time these
  came to nothing. The Western endeavours after union which were
  actively carried on from the beginning of the 13th century, split
  upon the dislike of the Armenian church to the Western ritual,
  and found acceptance with only a relatively small fragment of
  the people. These _United Armenians_ acknowledged the primacy of
  the pope and the catholic system of doctrine, but retained their
  own constitution and liturgy.--In =the Jacobite-Syrian Church=
  (§ 52, 7), too, theological and classical studies were prosecuted
  with great vigour. The most distinguished of its scholars during
  our period was George, bishop of the Arabs, who died in A.D. 740.
  He translated and annotated the Organon of Aristotle, and wrote
  exegetical, dogmatic, historical and chronological works, also
  poems on various themes, and a number of epistles important for
  the history of culture during these times, in which he answered
  questions put to him by his friends and admirers. The brilliant
  Gregory Abulfarajus is the last of the distinguished scholars of
  the Jacobite-Syrian church. He was the son of a converted Jewish
  physician, and hence he is usually called Barhebræus. He was
  made bishop of Guba, afterwards Maphrian of Mosul, and died
  in A.D. 1286. His noble and truly benevolent disposition, his
  extraordinary learning, the rich and attractive productions
  of his pen, and his skill as a physician made him universally
  revered by Christians, Mohammedans and Jews. Among his writings,
  for the most part still in manuscript, the most important
  and best known is the _Chronicon Syriacum_.--The Jacobite
  church suffered most in =Egypt=. The perfidy of the Copts, who
  surrendered the country to the Saracens, was terribly avenged.
  From A.D. 1254 the Fatimide Khalifs held them down under the
  most severe oppression, and this became yet more severe under
  the Mamelukes. The Copts were completely driven out of the
  cities, and even in the villages maintained only a miserable
  existence. Their church was now in a condition of utter
  stagnation. In =Abyssinia= (§ 64, 1) the national rulers
  maintained their position, though pressed within narrower
  limits from time to time by the Saracens. But here, too, church
  life became fossilized. At the head of the church was an Abbuna
  consecrated by the Coptic patriarch (§ 64, 1; 165, 3).

  § 72.3. =The Maronites= (§ 52, 8) attached themselves to the
  Western church on the appearance of the crusades in A.D. 1182,
  renouncing their Monothelite heresy and acknowledging the primacy
  of the pope, but retaining their own ritual. In consequence of
  the Florentine union measures they renewed their connection in
  A.D. 1445, and subsequently adopted also the doctrinal conclusions
  of the Council of Trent. Their numbers at the present day amount
  to somewhere about 200,000.

  § 72.4. =The Legend of Prester John.=--In A.D. 1144 Bishop Otto
  of Freisingen obtained from the bishop of Cabala in Palestine,
  whom he met at Viterbo, information about a powerful Christian
  empire in Central Asia, and published it in A.D. 1145 in his
  widely-read Chronicle. According to this story the king of that
  region, a Nestorian Christian, who was named Prester John, had
  not long before driven to flight the Mohammedan kings of the
  Persians and Medes, and thus delivered from great danger the
  crusaders in the Holy Land. He had also wished to go to the
  help of the church of Jerusalem, but was prevented by the Tigris
  which overflowed its banks. Twenty years later appeared a writing
  attributed to Prester John, first referred to by the Chronicler
  Alberich. It was addressed to the European princes in a Latin
  translation which contained the most fabulous stories, borrowed
  from the Alexander legends, about the extent and glory of
  his empire and the many wonders in nature, white lions, the
  phœnix, giants and pigmies, dog-headed and horned men, fauns,
  satyrs, cyclops, etc., which were to be seen in his country; and
  notwithstanding all these absurdities it was received as genuine.
  The pope, Alexander III., took occasion from its appearance to
  send an answer to Prester John by his own physician Philip, of
  whose fate nothing more is known. When in A.D. 1219 the first
  news reached Palestine of the irrepressible advance of Mongolian
  hordes under Genghis Khan, the crusaders felt justified in
  assuming that he was the successor of the celebrated Prester John,
  and was now to accomplish what his distinguished predecessor
  had wished to undertake. But they were soon cruelly undeceived.
  The missionaries sent to the Mongols about the middle of
  the 13th century (§ 93, 15), reported that the last Prester
  John had lost his kingdom and his life in battle with Genghis
  Khan. Nevertheless the belief in the continued existence of an
  exceedingly glorious and powerful empire ruled by a Christian
  priest in further India was not by any means overthrown; but it
  was no longer sought in an Asiatic but in an African “India,” and
  the Portuguese actually believed that at last the famed Prester
  John had been found in the Christian king of Abyssinia, so that
  that country was known down to the 17th century as _Regnum presb.
  Joannis_.--The Jacobite historian Barhebræus had identified the
  first Presbyter-king with the prince of the Mongolian Karaites
  converted by the Nestorians. His name Ung-Khan or Owang-Khan
  corresponded both to the name Joannes and to the Chaldean
  כַּהֲנָא=priest. This notion prevailed until recently the Orientalist
  Oppert by careful examination and comparison of all Oriental
  and Western reports reached the conclusion (§ 93, 16) that these
  legends are to be referred to the kingdom established about
  A.D. 1125 by Kur-Khan, prince of the tribe of the Caracitai in
  the Mandshuria of to-day. This prince, who was probably himself
  a Nestorian Christian, favoured the establishment of Christianity
  in his country; but this was utterly destroyed by Genghis Khan so
  early as A.D. 1208. The title Prester or Presbyter given to the
  prince of this tribe is to be explained perhaps by the statement
  of the missionary Ruysbroek that almost all male Nestorians in
  Central Asia received priestly consecration.[196]


          § 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX
                           GREEK CONFESSION.

  Among the crowds of immigrants whom the wanderings of the people had
set in motion, the Germans and the Slavs are those whose future is of
most historic interest. The former went at once in a body over to the
Roman Catholic church, and at first it appeared as if the Slavs were
with similar unanimity to attach themselves to the Byzantine orthodox
church. But only the Slavs of the Eastern countries remained true to
that communion, though they were mostly with it brought under the yoke
of the Turkish power. So was it with the specially promising Bulgarian
church. All the more important was the incomparably more significant
gain which the Greek church made in the conversion of the Russians.

  § 73.1. Soon after Justinian’s time the Slavic hordes began to
  overflow the =Greek Provinces=--Macedonia, Thessaly, Hellas and
  Peloponnesus. The old Hellenic population was mostly rooted out;
  only in well fortified cities, especially coast towns, as well as
  on the islands, did the Greek people and the Christian confession
  remain undisturbed. The empress Irene made the first successful
  attempt to restore Slavic Greece to the allegiance of the empire
  and the church, and Basil the Macedonian, A.D. 867-886, completed
  the work so thoroughly that at last even the old pagan Mainottes
  (§ 42, 4) in the Peloponnesus bent their necks to the double yoke.
  Regenerated Hellenism by its higher culture and national, as well
  as ecclesiastical, tenacity, completely absorbed by assimilation
  the numerically larger Slavic element of the population, and
  Mount Athos with its hermits and monasteries (§ 70, 3) became
  the Zion of the new church.

  § 73.2. The =Chazari= in the Crimea asked about A.D. 850 for
  Christian missionaries from Constantinople. The court sent them
  a celebrated monk Constantine, surnamed the Philosopher, better
  known under his monkish name of =Cyril=. Born at Thessalonica,
  and so probably of Slavic descent, at least acquainted with the
  language of the Slavs, he converted in a few years a great part
  of the people. In A.D. 1016, however, the kingdom of the Chazari
  was destroyed by the Russians.

  § 73.3. =The Bulgarians= in Thrace and Mœsia had obtained a
  knowledge of Christianity from Greek prisoners, but its first
  sowing was watered with blood. A sister, however, of the Bulgarian
  king Bogoris had been baptized when a prisoner in Constantinople.
  After her liberation, she sought, with the help of the Byzantine
  monk =Methodius=, a brother of Cyril, to win her brother to
  the Christian faith. A famine came to their aid, and a picture
  painted by Methodius, representing the last judgment, made a
  deep impression on Bogoris. In A.D. 861 he was baptized and
  compelled his subjects to follow his example. But soon thereafter,
  Methodius, along with his brother Cyril, was called to labour in
  another field, in Moravia (§ 79, 2), and political considerations
  led the Bulgarian prince in A.D. 866 to join the Western church.
  At his request pope Nicholas I. sent bishops and clergy into
  Bulgaria to organize the church there after the Roman model.
  Byzantine diplomacy, however, succeeded in winning back the
  Bulgarians, and at the œcumenical Council at Constantinople in
  A.D. 869, their ambassadors admitted that the Bulgarian church
  according to divine and human laws belonged to the diocese of the
  Byzantine patriarch (§ 67, 1). Meantime the two Apostles of the
  Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, by the invention of a Slavic alphabet
  and a Slavic translation of the Bible, laid the foundation of a
  Slavic ecclesiastical literature, which was specially fostered
  in Bulgaria under the noble-minded prince Symeon, A.D. 888-927.
  Basil II., the Slayer of the Bulgarians, conquered Bulgaria in
  A.D. 1018. It gained its freedom again, together with Walachia,
  in A.D. 1186; but fell a prey to the Tartars in A.D. 1285, and
  became a Turkish province in A.D. 1391.

  § 73.4. =The Russian Church.=--Photius speaks in A.D. 866 of the
  =Conversion of the Russians= as an accomplished fact. In the days
  of the Grand Duke Igor, about A.D. 900, there was a cathedral at
  Kiev. Olga, Igor’s widow, made a journey to Constantinople and
  was there baptized in A.D. 955 under the name Helena. But her son
  Swätoslaw could not be persuaded to follow her example. The aged
  princess is said according to the report of German chroniclers
  to have at last besought the emperor Otto I. to send German
  missionaries, and that in response Adalbert of Treves, afterwards
  archbishop of Magdeburg, undertook a missionary tour, from which,
  however, he returned without having achieved his purpose, after
  his companions had been slain. Olga’s grandson, Vladimir, “Equal
  of the Apostles,” was the first to put an end to paganism in
  the country. According to a legend adorned with many romantic
  episodes he sent ten Boyars in order to see how the different
  religions appeared as conducted in their chief seats. They were
  peculiarly impressed with the beautiful service in the church of
  Sophia. In A.D. 988, in the old Christian commercial town Cherson,
  shortly before conquered by him, Vladimir was baptized with the
  name Basil, and at the same time he received the hand of the
  princess Anna. The idols were now everywhere broken up and burnt;
  the image of Perun was dragged through the streets tied to the
  tail of a horse, beaten with clubs and thrown into the Dnieper.
  The inhabitants of Kiev were soon afterwards ordered to gather
  at the Dnieper and be baptized. Vladimir knelt in prayer on the
  banks and thanked God on his knees, while the clergy, standing
  in the stream, baptized the people. On the further organization
  of the Russian church Anna exercised a powerful and salutary
  influence. Vladimir died in A.D. 1015. His son Jaroslaw I., the
  Justinian of the Russians, attended to the religious needs of his
  people by the erection of many churches, monasteries and schools,
  improved the worship, enriched the psalmody, awakened a taste for
  art and patronized learning. The monastery of Petchersk at Kiev
  was the birthplace of Russian literature and a seminary for the
  training of the clergy. Here, at the end of the 11th century, the
  monk Nestor wrote his annals in the language of the country. The
  metropolitan of Kiev was the spiritual head of the whole Russian
  church under the suzerainty of the patriarch of Constantinople.
  After the great fire of A.D. 1170, which laid the glory of Kiev
  in ashes, the residency of the Grand Duke was transferred to
  Vladimir. In A.D. 1299 the metropolitan also took up his abode
  there, but only for a short time; for in A.D. 1328 the Grand Duke
  Ivan Danilowitsch settled at Moscow and the metropolitan went
  there along with him. The patriarch of Constantinople on his own
  authority consecrated in A.D. 1353 a second Russian metropolitan
  for the forsaken Kiev, to whom he assigned the Southern and
  Western Russian provinces which since A.D. 1320 had been under
  the rule of the pagan Lithuanians. This schism was overcome
  in A.D. 1380 on the next occasion of a vacancy in the Moscow
  chair by the appointment to Moscow of the Kiev metropolitan. But
  the Lithuanian government, which had meanwhile become Catholic
  (§ 93, 15), compelled the South Russian bishops in A.D. 1414 to
  choose a metropolitan of their own independent of Moscow, who in
  A.D. 1594 with his whole diocese at the Synod of Brest (§ 151, 3)
  attached himself to Rome. The primate of Moscow continued under
  the jurisdiction of Constantinople until, in A.D. 1589, the
  patriarch Jeremiah II. (§ 139, 26), on the occasion of his being
  personally present at Moscow voluntarily declared the Russian
  church independent of him, and himself consecrated Job, the
  metropolitan of that time, its first patriarch.[197]

  § 73.5. =Russian Sects.=--About A.D. 1150, the monk Martin, an
  Armenian by birth, insisted upon a liturgical reform that seemed
  to him most necessary. Among other things he declared that it was
  sinful to lead the subject of baptism to the baptismal font from
  right to left or from south to north; the direction should be
  reversed following the course of the sun. But it seemed to him
  most important that a reform should be made in the hitherto
  prevalent mode of making the sign of the cross. Instead of
  symbolizing, as up to this time had been done, the two natures in
  Christ and the three persons in the Trinity by bending the little
  finger and the thumb, and making the sign of the cross with other
  three, they made this sign with the fore and middle fingers.
  For nearly ten years this monk was allowed to disseminate his
  errors unchecked, till a Council obliged him to retract. Two
  hundred years later a certain Carp Strigolnik at Novgorod in
  A.D. 1375 publicly accused the clergy of sinning, because,
  in accordance with an old custom, they took fees in assisting
  in the consecration of bishops, and demanded of all orthodox
  Christians that they should separate from them as unworthy of
  their office. But he, along with many of his followers, was
  mobbed by the adherents of the opposite party and drowned in
  the Volga. More dangerous than all the earlier sectaries was
  the so-called Jewish sect at the end of the 15th century,
  which sought to reduce orthodox Christianity to a rationalistic
  cabbalistic Ebionitism. About A.D. 1470 the Jew Zachariah arrived
  at Novgorod. He won two distinguished priests Alexis and Denis to
  his views, that Christ was nothing more than an ordinary Jewish
  prophet, that the Mosaic law is a divine institution and is of
  perpetual obligation. By the advice of the Jew the two priests
  continued to profess the greatest zeal for the ceremonial laws
  of the Church, and by strict observance of the fasts obtained
  a great reputation for piety, but secretly they wrought all the
  more successfully for the dissemination of their sect among all
  classes of the people. When the czar, Ivan III., in A.D. 1480,
  came to Novgorod, they made so favourable an impression on
  him that he took them with him to Moscow, where they reaped a
  rich harvest for their secret doctrine. They succeeded through
  their influence with the czar in placing at the head of the
  whole Russian church a zealous proselyte for their sect in the
  archimandrite Zosima. Meanwhile at Novgorod iconoclast excesses
  were committed by the sectaries, which the archbishop of that
  place, Gennadius, set himself to suppress by imposing generally
  mild penalties. His successor Joseph Ssanin proceeded much more
  energetically. He did not rest till the czar in A.D. 1504 called
  a Church Synod at Novgorod which condemned the chiefs of the sect
  to be burnt, and their followers to be shut up in monasteries.
  Even the metropolitan Zosima as a favourer of the sect was sent
  to a monastery; but Alexis managed so cleverly that he retained
  his office and dignity to the end of his life. Secret remnants
  of this sect, as well as of the two previously referred to,
  continued to exist for a long time, even down to the 17th
  century, when sectarianism in the Russian Church made again
  a new departure (§ 163, 10).

  § 73.6. =Romish Efforts at Union.=--From a very early time Rome
  cast a covetous glance at the young Russian church, and she
  spared neither delicate hints nor attempts to subdue by force
  by the aid of Danes, Swedes, Livonians and at a later time,
  the Poles. In order to avert this danger and to obtain from
  the West assistance against the oppressive yoke of the Mongols,
  A.D. 1234-1480, the Grand Duke Jaroslav [Jaroslaw] II. of
  Novgorod was not averse to a union. His son Alexander succeeded
  him in A.D. 1247. By a glorious victory over the Swedes in
  A.D. 1240, on the Neva, he won for himself the surname Newsky,
  and in A.D. 1242 he defeated the Livonians on the ice of Lake
  Peipus. Pope Innocent IV. who had already in A.D. 1246 nominated
  Arch bishop Albert Suerbeer (§ 93, 12) a legate to Russia with the
  power to erect bishoprics there, addressed an earnest exhortation
  to the young prince in A.D. 1248 with promises of help against
  the Mongols, urging him to go in the footsteps of his father and
  to secure his own and his subjects’ salvation by doing what his
  father had promised. The Grand Duke referred to the wisest men
  of the land and answered the Pope: From Adam to the flood, from
  that to the Confusion of languages, etc., down to Constantine and
  the seventh œcumenical Council, we know the true history of the
  Church, but yours we do not wish to acknowledge. Alexander Newsky
  died in A.D. 1263, and has been ever since venerated by his
  country as a national hero and by his Church as a national saint.
  The prospects of the Roman Curia were more favourable during
  the 14th century owing to the Lithuanian and Polish supremacy in
  South and West Russia, and by the schism of the Russian Church
  into Kiev and Moscow primacies. In those Southern and Western
  provinces there was originally less disinclination to Rome than
  in Moscow. Still even here we meet during the 15th century in the
  metropolitan Isidore, born in Thessalonica, a prelate who made
  everything work toward a union with Rome. When the Union Synod
  of A.D. 1438 was to meet at Ferrara (§ 67, 6), he represented to
  the Grand Duke Vassili that it was his duty to appear there. He
  gave a hesitating and unwilling consent. At the Council Isidore
  along with Bessarion showed himself a zealous promoter of the
  union. He returned in A.D. 1441 as cardinal and papal legate.
  But when at the first public service in Moscow he read aloud the
  union documents, the Grand Duke had him imprisoned and banished
  to a monastery. He escaped from his prison and died in Rome in
  A.D. 1643.--Continuation, § 151, 3.




                            SECOND DIVISION.

       THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH
                      DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.[198]


              § 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD
                          OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

  With the historically significant appearance of the Germanic peoples,
from whose blending with the old Celtic and Latin races of the conquered
countries the _Romance_ group of nationalities has its origin, there
begins a new phase in the historical development of the world and the
church. The so-called migration of the nations produced an upheaval
and revolution among the very foundations and springs of history such
as have never since been seen. For a similar significance cannot be
ascribed to the appearance at a somewhat later period of a motley crowd
of Slavic tribes and a detached contingent of the Turanian-Altaic race
(Finns, Magyars, etc.), because the stream of their development ran in
the same channel. Thus the appearance of the Germans forms the watershed
between the old world and the new. This dividing boundary, however,
is not a straight line; for the shoots of the old world run on for
centuries alongside of and among the young growths of the new world.
In so far as those remnants of the old have no relation to the new
and work out uninfluenced by their surroundings their own material
in their own way, the history of their developments has no place here;
but even these demand consideration at this point in so far as they
affect the development of the new world as a means of educating and
moulding, arresting and perverting. Just as the history of the church
and the world as a whole is distributed into ancient and modern,
so the special history of the Germano-Roman world can and must be
distributed into ancient and modern, the dividing boundary of which
is the Reformation of the 16th century. The earlier of these two phases
of history presents itself to us with a Janus-head, whose two faces are
directed the one to the ancient, the other to the modern world. This
follows from the fact that the groups of peoples referred to did not
require any longer to pursue the weary way of their development on
their own charges, but rather entered upon the spiritual heritage of
the defunct ancient world, and were able by means thereof more quickly
and surely to grow to the maturity of their own proper and independent
rank and culture. The Roman and, for some branches of the Slavic races,
also the Byzantine, church was the bearer and medium of this spiritual
heritage, and as such became teacher and disciplinarian of the young
world. The Reformation is the emancipation from the administrator of
discipline, whose leading strings were cast off by the youth when he
reached the maturity of man’s estate. It is the assertion of the German
nation that it had reached its intellectual majority.

  § 74.1. =The Character of Mediæval History.=--As its name implies
  the mediæval period of church history is one of transition from
  the old to the new. The old is the now completed development
  of Christianity under the moulding influences of the ancient
  Greek and Roman world; the new is the complete incorporation of
  the special forms of life and culture that characterize the new
  peoples, who are placed by means of the migration of the nations
  in the foreground of history. But since the peculiar culture
  of these nations was first present only potentially and as a
  capacity, and was to realize itself first through the influence
  of the early Christian culture, between the old and the new a
  middle and intermediate age intervened, the extent of which was
  just that influence of the old completed culture upon the new
  developing culture. This conflict during the whole course of the
  Middle Ages was carried on by those powerful waves of action and
  reaction (formation, deformation, reformation), which, however,
  amid the ferment of the times displayed an ever varying mixing
  of the one with the other. The Middle Ages have brought forth
  the most magnificent phenomena, the papacy, the monastic system,
  scholasticism, etc., but characteristic of them all is that
  crude blending of the three kinds of movement named above, which
  hindered its effectiveness and led to its own deterioration.
  First in the beginning of the 16th century did the reformatory
  endeavours become so mature and strong that it could assume a
  purer form and carry out its efforts with success. With this too
  we reach the end of the Middle Ages and witness the birth of the
  modern world.

  § 74.2. =Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman
  Middle Ages.=--The first regular period is marked by the end of
  the Carolingian age, which may be regarded as completed by the
  dying out of the German Carolingians in A.D. 911. The movement
  in all the chief departments of the church was hitherto regular
  and unbroken: before Charlemagne an ascending one, during his
  reign reaching the summit, and after his death declining. It is
  the =universal German= period of history. The fundamental idea
  of the Carolingian dynasty, which survived even its weakest
  representatives, was no other than the combination of all
  German, Roman and Slavic nationalities under the sceptre of
  one German empire. The last German Carolingian carried this
  idea with him to the grave. The powerful impulse present even in
  the 9th century toward national separation and the dismemberment
  of the Carolingian empire into independent Germanic, Romanic and
  Slavic nations has since asserted its irresistible power. But
  with the Carolingian empire the Carolingian epoch of civilization
  also came to an end. And even the glory of the papacy, whose
  intrigues had undermined the empire, because it had thus snapped
  the branch on which it sat, now sank into the lowest depths of
  weakness and corruption. When we take a general survey of the
  beginning of the 10th century, we find on all sides, in church
  and state, in secular and spiritual governments, in science,
  culture and art, the creations of Charlemagne overthrown, and
  a _seculum obscurum_ introduced from which amid great oppression
  and savagery, emerge the conditions, earnests and germs of a new
  golden age.--A second period is marked out, in quite a different
  fashion, by the age of Pope Boniface VIII. or the beginning of
  the 14th century. Up to this time =Germany= stood distinctly in
  the foreground both of the history of the world and of the church;
  but the unhappy conflict of Boniface with Philip the Fair of
  France placed the papacy at the mercy of French policy, and so
  henceforth in all the movements of Church history =France= stands
  in the front. The pontificate of Boniface forms a turning point
  also for the historical development within the church itself. The
  most vast and influential products of mediæval ecclesiasticism
  are the papacy, monasticism and scholasticism. The period before
  Boniface is characterized by the growth and flourishing of these;
  the period after Boniface by their decay and deterioration.
  The reformatory current, too, which permeated the whole of
  the Middle Ages, has in each of these two periods its own
  distinctive character. Before Boniface those representatives of
  the dominant ecclesiastical system were themselves inspired by a
  powerful reformatory spirit working its way up from the great and
  widespread depravation of the 10th century, accompanied, however,
  by a hierarchical lust of power far beyond the limits justifiable
  on evangelical principles. The evangelical reformatory endeavours
  again directed against those representatives of ecclesiasticism
  are still relatively few and isolated and find but a slight echo,
  while as their caricature we see alongside of them heretical
  extravagances which have scarcely ever had their like in history.
  Toward the end of the first period, however, this relation
  begins to be reversed. The papacy, monasticism and scholasticism
  becoming more and more deteriorated are the patrons of every sort
  of deterioration within the church. The revolutionary heretical
  movement is indeed overcome, but all the more powerfully,
  generally and variedly does the evangelical reformatory movement,
  though still always burdened with much that was confused and
  immature, assert itself independently of and over against those
  ecclesiastical principalities, without being able, however,
  to exert upon them any abiding influence.--Thus our phase of
  development is divided into three periods: the period from the
  4th to the 9th cent. (till A.D. 911); the period from the 10th
  to the 13th cent. (A.D. 911-1294); and the period of the 14th
  and 15th cent. (A.D. 1294-1517).




                            FIRST SECTION.

           HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO
                  THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911).




     I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church.[199]


                  § 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS.

  In the pre-German age Europe was for the most part inhabited by
Celtic races. In Britain, Spain and Gaul, however, these were subjugated
by the Roman forces and Romanized, whereas in northern, eastern and
middle Europe they were oppressed, exterminated or Germanized by the
Germans. In its victorious march through Europe, Christianity met with
Celtic races of unmixed nationality only in Ireland and Scotland, for
even among the neighbouring Britons the Celtic nationality was already
blended with the Roman. Only in a very restricted field, therefore,
could the church first of all develop itself according to the Celtic
mode of culture. But here, with a wonderful measure of independence,
missionary operations were so energetically prosecuted that for a
long time it seemed as if the greater part of the opposite continent
with its German population was to be its prey, until at last the Romish
church would be driven out of its own home as well as out of its hopeful
mission fields (§ 77).--Even in pre-Christian times a second and more
powerful immigration from the East had begun to pour over Europe. The
various Germanic groups of tribes now presented themselves, followed
by other warlike races, Huns, Slavs, Magyars, etc., alternately driving
and being driven. The Germans first came into contact with Christian
elements in the second half of the 3rd century, and toward the end of
the 5th a whole series of powerful German peoples are found professing
the Christian faith, and each successive century far down into the
Middle Ages brings always new trophies from these nations into the
treasure-house of the church. It would certainly be wrong to ascribe
these results to a national predisposition of the German churches
and type of mind for Christianity. This cannot be altogether denied,
but it did not predispose the German peoples to Christianity as it
then was preached, but was first developed when this by other ways
and means had found an entrance and only at the Reformation of the
16th century did it get full expression. For that predisposition was
directed to the deepest and innermost sides of Christianity, for which
the ecclesiastical institution of the times in its externalism had
little appreciation; and the first task of the German spirit was to
secure recognition of this reformatory principle.

  § 75.1. =The Predisposition of the Germans for
  Christianity.=--What we have been accustomed to hear about
  this subject is in part greatly exaggerated, in part sought
  for where its proper germ does not lie. The German mythology
  may indeed conceal many deep thoughts under the garb of legendary
  poetry which have some relation to Christian truth and afford
  evidence of the religious needs, the speculative gifts and the
  characteristic profundity of German thought, but this scarcely
  in a larger measure than in the Greek myths, philosophemes and
  mysteries.[200] Much more suggestive of a predisposition to
  Christianity than such bright spots in the mythological system
  of the Germans are the special and distinguishing characteristics
  of the life of the German people. The fidelity of the vassal to
  his lord, transferred to Christ the heavenly king, constitutes
  the special core of Christianity. Besides, closely connected
  therewith, the love of battle and faithfulness in battle for
  and with the hereditary or elected chief found a parallel in
  the struggles and victories of the Christian life. Further,
  the Germans’ noble love of freedom, sanctified by the Gospel,
  afforded form and expression for the glorious freedom of the
  children of God. And finally, the spirituality of the Germans’
  worship, praised even by Tacitus, who says that they _nec
  cohibere parietibus Deos, neque in ullam humani oris speciem
  adsimulare, ex magnitudine cœlestium arbitrantur_, predisposed
  them in favour of the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth.

  § 75.2. What is of most significance, however, for understanding
  the almost unopposed =Adoption of Christianity= by so many German
  races is the slight hold that their heathen religion had upon
  them at that time. It is essentially characteristic of heathenism
  as the religion of nature that it can flourish only on its
  native soil. German paganism, however, had been uprooted by its
  transplantation to European soil and had, amid the movements of
  peoples during the first centuries after their migration, never
  quite struck root in the new ground. In the later centuries,
  when it had long enough time for doing so, _e.g._ among the
  Frisians, Saxons, Danes, it offered an incomparably more resolute
  resistance. Again, rapid conversion will be furthered or hindered
  according as the new home is one where already from Roman times
  Christian institutions existed or even had existed, or is one
  where the old primitive heathenism still prevailed. Only in
  the latter case could German paganism develop its full power
  and strike its roots deeply and feel at home upon the new soil;
  whereas in the other case, the higher culture and spiritual
  power of Christianity, even where it had been vanquished by
  the barbarians, disturbed the even tenour and naïvete of the
  genuinely pagan course of development. The circumstance also
  deserves mention, that the marriage of heathen princes with
  Christian princesses frequently secured their conversion along
  with that of their subjects. In the narrower circles of the home,
  the family, the tribe, innumerable instances of the same sort of
  thing repeatedly occurred. There is something specially Germanic,
  in the prominent position which German feeling had assigned to
  the wife: _Inesse quin etiam_, says Tacitus, _sanctum aliquid
  et providum putant; nec aut consilia earum adspernantur, aut
  responsa negligunt_.[201]

  § 75.3. =Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times.=--Apart
  from the too frequent practice of Christian rulers to secure
  conversions by the sword, baptism and conversion were commonly
  regarded as an _opus operatum_, and whole crowds of heathens
  without any knowledge of saving truth, with no real change of
  heart and mind, were received into the church by baptism. No one
  can approve this. But it must be admitted that only in this way
  could striking and rapid results have been reached; that indeed
  in the stage of childhood, in which the Germans then were, it
  had a certain measure of justification. By the history even of
  its attack upon German paganism an entirely different career of
  conflict and victory was marked out to Christianity than that
  through which it had to pass in its conquests of Græco-Roman
  paganism. In this latter case it had to confront a high form of
  civilization which had outlived its powers and had lost itself
  in its own perplexities, which for a thousand years had proved
  in its civilization and history a παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν.
  All this was wanting to the Germans. If the Roman world might
  be compared to a proselyte who in ripe, well proved and much
  experienced maturity receives baptism, the conversion of the
  Germans may be compared to the baptism of children.--Gregory the
  Great had at first directed the missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons
  (§ 77, 4) to destroy the idol temples of converted heathens. But
  further reflection convinced him that it was better to transform
  them into Christian churches, and now he laid it down as a maxim
  in Roman Catholic missions that pagan forms of worship and places
  of worship which were capable of modification to Christian uses
  should be carefully preserved and respected: “_Nam duris mentibus
  simul omnia abscindere impossibile esse dubium non est, quia et
  is qui summum locum ascendere nititur, gradibus vel passibus,
  non autem saltibus, elevatur._” It was a fateful, two-edged word,
  which led Catholic missions to a brilliant outward success, but
  has saturated the Catholic worship and life with a pagan leaven,
  which works in it powerfully down to the present day.


          § 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM.[202]

  The first conversions of multitudes of the German races occurred
at the time when Arianism had reached its climax in the Roman empire.
Internal disturbances and external pressure compelled a portion of
the Goths in the second half of the fourth century to throw themselves
into the arms of the East Roman empire and to purchase its protection
by the adoption of Arian Christianity. The missionary zeal of the
national clergy, with bishop Ulfilas at their head, though we cannot
indicate particularly his methods, spread Arianism in a short time
over a multitude of the German nationalities. Down to the end of
the fifth century Arianism was professed by the larger portion of
the German world, by Visigoths and Ostrogoths, by Vandals, Suevi and
Burgundians, by the Rugians and Herulians, by the Longobards, etc. And
as the early friendly relations to the Roman empire had given Arianism
a foundation among those peoples, so the later hostile relations to the
Roman empire now turned Catholic made them cling tenaciously to their
Arian heresy. Arianism had more and more assumed the character of a
national German Christianity, and it almost seemed as if the whole
German world, and with it the universal history of the future, were
its secure prey. But a quick end was made of these expectations by
the conversion of one of its chief branches to Catholicism. The Franks
had from the first pursued a policy which was directed rather to
the strengthening of the future of its brother tribes, than to the
accelerating of the downfall of the Roman empire. This policy led them
to embrace Catholicism. Trusting to the protection of the Catholic
Christians’ God and the sympathies of the whole Catholic West, the
Frankish rulers took advantage of the call to suppress heresy and
conquer heretics’ lands. To renounce heresy so as to find occasion for
attacking the territories of heretics, was probably with them a matter
of political necessity.

  § 76.1. =The Goths in the lands of the Danube.=--From the middle
  of the 3rd century Christianity had found an entrance among the
  Goths through Roman prisoners of war. At the Council of Nicæa
  in A.D. 325 there was present a Gothic bishop Theophilus. From
  A.D. 348 the scion of an imprisoned Cappadocian Christian family,
  =Ulfilas=[203] by name, wrought as bishop among the Visigoths,
  already attached to the Arian confession, with so much zeal and
  success for the spread of Christianity that the hatred of the
  pagans was roused to such a pitch that in A.D. 355 they began
  a bloody persecution of the Christians. With a great part of the
  Gothic Christians Ulfilas fled over the Danube, and the emperor
  Constantius, who honoured him as a second Moses, assigned him
  a dwelling-place in Mount Hæmus. Ulfilas continued his work for
  thirty-three years with many tokens of blessing. In order that
  the Goths might have access to the original fount of saving
  knowledge, he translated the Holy Scriptures into their language,
  for which he invented a written character of his own. He died
  in A.D. 381. A short biography of the Apostle of the Goths
  was written by his disciple Auxentius, bishop of Dorostorus
  in Silistria, which gives an account at first hand of his life
  and doctrine. But not all Gothic Christians were expatriated
  with Ulfilas. Those who remained behind were a leaven which
  ever continued to expand and spread. So Athanaric, king of the
  Thervingians, about A.D. 370, started a new and cruel persecution
  against them. Soon afterwards a rebellion broke out among the
  pagan Thervingians. At the head of the malcontents was Frithigern.
  He was subdued, but got aid from the emperor Valens and in
  gratitude for the help given adopted the Arian religion of
  the emperor. This was the first conversion in multitude among
  the Goths. A second followed not long after. The Huns had rushed
  down like a whirlwind in A.D. 375 and destroyed the empire of the
  Ostrogoths. A part of these were obliged to join the Huns; while
  another fled into the country of the Thervingians. These last
  again were driven before the conquerors and crossed the Danube
  under Frithigern and Alaviv, where in A.D. 376 Valens gave
  them a settlement on condition that they should profess Arian
  Christianity. But this friendship did not last long, and Valens
  fell in A.D. 378 fighting against them. Theodosius, the restorer
  of the Catholic faith in the Roman empire, made peace with them.
  They retained, however, their Arian Confession, which spread
  from them in a way not yet explained to the Ostrogoths and other
  related tribes. Chrysostom started a Catholic mission among them,
  but it was stopped at his death.

  § 76.2. =The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain.=--The death of
  Theodosius in A.D. 395 and the partition of his empire gave
  the signal to the Visigoths to attempt securing for themselves
  more room. Alaric devastated Greece, broke in upon Italy in
  search of prey and plundered Rome in A.D. 410. His successor
  Athaulf descended upon southern Gaul, and Wallia founded there
  a Visigoth empire with Toulouse for its capital, which under
  Euric, who died in A.D. 483, reached the summit of its glory.
  Euric extended his kingdom in Gaul, and in A.D. 475, conquered
  the most of Spain. He sought to strengthen his government by
  having one system of law and one religion, but in his projected
  conversion of his subjects to Arianism, he met with unexpected
  opposition, which he sought in vain to put down by a severe
  persecution of the Catholics. The Roman population and the
  Catholic bishops longed for a Catholic government and placed
  their hopes in the Frankish king Clovis who had been converted
  in A.D. 496. As saviour and avenger of the Catholic faith Clovis
  completely destroyed the Visigoth power on this side the Pyrenees
  in a battle at Vouglé near Poitiers in A.D. 507. In Spain,
  however, the Visigoths retained their power and persisted in
  their efforts to convert all to the Arian faith. Under the
  violent Leovigild these efforts culminated in A.D. 585 in a
  cruel persecution. His son and successor Reccared, however,
  saw the vanity and danger of this policy and took the opposite
  course. At the third Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 he adopted the
  Catholic faith and with the co-operation of the able metropolitan
  Leander of Seville secured complete ascendency for Catholicism
  throughout the empire. Under the later kings the Visigoth power
  sank lower and lower amid the treacheries, murders and revolts of
  internal factions, and in A.D. 711 the last king of the Visigoths,
  Roderick, after a bloody fight at Xeres de la Frontera yielded to
  the Saracens who had rushed down from Africa upon Spain.

  § 76.3. =The Vandals in Africa.=--Early in the 5th century
  the Vandals, who were even then Arian Christians, combining
  with the Alani and Suevi, made a descent from Pannonia upon
  Gaul in A.D. 406 and from thence upon Spain in A.D. 409, and
  made dreadful havoc of these rich and fertile lands. In A.D. 428
  the Roman proconsul of Africa, Boniface, unjustly accused of
  treason by the Roman government, in his straits called in the
  aid of the Vandals. Their king Genseric went in A.D. 429 with
  50,000 men. Boniface, however, was meanwhile reconciled with
  his government and did all in his power to get the barbarians
  to retire. But all in vain. Genseric conquered Africa and founded
  there a powerful Vandal empire. In A.D. 455 he even made an
  attack upon Rome, which was plundered by his hordes for fourteen
  days. In order to prevent any sympathy being shown by Africa
  for Rome he determined to secure throughout his empire uniform
  profession of the Arian creed, and in prosecuting this purpose
  during his fifty years’ reign exercised continual cruelties.
  He died in A.D. 477. But the African Catholics were faithful to
  their creed unto death and went forth to martyrdom in a spirit
  worthy of their ancestors of the 2nd or 3rd centuries. His
  son Hunneric allowed them only a short respite and began again
  in A.D. 483 the bloody work. He died in A.D. 484. Under his
  successor Guntamund [Gunthamund], who died in A.D. 496, a stop
  was put to the persecution; but Thrasamund [Thrasimund], who died
  in A.D. 523, again adopted bloody measures. Hilderic, who died
  in A.D. 530, a man of mild and generous temper, and the son of
  a Catholic mother, openly favoured the Catholics. Gelimer, a
  great-grandson of Genseric, put himself at the head of the Arians
  whom Hilderic’s catholic sympathies had alienated, took Hilderic
  prisoner and had him executed. But before he could carry out the
  intended persecution, Justinian’s general Belisarius marched into
  Africa, annihilated the Vandal army in a battle near Tricameron
  in A.D. 533, and overthrew the Vandal empire.[204]

  § 76.4. =The Suevi= were still heathens when they entered Spain
  with the Vandals in A.D. 409. Here under their king Rechiar they
  adopted the Catholic faith. But Remismund to please the Visigoths
  went over to Arianism in A.D. 465 with the whole people. Carraric,
  who thought he owed the cure of his son to the relics of Martin
  of Tours, passed over again to Catholicism in A.D. 550. With
  the co-operation of Martin, metropolitan of Braga, he converted
  his people, and a Provincial Synod at Braga in A.D. 563 under
  Theodimir I. completed the work. The empire of the Suevi was
  destroyed by Leovigild king of the Visigoths, in A.D. 585.

  § 76.5. =The Burgundians= carried on by the irresistible advance
  of Vandals, Suevi and Alani from their home on the Main and the
  Neckar, where they had adopted the Catholic faith, founded an
  independent kingdom in the Jura district. Here they came into
  contact with the Visigoths and for the most part fell away to
  Arianism. Of Gundiac’s four sons, who divided the empire among
  them, only Chilperic II., the father of Clotilda, remained
  Catholic. By fratricide his brother Gundobald secured complete
  sovereignty. The bishop Avitus of Vienne (§ 53, 5), however,
  vigorously opposed Arianism, and to secure its suppression called
  a Council at Epaon in A.D. 517, the decisions of which were
  recognised by Sigismund, Gundobald’s son, and were made valid
  throughout the empire. But even this did not satisfy Clotilda,
  the wife of the Frankish king Clovis, as an atonement for her
  father’s death. Her sons, urged by their mother to prove avengers
  of her father’s blood, made an end of the Burgundian empire in
  A.D. 534.

  § 76.6. =The Rugians=, in combination with the Herulians,
  Scyrians and Turcellingians, had founded an independent kingdom
  in the Old Roman Noricum, the Lower Austria of to-day. Arianism
  had been introduced among them by the Goths but without the
  complete expulsion of paganism. The Romans among them attached to
  Catholicism were sorely oppressed. But from A.D. 454, =Severinus=
  wrought among them like a messenger from heaven to bless, help
  and comfort the heavily burdened. He died in A.D. 482. Even from
  the barbarians he won the deepest reverence, and over heathens
  and Arians he had an almost magical power. He prophesied to the
  Scyrian Odoacer his future greatness. This prince in A.D. 476
  put an end to the West Roman empire and ruled ably and wisely
  as king of Italy for seventeen years. He put an end too to Arian
  fanaticism in Rugiland in A.D. 487 by overthrowing the empire of
  the Rugians. But in A.D. 489 the Ostrogoth Theodoric came down
  upon Italy, conquered Ravenna after a three years’ siege, took
  Odoacer prisoner and in a wild drunken revel had him put to death
  in A.D. 493.

  § 76.7. =The Ostrogoths= when they conquered Italy had already
  for a long time been Arians, but were free from that fanaticism
  which so often characterized German Arianism. Theodoric granted
  full liberty to Catholicism, spared, protected and prized Roman
  culture, in all which certainly his famous minister Cassiodorus
  (§ 47, 23) had no small share. This liberal-minded tolerance was
  indeed made easy to the king by the thirty-five years’ schism of
  that time (§ 52, 5), which prevented any suspicions of danger to
  the state from the combination of Roman and Byzantine Catholics.
  And in fact, when this schism was healed in A.D. 519, Theodoric
  began to interest himself more in Arianism and to give way
  to such suspicions. He died in A.D. 526. The confusions that
  followed his death were taken advantage of by the emperor
  Justinian for the reconquest of Italy. His general Narses
  annihilated the last remnants of the Ostrogoth power in A.D. 554.
  The Byzantine government again rose upon the ruins of the Goths,
  and in A.D. 567 established the exarchate with Ravenna as its
  capital. For the time being Arianism was completely destroyed
  in Italy.[205]

  § 76.8. =The Longobards in Italy.=--In A.D. 569 the Longobards
  under Alboin made a descent upon Italy from the lands of the
  Danube, and conquered what has been called Lombardy after them,
  with its capital Ticinum, now Pavia. His successors extended
  their conquests farther south, till at last only the farthest
  point of Italy, the duchies of Naples, Rome and Perugia, Ravenna
  with its subject cities and Venice, acknowledged Byzantine rule.
  Excited by desire of plunder and political jealousy, the Arian
  Longobards warred incessantly for twenty years with Roman
  culture and Roman Catholicism. But after this first outburst of
  persecution had been stilled, religious indolence won the upper
  hand and the Arian clergy were not roused from their indifference
  to spiritual things by the growing zeal for conversions which
  characterized the Catholic bishops. Pope Gregory the Great,
  A.D. 590-604, devoted himself unweariedly to the task, and was
  powerfully supported by a Bavarian princess, the zealous Catholic
  queen Theodelinde. The Longobards were so enamoured of this
  fair and amiable queen that, when her first husband Anthari was
  murdered in A.D. 590, one year after their marriage, they allowed
  her to choose for herself one of the dukes to be her husband and
  their king. Her choice fell on Agilulf, who indeed himself still
  continued an Arian, but did not prevent the spread of Catholicism
  among his people. Their daughter Gundiberge, married successively
  to two Longobard kings, Ariowald († A.D. 636) and Rothari
  († A.D. 652) was an equally zealous protectress of the Catholic
  church; and with Rothari’s successor Aribert, brother’s son of
  Theodelinde, who died in A.D. 663, begins the series of Catholic
  rulers of the Longobards.--Continuation, § 82, 1.

  § 76.9. =The Franks in Gaul.=--When the West Roman empire was
  overthrown by Odoacer in A.D. 476, the Roman authority was still
  for a long time maintained in Gaul by the proconsul Syagrius.
  But the Merovingian Clovis, A.D. 481-511, put an end to it by
  the battle of Soissons in A.D. 486. In A.D. 493 he married the
  Burgundian princess Clotilda, and she, a zealous Catholic, used
  every effort to convert her pagan husband. The national pride
  of the Frank resisted long, but she got permission to have her
  firstborn son baptized. The boy, however, died in his baptismal
  robes, and Clovis regarded this as a punishment from his gods.
  Nevertheless on the birth of his second son he was unable to
  resist the entreaties of his beloved wife. He too sickened after
  his baptism; but when contrary to expectation he recovered amid
  the fervent prayers of the mother, the heathen father confessed
  that prayer to the Christian’s God is more powerful than Woden’s
  vengeance. He remembered this when threatened in A.D. 496 at
  Tolbiac with loss of the battle, of his life and of his empire
  in the war with the Alemanni. Prayer to the national gods had
  proved fruitless. He now turned in prayer to the God of the
  Christians, promising to own allegiance to Him, if He should
  get the victory. The fortune of battle soon turned. The army and
  kingdom of the Alemanni were destroyed. At his baptism at Rheims
  on Christmas Eve, A.D. 496, Archbishop Remigius addressed him
  thus: “Bend thy neck, proud Sigamber; adore what thou hast burnt,
  burn what thou hast adored!” The later tradition, first reported
  by Hincmar of Rheims in the 9th century, relates that when the
  church officer with the anointing oil could not get forward
  because of the crowd, in answer to Remigius’ prayer a white dove
  brought an oil flask from heaven, out of which all the kings of
  the Franks from that day have been anointed. The conversion of
  Clovis, soon followed by that of the nobles and the people, seems
  really to have been a matter of conviction and genuine according
  to the measure of his knowledge of God. He made a bargain with
  the Christian’s God and fulfilled the obligations under which
  he had placed himself. Of an inner change of heart we can indeed
  find no trace. There was, however, no mention of that in his
  bargain. Just after his conversion he commits the most atrocious
  acts of faithlessness, treachery and secret murder. The Catholic
  clergy of the whole West nevertheless celebrated in him a second
  Constantine, called of God as avenger upon heathenism and Arian
  heresy, and asked of him nothing more, seeing in this the task
  which providence had assigned him. The conversion of Clovis was
  indeed in every respect an occurrence of the greatest moment.
  The rude Arianism of the Germans, incapable of culture, received
  here its deathblow. The civilization and remnants of culture of
  the ancient world found in the Catholic church its only suitable
  vehicle for introduction into the German world; and now the
  Franks were at the head of it and laid the foundation of a new
  universal empire which would for centuries form the central
  point of universal history. On the work of Friddin [Fridolin]
  and Columbanus in the land of the Franks, see § 77, 7.


     § 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH.[206]

  According to an ancient but more than doubtful tradition a British
king Lucius about the middle of the 2nd century is said to have asked
Christian missionaries of the Roman bishop Eleutherus and by them to
have been converted along with his people. This, however, is certain,
that at the end of the 3rd century (§ 22, 6) Christianity had taken
root in Roman Britain, probably through intercourse with the Romans.
Down to the Anglo-Saxon invasion in A.D. 449, the British church
certainly kept up regular communication with that of the continent,
especially with Gaul. From that time, being driven back into North
and South Wales, it was completely isolated from the continental church;
but all the more successfully it spread itself out among its neighbours
in the allied tribes of Ireland and Scotland, among the former through
Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish, among the latter by Columba, the
Apostle of the Scots, and followed a thoroughly independent course of
development. When one hundred and fifty years later, in A.D. 596 the
long interrupted intercourse with Rome was again renewed by a Romish
mission to the Anglo-Saxons, several divergences from Roman practice
were discovered among the Britons in respect of worship, constitution
and discipline. Rome insisted that these should be corrected, but
the Britons insisted on retaining them and repudiated the pretensions
of the Romish hierarchy. The keen struggle which therefore arose,
beginning amid circumstances that promised a brilliant success to
the British church, ended with complete submission to Rome. The
battle-field was then transferred to Germany, and there too in spite
of the resolute resistance of their apostles the contest concluded
with the same result (§ 78). The struggle was not merely one of highly
tragic interest but of incomparable importance for the history of
Europe. For had the result been, as for a time it seemed likely that
it would be, in favour of the old British church, not only England but
also all Germany would have taken up a decidedly anti-papal attitude,
and not only the ecclesiastical but also the political history of
the Middle Ages would have most likely been led into an altogether
different course.

  § 77.1. =The Conversion of the Irish.=--Among the Celtic
  inhabitants of the island of Ireland there were some individual
  Christians from the beginning of the 5th century. The mission
  of a Roman deacon Palladius in A.D. 431 was without result. But
  in the following year, A.D. 432, the true apostle of the Irish,
  =Patrick=, with twenty-four companions, stept upon the shore of
  the island. The only reliable source of information about his
  life and work is an autobiography which he left behind him,
  _Confessiones_. According to it he was grandson of a presbyter
  and son of a deacon residing at Banava, probably in Britain, not
  likely in Gaul. In his sixteenth year he was taken to Ireland by
  Irish pirates and sold to an Irish chief whose flocks he tended
  for six years. After his escape by flight the love of Christ
  which glowed within his heart gave him no rest and his dreams
  urged him to bring the glorious liberty of the children of God
  to those who so long kept him bound under hard slavery. Familiar
  with the language and the customs of the country, he gathered the
  people by beat of drum into an open field and told them of the
  sufferings of Christ for man’s salvation. The Druids, priests
  of the Celts, withstood him vigorously, but his attractive and
  awe-inspiring personality gained the victory over them. Without
  a drop of martyr’s blood Ireland was converted in a few years,
  and was thickly strewn with churches and monasteries. Patrick
  himself had his residence at Macha, round which the town of
  Armagh, afterwards the ecclesiastical metropolis, sprang up. He
  died about A.D. 465, and left the island church in a flourishing
  condition. The numerous monasteries, in which calm piety
  flourished along with diligent study of Scripture and from which
  many teachers and missionaries went forth, won for the land the
  name of _Insula Sanctorum_. Only after the robber raids of the
  Danes in the 9th century did the glory of the Irish monasteries
  begin to fade.[207]

  § 77.2. =The Mission to Scotland.=--A Briton, Ninian, educated
  at Rome, wrought, about A.D. 430, among the Celtic =Picts= and
  =Scots= in Scotland or Caledonia. But those converted by him fell
  back into paganism after his death. The true Apostle of Scotland
  was the Irishman =Columba=. In A.D. 563 he settled with twelve
  disciples on the small Hebridean island Hy. Its common name,
  Iona, seems to have originated by a clerical error from Ioua,
  and was then regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of Columba, a dove.
  Icolmkill means Columba’s cell. Here he founded a monastery and
  a church, and converted from this centre all Caledonia. Although
  to the last only a presbyter and abbot of this monastery, he had
  all the authority of an apostle over the Scottish church and its
  bishops, a position that was maintained by successive abbots of
  Iona. He died in A.D. 597. The numerous monasteries founded by
  him vied with the Irish in learning, piety and missionary zeal.
  The original monastery of Iona flourished in a superlative
  degree.[208]

  § 77.3. =The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church.=--In the
  Anglo-Saxon struggle the following were the main points at issue.

    1. On the part of Rome it was demanded that they should submit
       to the archiepiscopal jurisdiction instituted by the pope,
       which the British refused as an unrighteous assumption.

    2. The British had an =Easter Canon= different from that
       of the Romish church. They were indeed nothing else than
       Quartodecimans, although they like these in ignorance
       referred to the Johannine tradition (§ 34, 2), but celebrated
       their Easter always on a Sunday, the settling of which they
       decided according to an 84 years’ cycle of the moon, after
       Rome had adopted a cycle of 19 years (§ 56, 3).

    3. The Celtic clergy had also a different =Tonsure= from the
       Roman _Tonsura Petri_ which seems to have been the Greek
       _Tonsura Pauli_ (§ 45, 1), although the zealous advocate of
       the Roman customs, Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow, in a letter
       to Naitan, king of the Picts, derives it from Simon Magus.

    4. Besides this there was also the question of the Marriage
       of Priests, which indeed the popish Anglo-Saxon Archbishop
       Augustine declared himself at first willing to allow to the
       British, which, however, was subsequently so passionately
       denounced by Boniface as _fornicatio_ and _adulterium_.

    5. If, further, according to Bede’s statement, besides their
       divergent views about Easter, the British _et alia plurima
       imitati ecclesiasticæ contraria faciebant_, this certainly
       cannot be understood of doctrinal divergences, but
       only of different forms of constitution and worship,
       or ecclesiastical habits and customs, as might be well
       expected in churches that had been completely separated
       since A.D. 449. We need only think, _e.g._, of the progress
       made by the idea of the papal primacy (§ 46, 7-10), the
       consolidation and reconstruction of monasticism under
       Benedict (§ 85), the codification of Roman canon law by
       Dionysius Exiguus (§ 43, 3), the modification of the idea
       of penance since Leo the Great (§ 61, 1) and the development
       of the doctrine of the mass down to Gregory the Great
       (§ 58, 3; 59, 6). The most considerable peculiarity of
       constitution in the Celtic church seems to have been that
       above referred to in placing the abbots of the principal
       monasteries at the head of the hierarchy. Only in one
       passage (Bede, III. 19) is there mention of ecclesiastical
       doctrine: In A.D. 640 Pope John IV. addressed a conciliatory
       letter to the Scots in which he warns them against the
       Pelagian heresy, “_quam apud eos revivescere didicerat_.”

  When then we turn our attention to the Celtic church planted on
  the continent at a later period, it is specially Columbanus’ view
  of Easter that is regarded in France as heretical. Often and loud
  as Boniface lifted up his voice against the horrible heresies
  of British, Irish and Scotch intruders, it is found at last that
  these consist in the same or similar divergences as those of the
  Anglo-Saxons. Not insisting upon the law of celibacy, opposition
  to the Roman primacy, the Romish tradition and the Romish canon
  law, especially the ever-increasing strictness of the Roman
  marriage laws (§ 61, 2), more simple modes of administering the
  sacraments and conducting public worship, even in unconsecrated
  places in forests and fields,--these and such like were the
  heresies complained of.--As concerns the _pro_ and _con._ of
  the evangelical purity of the ancient British Christianity, so
  highly praised by Ebrard, one occupying an impartial historical
  standpoint is justified in expecting that as all the good
  development so also all the bad development which had taken
  firm root in the common thought and feeling of the church down
  to the middle of the 5th century, would not have been uprooted
  from the church of Patrick and Columba, so also in the 7th
  century it would be still prevalent there. And this expectation
  is in general confirmed, so far as our information goes about
  all which was not expressly imported from Rome into the British
  church. If we deduct the by no means insignificant amount of
  unevangelical corruption which was first introduced into the
  Romish church during the period between Leo the Great and Gregory
  the Great, A.D. 440-604, partly by exaggerating and adorning
  elements previously there, partly by bringing in wholly new
  elements of ecclesiastical credulity, superstition and mistaken
  faith, there still remains for the Celtic church standing outside
  of this process of deterioration a relatively purer doctrine. Yet
  the Christianity that remains is by no means free of mixture from
  unevangelical elements as Jonas of Bobbio himself shows in his
  biography of his teacher Columbanus. But the more embittered the
  conflict between the British and the Romish churches became over
  matters of constitution and worship, the more did differences
  in faith and life, which had been overlooked at first, assume
  serious proportions, and supported by a careful study of
  Scripture, led to greater evangelical freedom and purity on
  the side of the British. This is thoroughly confirmed by Ebrard’s
  numerous quotations from the literature of that period.[209]

  § 77.4. =The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons.=--To protect
  himself against the robber raids of the Picts and Scots, the
  British king Vortigern sought the aid of the Germans inhabiting
  the opposite shores. Two princes of the Jutes, Hengist and Horsa,
  driven from their home, led a horde of Angles and Saxons over
  to Britain in A.D. 449. New hordes kept following those that had
  gone before and after a hundred years the British were driven
  back into the western parts of the island. The incomers founded
  seven kingdoms; at the head of all stood the prince of one of
  the divisions who was called principal king, the Bretwalda. The
  Anglo-Saxons were heathens and the bitter feelings that prevailed
  between them and the ancient Britons prevented the latter
  from carrying on missionary operations among the former. The
  opportunity which the British missed was seized upon by Rome.
  The sight of Anglo-Saxon youths exposed as slaves in the Roman
  market inspired a pious monk, afterwards Pope Gregory I., with
  a desire to evangelize a people of such noble bodily appearance.
  He wished himself to take the work in hand, but was hindered
  by the call to the chair of Peter. He now bought Anglo-Saxon
  youths in order to train them as missionaries to their
  fellow-countrymen. But when soon thereafter the Bretwalda
  Ethelbert of Kent married the Frankish princess Bertha, Gregory
  sent the Roman abbot =Augustine= to England with forty monks in
  A.D. 596. Ethelbert gave them a residence and support in his own
  capital Dorovernum, now Canterbury. At Pentecost the following
  year he received baptism and 10,000 of his subjects followed his
  example. Augustine asked from Gregory further instructions about
  relics, books, etc. The pope sent him what he sought and besides
  the pallium with archiepiscopal rights over the whole Saxon and
  British church. Augustine now demanded of the Britons submission
  to his archiepiscopal authority and that they should work
  together with him for the conversion of the Saxons. But the
  British would do nothing of the sort. A personal interview with
  their chiefs under Augustine’s oak in A.D. 603 was without result.
  At a second conference everything was spoilt by Augustine’s
  prelatic pride in refusing to stand up on the arrival of the
  Britons. Inclined to compliance the Britons had just proposed
  this at the suggestion of a member as a sign. Augustine died
  in A.D. 605. The pope nominated as his successor his previous
  assistant Laurentius. Ethelbert’s heathen son and successor,
  Eadbald, oppressed the missionaries so much that they decided
  to withdraw from the field, in A.D. 616. Only Laurentius delayed
  his retreat in order to make a final attempt at the conversion of
  Eadbald. He was successful. Eadbald was baptized; the fugitives
  returned to their former posts. In the kingdom of Essex Augustine
  had already established Christianity, but a change of government
  had again restored paganism. The gospel, however, soon afterwards
  got entrance into Northumbria, the most powerful of the seven
  kingdoms. King Edwin, the founder of Edinburgh, won the hand of
  the Kentish princess Ethelberga, daughter of Bertha. With her,
  as spiritual adviser of the young queen, went the monk Paulinus,
  A.D. 625. These two persuaded the king and he again persuaded
  his nobles and the priests to embrace Christianity. At a popular
  assembly Paulinus proved the truth of Christianity, and the
  chief priest Coisi, setting at defiance the gods of his fathers,
  flung with his own hand a spear into the nearest idol temple.
  The people thought him mad and looked for Woden’s vengeance.
  When it came not, they obeyed the command of Coisi and burnt
  down the temple, A.D. 627. Paulinus was made bishop of Eboracum,
  now York, which pope Honorius on sending a pallium raised to
  a second metropolitanate. Edwin, however, fell in battle in
  A.D. 633 fighting against Penda, the pagan king of Mercia;
  Paulinus had to flee and the church of Northumbria was almost
  entirely rooted up.[210]

  § 77.5. =Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons.=--The saviour
  of Northumbria was Oswald, A.D. 635-642, the son of a former
  king who had been driven out by Edwin. He had found refuge as
  a fugitive in the monastery of Hy and was there converted to
  Christianity. To restore the church in Northumbria the monks
  sent him one of their number, the amiable Aidan. Oswald acted as
  his interpreter until he acquired the Saxon language. His success
  was unexampled. Oswald founded a religious establishment for him
  on the island of Lindisfarne, and supported by new missionaries
  from Hy, Aidan converted the whole of the northern lands to
  Christianity. Oswald fell in battle against Penda. He was
  succeeded as king and also as Bretwalda by his brother Oswy.
  Irish missionaries joined the missionary monks of Hy, rivalling
  them in their exertions, and by A.D. 660 all the kingdoms of
  the Heptarchy had been converted to Christianity, and down to
  this date all, with the exception of Kent, which alone still
  adhered to the Romish church, belonged to the ancient British
  communion.[211]

  § 77.6. =The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon
  Church.=--Oswy perceived the political danger attending the
  continuance of such ecclesiastical disputes. He succeeded in
  convincing also his neighbour kings of the need of ecclesiastical
  uniformity. The only question was as to which of the two should
  be recognised. The choice fell upon the Romish. Oswy himself
  most decidedly preferred it. His wife Eanfled, Edwin’s daughter,
  was a zealous partisan of the Romish church, and on her side
  stood a man of extraordinary power, prudence and persistence, the
  abbot Wilfrid, a native Northumbrian, trained in the monastery of
  Lindisfarne. He had, however, visited Rome, and since then used
  all his eloquence and skill in intrigue in order to lay all
  England at the feet of the pope. The queen and the abbot wrought
  together upon the Bretwalda, and he in his turn upon the other
  princes. To these personal influences were added others of a
  more general kind: the preference for things foreign over those
  of home growth, the brilliancy and preponderating weight of the
  Romish church, and above all, the gulf, not yet by any means
  bridged over, between the Saxons and the British. When secret
  negociations toward the desired end had been carried out, Oswy
  called a general Synod at the nunnery of Streoneshalch, now
  Whitby, _Synodus Pharensis_, A.D. 664. Here all the civil and
  ecclesiastical notabilities of the Heptarchy were assembled.
  The chief speaker on the Roman side was Wilfrid, on the Celtic
  side bishop Colman of Lindisfarne. The observance of Easter was
  the first subject of discussion. Wilfrid referred to the Apostle
  Peter, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter, etc. Then Oswy
  asked Colman whether it was true that the Lord had said so to
  Peter. Colman could not deny it, and Oswy declared that he would
  follow him who had the power to open for them the gates of heaven.
  And so the question was settled. Oswy as Bretwalda carried out
  with energy the decisions of the Council, and within a few weeks
  the scissors had completed the conversion of the whole Heptarchy
  to the Roman tonsure and the Roman faith.[212]

  § 77.7. =Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the
  Continent.=--The first Celtic missionary who crossed the channel
  was the Irishman =Fridolin=, about A.D. 500. With several
  companions he settled near Poitiers in Aquitaine which was
  then under the Visigoths, converted the Arian bishop of that
  place together with his congregation to trinitarian orthodoxy,
  and, under the protection of Clovis, who had meanwhile, A.D. 507,
  overthrown the Visigoth power in Gaul, founded churches and
  monasteries. Afterwards he wrought among the heathen Alemanni in
  Switzerland (§ 78, 1). We have fuller and more reliable accounts
  of Columba the younger, usually called =Columbanus=, an Irishman
  by birth, who, in A.D. 590, with twelve zealous companions, went
  forth from the British monastery of Bangor in Co. Down, Ireland,
  and settled among the Vosges mountains. Here they founded the
  monastery of Luxovium, now Luxeuil, as centre with many others
  affiliated to it. They cultivated the wilderness and wrought
  laboriously in restoring church discipline and order in a region
  that had been long spiritually neglected. But their strict
  adherence to the British mode of observing Easter caused offence.
  The severe moral discipline which they enjoined was galling to
  the careless Burgundian clergy, and the aged Brunehilda swore
  to compass their death and destruction, because of the influence
  adverse to her authority which they exercised upon her grandson,
  the young king Theodoric II. Thus it happened that in A.D. 610,
  after twenty years’ labours, they were driven away. They turned
  then to Switzerland (§ 78, 1). But when persecuted here also,
  Columbanus with his followers migrated to Italy, about A.D. 612,
  where, under Agilulf’s protection (§ 76, 8), he founded the
  celebrated monastery of Bobbio and contended against Arianism.
  The _Regula Columbani_ extant in several MSS. constitutes a
  written guide to Christian piety and breathes a free evangelical
  spirit, while the annexed _Regula cœnobialis fratrum de Hibernia_,
  also ascribed to him, bears a rigoristic ascetic character,
  enjoining frequent flagellations. Columbanus died in A.D. 615.
  The monks of his order joined the Benedictines in the 9th century.
  On his personal relation to the Romish chair during his residence
  in Gaul and Italy we get some information from three of his
  epistles still extant. In the first he asks Gregory the Great
  for an explanation of the Gallic observance of Easter, and in
  the second he asks Boniface IV. to confirm his old British mode
  of reckoning Easter. In both he recognises the pope as occupier
  of the chair of Peter, and in the second greets him as head of
  all the churches of Europe and describes the Roman church as the
  chief seat of the orthodox faith. In the third, on the other hand,
  he demands of the pope in firm terms an account of his own faith
  and that of the Roman church. He did so in consequence of a
  report having reached him, probably through the mention by the
  5th œcum. Council (§ 52, 6) of a schism between Rome and Northern
  Italy, that the Roman chair had fallen into the heresies of
  Eutyches and Nestorius.--The ablest of Columbanus’ followers
  was Gallus or St. Gall. He remained in Switzerland and had his
  faithfulness rewarded by rich success. After Columbanus had been
  expelled from France traces of Celtic ecclesiastical institutions
  may indeed for a considerable time have lingered on among his
  Frankish scholars and friends animated by the missionary zeal
  of their master. For from their midst as it would seem proceeded
  most of those Frankish missionaries who carried the gospel in the
  7th century to the German lands (§ 78). But from the time of the
  overthrow of the old Celtic ecclesiastical system at the Synod of
  Streoneshalch in A.D. 664, whole troops of its adherents, British,
  Irish, Scotch and Anglo-Saxons, crossed the channel to convert
  Germany. With very few exceptions, only the names of these men,
  and for the most part not even these, have come down to us. But
  their zeal and success are witnessed to by the fact that even in
  the beginning of the 8th century throughout all the district of
  the Rhine, as well as Hesse, Thuringia, Bavaria and Alemannia
  we find a network of flourishing churches bearing the impress
  of Celtic institutions. And the overthrow of this great and
  promising ecclesiastical system, partly by peaceful, partly by
  violent transportation into the Romish church, was the work of
  the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid, whom the Romanists, quite rightly from
  their point of view, honour, under the name of Boniface, as the
  Apostle of Germany (§ 78, 4-8).[213]

  § 77.8. =Overthrow of the Old British System in the Iro-Scottish
  Church.=--After the British Church had lost, in A.D. 664, all
  support in the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, it could not long maintain
  itself in its own original Celtic home. The Scottish kings
  on political grounds, in order to avoid giving their Saxon
  neighbours an opportunity of gratifying the love of conquest
  under the pretext of zeal for the faith, were obliged to
  assimilate their church organization with that of the Southerns.
  The learned Abbot Adamnan of Hy, when, in A.D. 684, by order
  of his king, he visited the Northumbrian court, professed to
  be there convinced of the correctness of the Romish observance
  of Easter. But when his monks stoutly resisted, he left the
  monastery and went on a missionary tour to Ireland where he
  urged his views so successfully that in A.D. 701 the most of the
  Irish adopted the Roman reckoning. Some years later, in A.D. 710,
  Naitan II., the powerful king of the Picts, asked instructions
  from Abbot Ceolfrid about the superiority of the Romish practice
  regarding Easter and the tonsure, forced his whole people to
  adopt the Romish doctrine and banished the obstinate priests.
  Finally, the Anglo-Saxon Egbert, educated in Ireland, but
  subsequently won over to the Romish church, induced by visions
  and tempests to abandon his projected mission to the heathen
  Frisians (§ 78, 3), and to devote himself to what was regarded
  as the more arduous task of the conversion of the schismatical
  monks of Hy, succeeded in A.D. 716 in so far overcoming their
  obstinacy that they at least gave up their divergent tonsure and
  Easter reckoning. Thereafter the Romanists were satisfied with
  the gradual Romanizing of the whole Celtic regions in the west
  and north. In worship, constitution and discipline all remained
  for a long time as it had been of old. The Roman law of celibacy
  could not win its way. Public worship was conducted and the
  sacraments dispensed in the language of the people and in the
  simple forms of primitive times. Canon law was almost everywhere
  made subordinate to the customs of the national church. Indeed,
  when in A.D. 843, the kingdom of the Picts, where the papacy
  had made most progress, went by inheritance to the Scottish
  king Kenneth, he restored even there the old ecclesiastical
  institutions of their fathers. Malcolm III., who died in
  A.D. 1093, was the first of the Scottish kings to begin the
  complete, thorough and lasting Romanizing of the whole country.
  His marriage with the English princess Margaret, a zealous
  supporter of the papacy, marks the beginning of that policy
  which was carried out and completed by their son David, who
  died in A.D. 1152. In Ireland the English conquest of A.D. 1171
  under Henry III. prepared the way for the complete Romanizing
  of the island. Still in both Scotland and Ireland down to the
  14th century many of the old Celtic priests survived. To them was
  given the Celtic name Kele-de, _servus_ or _vir Dei_, Latinized
  as Colidei, and in modern form, Culdees. They were secular
  priests who, bound by a strict rule, in companies generally of
  twelve with a prior over them, like a Catholic canon (§ 84, 1),
  devoted themselves to a common spiritual life and activity,
  maintaining an existence in many places down to the end of
  the 8th century. The origin of the rule under which they lived
  is still very obscure. It allowed them to marry but enforced
  abstinence from marital intercourse during the period of their
  service, and required of them, besides the charge of the public
  services, special attention to the poor. In Scotland particularly
  their societies soon became so numerous that almost the whole
  secular clergy went over to them. By the forcible introduction
  of regular canons they were crushed more and more down to the
  11th century, or where they still existed, they were deprived
  of the right of pastoral supervision and administration of the
  sacraments and reduced to subordinate positions, such as that
  of choir singers.--The usual application of the name of Culdees
  to all, even earlier representatives of the Celtic church, is
  quite unjustifiable.[214]


          § 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY.[215]

  In the Roman period the regions of the Rhine and the Danube had
become Christian countries, but the rush of the migration of the
peoples had partly destroyed the Christian foundations, partly overlaid
them with heathen superstitions. By the end of the 6th century a great
part of Germany was already under the dominion of the Franks, and,
to distinguish it from the country of the West Franks or Neustria,
was called Austrasia or the land of the East Franks. South-western
and South-eastern Germany (Alemannia, Bavaria, Thuringia) was governed
by native dukes under the often disputed over-lordship of the Franks.
North-western Germany (embracing the Frisians and the Saxons) still
enjoyed undisputed national independence. The first serious attempt
to introduce or restore Christianity in Austrasia began about the end
of the 6th century. The missionaries who took the work in hand went,
partly from Neustria, partly from this side of the Channel. The Irish
and Scottish monasteries were overflowing. Those dwelling in them
had an unconquerable passion for travel and in their hearts an eager
longing to spread Christ’s kingdom by preaching the gospel. This
impulse was greatly strengthened by the overthrow of their national
prestige (§ 77, 6). They were thus out of sympathy with their native
land, and were encouraged to hope that they might win on the opposite
continent what they had lost at home. Crowds of monks from Iro-Scottish
monasteries crossed over into the heathen provinces of Germany. But
Romish Christian Anglo-Saxons, no less fond of travel, impelled by
the same missionary fervour and no slight zeal for their own communion,
followed in their steps. Thus in the 8th century on German soil the
struggle was renewed which at home had been already fought out, to
end again as before in the defeat of the Celtic claims. In almost all
German countries we find traces of Irish or Scottish missionaries and
married priests, reproachfully styled adulterers. What mainly secured
for the Anglo-Saxons the victory over them was the practical talent for
organization shown by the former, and their attachment to the imposing
spiritual power of the papal see. To them alone is Germany indebted
for her incorporation into the Roman ecclesiastical union; for even
the Frankish missionaries for the most part had no connection with
Rome.--Most rapid and successful progress was made by the mission
where there had previously been Christian institutions, _e.g._ in
the provinces of the Rhine and the Danube. The work was more difficult
on the east of the Scheldt in Friesland, Hesse, Thuringia and Saxony,
where paganism had reigned undisturbed. Mission work was at once
furthered and hindered by the selfish patronage of the Frankish rulers.
Paganism and national liberty, the yoke of Christ and the yoke of the
Franks, seemed inseparably conjoined. The one stood and fell with the
other. The sword of the Franks was to make the way for the cross of
Christ, and the result of preaching was to afford an introduction to
political subjection. The missionaries submitted regretfully to this
amalgamation of religious and political interests, but it was generally
unavoidable.

  § 78.1. =South-Western Germany.=--Here were located the
  powerful race of the =Alemanni=. Of the Christian institutions
  of the Roman period only some shadowy remnants were now to be
  seen. The diet of Tolbiac in A.D. 496 which gave the Franks a
  Christian king, first secured an entrance among the Alemanni
  to Christianity. Yet progress was slow, for the Franks did
  not resort to force. The revision of Alemannian jurisprudence,
  concluded by Dagobert I. about A.D. 630, assumed indeed that the
  country was wholly Christian, but it only anticipated what the
  country was destined to become. =Fridolin= (§ 77, 7), founder
  of the monastery of Seckingen on an island of the Rhine above
  Basel, is called the first Apostle of the Alemanni, A.D. 510.
  The reports that have reached us of his work are highly legendary
  and unreliable. After =Columbanus= in A.D. 610 had been compelled
  along with his companions to leave the Frankish territory
  (§ 77, 7), he chose Alemannian Switzerland as the field of their
  operations. They settled first of all at Tuggen on the Zurich
  lake. The fiery zeal with which they destroyed heathen idols,
  roused the wrath of the inhabitants, who maltreated them and
  drove them away. They next wrought for three years at Bregentz
  where they converted many pagans. The main instrument in this
  work was =Gallus= who had gained thorough mastery of the language
  of the people. Driven from this place also, Columbanus and
  his followers settled in Italy. Only =Gallus=, who was ill at
  the time, remained behind. He felt obliged, in spite of all
  unfavourable circumstances, to carry on the work that had been
  begun. In a wild forest dale by the stream Steinach, where he
  was held firm by a thorn bush while on his knees praying, he
  built a cell, from which arose in later times the famous abbey of
  St. Gall. He died, after an eminently useful and successful life
  in his 95th year in A.D. 646. He does not seem to have been so
  persistent as Columbanus in maintaining the peculiarities of the
  British church. His disciple =Magnoald= continued his work and
  founded the monastery of Füssen on the Upper Lech in Swabia. At
  the same time there wrought at Breisgau the hermit =Trudpert=, an
  Irishman, who laid the foundation of the future abbey of Trudpert
  at the foot of the Black Forest, and was murdered in A.D. 643
  by a servant given up to him for forced labour. Somewhat later
  we meet with =Pirminius=, a Frankish cleric, on the Lake of
  Constance, where, under the protection of the Frankish ruler
  Charles Martel, he founded the monastery of Reichenau in A.D. 724.
  A national rising of the Alemanni against the Franks drove him
  away after three years; but the monastery remained uninjured. He
  then proceeded down the Rhine and founded several monasteries,
  the last at Hornbach in the diocese of Metz, where he died in
  A.D. 753.

  § 78.2. =South-Eastern Germany.=--After the successful labours
  of Severinus (§ 76, 6) the history of the Danubian provinces
  is shrouded in thick darkness. A hundred years later we find
  there the powerful nation of the Boyars, now Bavarians, with
  native dukes descended from Agilulf. Only scanty remnants of
  Christianity were to be seen. In A.D. 615 the Frankish abbot
  =Eustasius= of Luxeuil, the successor of Columbanus, appears
  prosecuting the missionary labours, and struggling against the
  so-called heresies of Bonosus and Photinus, remnants probably
  of Gothic Arianism. About the middle of the 7th century, at the
  court of the Duke of Bavaria, Theodo I., at Regensburg, =Emmeran=,
  bishop of Poitiers, laboured for three years. Suddenly he
  left the country and made a pilgrimage to Italy. Being charged
  with the seduction of the Princess Ota, he was on his journey
  in A.D. 652, according to others in A.D. 715, overtaken by her
  brother and cruelly murdered. Ota is said at the advice of the
  saint himself to have named him as her seducer, in order to
  screen the actual seducer from vengeance. The true Apostle of
  Bavaria was bishop =Rupert= of Worms. In A.D. 696 he baptized
  the Duke Theodo II. with his household, founded many churches
  and monasteries, and almost completed the Christianizing of
  the country. The centre of his operations was the bishopric of
  Salzburg, founded by him. About A.D. 716 he returned to Worms
  and died there in A.D. 717. An old tradition describes him as
  a Scot, whether in respect of his descent or of his undoubtedly
  ecclesiastical tendencies, is uncertain. We find at least no
  trace of his having had any connection with Rome. Soon after
  him a Frankish itinerant bishop called =Corbinianus= made his
  appearance in Bavaria, and was the founder of the episcopal see
  at Freisingen, A.D. 724. He was a man of imperious temper and
  unbending stubbornness, who exercised discipline with reckless
  strictness, rooted out the remnants of pagan superstition, and
  founded many churches and monasteries. He died in A.D. 730.--That
  the Frankish missionaries were still more or less influenced by
  the old British traditions is shown by the fact that Boniface
  found the Bavarian church free from Rome. Duke Theodo II. soon
  after Rupert’s departure on a pilgrimage to Rome had indeed
  entered into relations with Gregory II., in consequence of which
  three Roman clerics made their appearance in Bavaria. But the
  organization of the Bavarian church committed to them by the
  pope could not be carried out on account of political troubles.
  Boniface was the first who succeeded in some measure in
  doing this.--The Apostle of the neighbouring Thuringians was
  an Irishman =Kilian= or Kyllena, who, toward the end of the
  7th century, along with twelve companions, entered the province
  of Würzburg. These faithful men found the reward of their labours
  in the crown of martyrdom. But crowds of their zealous believing
  fellow-countrymen followed them, and continued with rich success
  the work which they had begun, until, after a hard struggle, they
  were obliged to resign the field to Boniface.

  § 78.3. =North-Western Germany.=--In the Middle Rhine provinces
  Christian episcopal dioceses had been maintained, but in a feeble
  condition and overrun with crowds of heathen people. About the
  middle of the 6th century a Frank called =Goar= settled as a
  hermit within the bounds of the diocese of Treves, converted
  many of the surrounding heathens and put to shame the envious
  suspicions of the clergy of Treves, his holiness being attested
  according to later legends by many extraordinary miracles. The
  beautiful town of St. Goar has grown up round the spot where he
  built his cell and church. After him in the same region wrought
  a Longobard =Wulflaich= who as a stylite (§ 44, 6), in spite
  of the northern climate, preached down to the heathens from
  his pillar. But the neighbouring bishops disliked his senseless
  asceticism and had the pillar thrown down.--After the Frankish
  king Dagobert I. conquered the south of the Netherlands in
  A.D. 630, an accomplished Frankish priest, =Amandus=, appeared
  at Rome preaching the gospel among the Frisians settled there.
  The command given by him for the compulsory baptism of all the
  pagans only intensified the hatred against him and his sacred
  message. Insulted, maltreated and repeatedly thrown into the
  Scheld, he left the country to missionarize among the Basques
  of the Pyrenees and then among the Slavs of the Danube. But at
  a later period he returned to Ghent, and gained great influence
  after having succeeded in converting a rich Frisian called
  Bavo, with whose help he built two monasteries. In A.D. 647
  he was chosen bishop of Maestricht, but retired in A.D. 649,
  notwithstanding the dissuasion of Pope Martin I., on account of
  the opposition of his clergy, and then founded the monastery of
  Elno, afterwards called St. Amand, near Tournay, where he died
  in A.D. 648. During the same period wrought =Eligius=, formerly a
  skilful goldsmith at the court of Dagobert, from A.D. 641 bishop
  of Noyon, where he died in A.D. 658. He took numerous missionary
  journeys for the conversion of the Frisians extending as far
  as the Scheld. From this side of the Channel too wistful eyes
  had looked over to the Frisian coasts. A Briton said to have
  been converted to Romanism by Augustine the Apostle of the
  Anglo-Saxons, =Livinus=, appeared as a missionary on the Scheld
  about A.D. 650, but was slain by the heathens soon after his
  arrival. The celebrated supporter of Romish claims, =Wilfrid=
  (§ 77, 6), first preached the gospel to the Frisians living
  north of the Scheld. He had been elected archbishop of York, but,
  expelled from his bishopric (§ 88, 3), he went to seek protection
  at Rome and was cast by a storm on the Frisian shores, which was
  fortunate for him as hired assassins waited for him in France.
  He spent the winter of A.D. 677-678 in Friesland, preached daily,
  baptized Duke Aldgild and “thousands” of the people. But in
  the following spring he took his departure. Aldgild’s successor
  Radbod († A.D. 719), who passed his whole life in war with Pippin
  of Heristal († A.D. 714) and Charles Martel, hated and persecuted
  Christianity as the religion of the Franks, and the seed sown
  by Wilfrid perished. Pippin’s victory at Dorstadt in A.D. 689
  compelled him for a time to show greater toleration. Then
  immediately a Frankish mission was started under bishop =Wulfram=
  of Sens, a pupil of the monastery of Fontanelle founded by
  Columbanus. According to an interesting tradition, which, however,
  does not stand the test of criticism, Radbod was himself just
  about to receive baptism, but drew back from the baptismal font,
  because he would rather go with his glorious forefathers to hell
  than enter the Christian heaven with a crowd of miserable people.
  It is probably only a legend designed in the interest of the
  doctrine of predestination.--The true Apostle of the Frisians was
  the Anglo-Saxon =Wilibrord= who, in company with twelve followers,
  undertook the work in A.D. 690. Born in Northumbria about
  A.D. 658, he received his first training under Wilfrid at the
  monastery of Ripon and then in an Irish monastery under the
  direction of Egbert, whose debt to the Frisians (§ 77, 8) he
  now undertook to pay. Pippin gave protection and aid to the
  missionaries, and Wilibrord travelled to Rome that he might get
  there support for his life work. He returned armed with papal
  approbation and supplied with relics. But meanwhile a party of
  his followers, probably dissatisfied with his control, sent one
  of their number called Suidbert to England, where he received
  episcopal consecration. Wilibrord’s party, however, kept the
  upper hand. Suidbert went to the Bructeri on the Upper Ems, and,
  when driven thence by the Saxons, to the Rhine, where he built a
  monastery on an island of the Rhine given him by Pippin, and died
  there in A.D. 715.--After many years’ successful labour Wilibrord,
  at Pippin’s command, went a second time to Rome in A.D. 696, to
  be there consecrated a bishop. Sergius I. gave him consecration
  under the name of Clement, distinguishing him in this way as
  an eminent man, and Pippin gave him the castle of Utrecht as
  an episcopal residence. From this centre his missionary labours
  stretched out over Radbod’s realm and even across the Danish
  frontier. During a visit to the island of Heligoland he ventured
  to baptize three men in a holy well. Radbod would have the
  blasphemers together to sacrifice to the gods; thrice he enquired
  at the sacred lot, but it answered regularly in favour of the
  missionaries. But, in consequence of the complete defeat which
  Charles Martel suffered at the hands of Radbod at Cologne, in
  A.D. 715, the Frisian mission was stopped and only after Radbod’s
  death in A.D. 719 could Wilibrord commence operations again from
  the monastery of Echternach, to which he had meanwhile withdrawn.
  When he died at the age of eighty-one in A.D. 739, the conversion
  at least of South Friesland was almost completed. We hear nothing
  of conflicts and disputes with Celtic missionaries all through
  his fifty years of missionary labour, in consequence, no doubt,
  of his mild and peaceful temper, which led him to attend rather
  to the Christianizing of the heathen than to the Romanizing
  of those who were already Christian.--In consequence of
  jurisdictional claims of the Cologne see, the episcopate of
  Utrecht remained vacant for a long time after Wilibrord’s death.
  The mission among the heathens was meanwhile conducted with zeal
  and success by =Gregory=, a Frankish nobleman of the Merovingian
  family and a favourite pupil of Boniface, who as abbot of the
  monastery of Utrecht presided over its famous seminary. Willehad,
  the Anglo-Saxon, was held in high repute by his scholars and
  was made bishop of Bremen by Charlemagne. The conversion of the
  northern Frisians was completed by =Liudger=, a native Frisian,
  afterwards bishop of Münster.

  § 78.4. =The Missionary Work of Boniface.=--The Anglo-Saxon
  =Winfrid= or =Boniface=,[216] born at Kirton in Wessex
  about A.D. 680 had at an early age, on account of his piety,
  ecclesiastical tastes and practical talent, gained an honourable
  position in the church of his native land. But he was driven by
  an irresistible impulse to devote himself to the heathen tribes
  of Germany. In A.D. 716 he landed in Friesland. Although Radbod,
  then at war with Charles Martel, considering that he had no
  connection with the Franks, put no hindrances in his way, he
  had not such success as encouraged him to continue, and so before
  winter he returned home. But his missionary ardour gave him no
  rest; even his election as abbot of his monastery of Nutscall was
  not sufficient to hold him back. And so in the spring of A.D. 718
  he crossed the Channel a second time, but went first of all to
  Rome, where Gregory II., A.D. 715-731, supplied him with relics
  and papal authority for the German mission. The task to which
  he now applied himself was directed less to the uprooting of
  paganism than to the overthrow of that Celtic heresy which had
  on many sides struck its roots deeply in German soil. He next
  attempted to gain a footing in Thuringia. But he could neither
  induce the “adulterous” priests to submit to Rome, nor seduce
  their people from allegiance to them. News of Radbod’s death
  in A.D. 719 moved him to make a journey into Friesland, where
  he aided Wilibrord for three years in converting the heathens.
  Wilibrord wished him to remain in Friesland as his coadjutor,
  and to be his future successor in the bishopric of Utrecht. But
  this reminded him of his own special task. He tore himself away
  and returned to Upper Hesse in A.D. 722. Here he won to Roman
  Christianity two Christian chiefs Dettic and Deorulf, erected
  with their help the monastery of Amanaburg (Arnöneburg, not
  far from the Ohm or _Amana_), and baptized, as his biographer
  Willibald assures us, in a short time “many thousands” of the
  heathens. He reported his success to the pope who called him to
  Rome in A.D. 723, where, after exacting of him a solemn vow of
  fealty to the papal chair, he consecrated him Apostolic bishop
  or Primate of all Germany, and gave him a _Codex canonum_ and
  commendatory letters to Charles Martel and the German clergy,
  as well as to the people and princes of Thuringia, Hesse, and
  even heathen Saxony. He next secured at the court of Charles
  Martel a letter of protection and introduction from that powerful
  prince, and then again betook himself to Hesse. The cutting
  down of the old sacred oak of Thor at Geismar near Fritzlar
  in A.D. 724, against which he raised the axe with his own hand
  amid the breathless horror of the heathen multitudes, building
  a Christian chapel with its timber, marked the downfall of
  heathenism in the heart of Germany. In the following year,
  A.D. 725, he extended his operations into Thuringia, where
  Celtic institutions were still more widely spread than in Hesse.
  This extension of his field of labour required a corresponding
  increase of his staff. He applied to his English friends, of whom
  bishop Daniel of Winchester was the most distinguished. His call
  was responded to year after year by Anglo-Saxon priests, monks
  and nuns. All England was roused to enthusiasm for the work of
  its apostle and supported him with advice and practical aid,
  with prayers and intercessions, with gifts and presents for his
  personal and ecclesiastical necessities. Thus there soon arose
  two spiritual armies over against one another; both fought with
  equal enthusiasm for what seemed to them most high and holy.
  But the Anglo-Saxon invader gained ground always more and more,
  though indeed amid much want, weariness and care, and the Celtic
  church gradually disappeared before advancing Romanism. Meanwhile
  Gregory II. had died. His successor Gregory III., A.D. 731-741,
  to whom Boniface had immediately submitted a report, answered by
  sending him the archiepiscopal pallium with a commission as papal
  legate in the German lands to found bishoprics and consecrate
  bishops. His work in Thuringia, after ten years’ struggles and
  contests, was so far successful that he could look around for
  other fields of labour. He chose now, however, not heathen Saxony
  but the already Christianized Bavaria, which, as still free from
  Rome and strongly infected with the British heresy, seemed to
  afford a more attractive field for his missionary zeal. He made
  a hasty tour of inspection through the country in A.D. 735-736.
  The most important result of this journey was the accession
  of a fiery young Bavarian named Sturm, supposed to be next in
  succession to Odilo the heir of the throne, whom Boniface took
  with him to educate at the seminary at Fritzlar. In the following
  year he undertook a third journey to Rome, undoubtedly to consult
  with the pope about the further organization of the German
  church and the best mode of its accomplishment. He had the most
  flattering reception and stayed almost a whole year in Rome.
  The pope sent him away in A.D. 738 with apostolic letters to
  the clergy, people and nobles of Middle Germany, and also to
  some distinguished Bavarian and Alemannian bishops, in which
  those addressed were urged to assist his legate by their ready
  and hearty obedience in bringing about a much-needed organization
  of the churches in their several provinces.[217]

  § 78.5. =The Organization Effected by Boniface.=--The attention
  of Boniface was directed first of all to Bavaria, and duke Odilo
  reigning there since A.D. 737 anticipated it by an invitation.
  Arriving in Bavaria he divided the whole Bavarian church into
  four dioceses. Bivilo of Passau had before this been consecrated
  as bishop in Rome. Erembert of Freisingen received consecration
  at the hand of the legate. The bishops of Regensburg and Salzburg,
  however, down to the close of their lives, asserted themselves
  as opposition bishops over against those appointed by Boniface.
  Odilo, too, withdrew from him his favour, and entrusted not
  to him but to Pirminian the Alemannian Apostle, who sided with
  the Celtic church, the organization and oversight of several
  newly-founded Bavarian monasteries. Thus the results of the papal
  legate’s visit to Bavaria were of a very doubtful kind, and he
  had not even made a beginning of Romanizing Alemannia. In the
  meantime, however, an incident occurred which gave him in a short
  time the highest measure of influence and success. Charles Martel
  died in A.D. 741 and his sons succeeded him, Carloman in Austrasia
  and Pepin the Short in Neustria. Charles Martel had indeed on
  Gregory’s recommendation given Boniface a letter of protection
  that he might carry on his work in Hesse and Thuringia, but
  he had never gone further, so that Boniface often complained
  bitterly to his English friends of the indolent, even hostile
  attitude of the Frankish prince. But he could not wish a better
  coadjutor than Carloman, who was really rather more a monk than
  a prince. And so Boniface no longer delayed the organization of
  the Hessian and Thuringian churches, for in the course of the
  year 741 he founded four bishoprics there. It was a matter of
  still greater consequence that Carloman and then also Pepin aided
  him in the reorganization of the Frankish national church on
  both sides of the Vosges mountains, where partly on account of
  sympathy with the British church system, partly on account of the
  wild spirit engendered by a life of war and the chase, the clergy
  had not hitherto submitted to the influence of the papal emissary.
  In order that the estates of the realm might be advised by “the
  envoy of St. Peter” and the clergy of the empire about what was
  necessary for the Austrasian church, Carloman, at the close of
  an imperial diet, at a place unknown, called the first Austrasian
  Synod, _Concilium Germanicum_, in A.D. 742, and gave to its
  decrees the authority of imperial laws. Boniface was recognised
  as Archbishop and Primate of the whole Austrasian church; it was
  forbidden that the higher or lower clergy should have anything
  to do with arms, hunting and war, that all “false and adulterous”
  priests should be expelled; that the admission of “strange”
  clerics should be dependent on examination before a Synod to
  be held annually; that in all monasteries the Benedictine rule
  (§ 85, 1) should be enforced; and that it be made the duty of
  counts to support the bishops in maintaining church discipline
  and stamping out all remnants of paganism. In the next year,
  A.D. 743, Carloman summoned the Second Austrasian Synod at
  Liptinä, now Lestines, near Cambray, which confirmed the decrees
  of the first and enlarged their scope, especially in regard to
  the rooting out of pagan superstition and enforcing strictly the
  Romish prohibition of marriage between those naturally (§ 61, 2)
  and spiritually (§ 58, 1) related. Thus upon the whole the
  legal reorganization of the church of Austrasia might have
  been regarded as complete, even though its actual enforcement
  required yet many severe struggles. In A.D. 744 Boniface laid
  the foundation of the famous monastery of Fulda which for
  many centuries was a chief resort and principal school of
  the Benedictine monks of Germany. Its first abbot was young
  Sturm.--After the close of the Austrasian Synod Boniface began
  to treat with Pepin about the reorganization of the church in
  Neustria. Pepin called a Neustrian provincial Synod at Soissons
  in A.D. 744. Its decrees in regard to discipline were in essential
  agreement with those of the two Austrasian Synods. Besides it was
  resolved to erect three metropolitan sees. Two of the prelates
  designate, however, refused to accept the pallium offered by pope
  Zacharias, A.D. 741-752, ostensibly on the plea that the payment
  of the fee demanded would render them guilty of simony. Their
  refusal, however, was perhaps mainly due to Pepin’s discovery
  that the political unity of Neustria required a Primate at Rheims
  rather than three metropolitans (§ 83). At a national Synod,
  place of meeting unknown, held in A.D. 745, called by the two
  princes acting together, at Boniface’s request the bishop Gewilib
  of Mainz, a rude warrior guilty of secret murders, was deposed.
  It was now the wish of Boniface that he should receive the vacant
  episcopal chair of Cologne, which was destined to be raised
  into a metropolitan see. Yet, through the machinations of his
  opponents, the vacancy at Cologne was otherwise filled, and
  Boniface was at last obliged to be satisfied with the less
  important bishopric of Mainz. At a second national Council
  of A.D. 748 held probably at Düren he succeeded in getting
  a considerable number of Austrasian and Neustrian bishops to
  subscribe a declaration of absolute submission to the pope
  in which they fully acknowledged the papal supremacy over the
  Frankish church. Pepin, who now, after the retirement of his
  brother Carloman from the government in A.D. 747, in order to
  spend the rest of his days in the monastery of Monte Cassino,
  was sole ruler of both kingdoms, obtained the express approval
  of pope Zacharias in A.D. 752 in making an end of the puppet
  show of a sham Merovingian royalty (§ 82, 1). But it is quite
  a mistake to say that Boniface was the intermediary in this
  matter between the pope and the mayor of the palace. His letters
  rather show, from the disfavour in which he at that time stood
  at the court of Pepin, that the negociations were carried on
  directly with the pope without his knowledge.[218]

  § 78.6. =Heresies Confronted by Boniface.=--Among the numerous
  heresies with which Boniface had to deal the most important were
  those of the Frankish Adalbert, the Scotchman Clement, and the
  Irishman Virgilius. Adalbert wrought on the left bank of the
  Rhine far into the interior of Neustria; Clement among the East
  Franks. In the summer of A.D. 743 Carloman had at Boniface’s
  urgent request cast both into prison, and at the Neustrian Synod
  of Soissons in A.D. 744 Boniface secured Adalbert’s condemnation.
  Yet soon after we find both at liberty. Boniface now accused them
  before the pope Zacharias, and they were condemned unheard at
  a Lateran Council in A.D. 745. The legate’s written accusation
  charged the Frankish =Adalbert= with the vilest hypocrisy and
  blasphemy: He boasted that an angel had brought him relics
  of extraordinary miracle-working power, by which he could do
  anything that God could; he placed himself on an equality with
  the apostles; he introduced unlearned and uncanonically ordained
  bishops; he forbade pilgrimages to Rome, and the consecration
  of churches and chapels in the names of apostles and martyrs,
  but had no objection to their consecration in his own name; he
  neglected divine service in consecrated places and assembled the
  people for worship in woods and fields and wheresoever it seemed
  good to him; he let his own hair and nails be venerated as relics;
  he absolved those who came to him in confession with the words:
  I know all your sins, for nothing is hidden from me, confession
  is unnecessary, go in peace, your sins are forgiven you, etc.;
  in this way he won great influence especially over women and
  peasants, who honoured him as a great apostle and miracle-worker.
  Three documents supported the report of Boniface; viz., a
  biography of Adalbert composed by one of his admirers, according
  to which his mother in the “ever blessed” hour of his birth had
  in vision seen an ox go forth out her right side; also, a letter
  said to have fallen from heaven to Jerusalem which guaranteed his
  divine mission; and finally, a prayer composed by him which while
  generally breathing a spirit of deep humility and firm faith,
  went on to invoke a rarely-named angel. If we strike out from
  these charges those which evidently rest upon misunderstanding
  and legendary or malevolent exaggeration, we have before us a
  man who in opposition to the prevailing worship of saints and
  relics maintained that the relics set up for veneration were no
  more worthy of it than his own hair and nails would be, who also
  disputed the advantage of pilgrimages, denied the necessity of
  auricular confession, insisted upon the universal priesthood of
  believers in opposition to Romish hierarchical claims, and the
  evangelical worship of God in spirit and in truth in opposition
  to the Romish overestimation of consecrated places; but in
  doing so perhaps, more certainly in mystic-theosophic enthusiasm
  than in conscious deceitfulness, he may have boasted of divine
  revelations and the possession of miracle-working power.--The
  figure of the Scotchman =Clement= comes out yet more distinctly
  in the charge formulated against him. He is simply an adherent
  of the pure and unadulterated ecclesiastical system of the old
  British church. He treats with contempt the Canon law, and does
  not regard himself as bound by the decrees of Synods or the
  authority of the Latin Fathers; he claims to be a bishop and
  still lives in “adulterous” wedlock; he affirms that a man
  may marry the widow of his deceased brother; he teaches with
  reference to Christ’s descent into hell that even those who
  died in heathenism may yet be redeemed, and “_affirmat multa
  alia horribilia de prædestinatione Dei contraria fidei cath_.”
  The pope committed to his legate the execution of the Synod’s
  condemnatory judgment. But still in A.D. 747 Boniface again
  complains that the undiminished reputation of both heretics at
  all points stands in his way. Soon after this, however, Carloman,
  after Adalbert had submitted in a disputation with Boniface, sent
  him into confinement in the monastery of Fulda, from which he
  made his escape, and after long wanderings was at last killed
  by the swineherds. No information has reached us as to the end
  of Clement.--The Irishman =Virgilius= was from A.D. 744 bishop
  of Salzburg, and, as before at the court of Pepin, so now at his
  recommendation at the court of the Bavarian duke Odilo, he stood
  in high favour. After a long and determined refusal he at last
  agreed to submit to the Romish choice of bishops. A priest of
  his diocese unskilled in Latin had baptized _in nomine patria
  et filia et speritus sancti_, Boniface pronounced such baptism
  invalid. Virgilius thought otherwise and appealed to the pope
  who was obliged to admit that he was right. But now Boniface
  complained of him as a heretic because he taught: _Quod alius
  mundus et alii homines sub terra sint_, and this time the pope
  took the side of his legate, because upon the accepted notion
  of the orbicular form of the earth, the doctrine of antipodes
  (already regarded by Lactantius and Augustine as of dangerous
  tendency) amounted to a denial of the unity of the human
  race and the universality of redemption, whereas the Irishman
  belonging to a seafaring race probably considered the earth to
  be globular. The pope, in A.D. 748, ordered his deposition and
  removal from the clerical order, which Boniface, however, was
  not able to accomplish.[219]

  § 78.7. =The End of Boniface.=--On the one hand, distrusted,
  and set aside by Pepin and the new pope Stephen II., A.D. 752-757,
  from his position as legate (§ 82, 1), and also, on the other
  hand, feeling himself overborne in his old age by the burden of
  his episcopal and archiepiscopal cares, sorrows and conflicts,
  Boniface had his favourite pupil, the energetic Lullus, already
  recognised by pope Zacharias, elected as his successor, and
  with Pepin’s consent transferred to him at once the independent
  administration of the episcopal diocese of Mainz. He now
  determined to devote his last as he had his first energies
  undividedly to his archiepiscopal diocese embracing the Frisian
  church, which still needed firm episcopal control and was now
  threatened with a pagan reaction. After Wilibrord’s death in
  A.D. 739, Cologne, resting its pretensions on an ancient deed
  of gift by Dagobert, claimed jurisdiction over the Frisian church.
  Boniface indeed at Carloman’s orders had ordained a new bishop
  to the Utrecht chair, in A.D. 741, probably the Anglo-Saxon
  Eoban. Yet this new bishop never came into actual, at least not
  into undisputed possession. In one of his last letters Boniface
  earnestly but in vain implores pope Stephen II. to disallow the
  unjust pretensions of Cologne. Charlemagne first settled the
  dispute by requiring Alberich, Gregory’s successor in the Utrecht
  see, to receive consecration at the hands of the Cologne prelate.
  With a stately retinue of fifty-two followers clerical or lay,
  and with a foreboding presentiment carrying with him a winding
  sheet, Boniface sailed down the Rhine in the spring of A.D. 754.
  Whether he had now in view a reorganization of the existing
  Frisian church and how far he succeeded, we have no means of
  knowing. On the other hand his biographers in their legendary
  exaggeration cannot sufficiently extol the wonderful success
  of his missionary preaching. Wherever he appeared throughout
  the land he baptized thousands of heathens. At last he had
  pitched his tent in the neighbourhood of what is now Dokkum,
  and there, on June 5th, A.D. 755, a number of neophytes received
  confirmation. But a wild troop of heathen apostates rushed down
  on them before the break of day. The guard desired to offer armed
  resistance, but Boniface refused to shed blood, and, according
  to the report of an old woman, received his deathblow holding the
  gospel over his head. His companions were also cut down around
  him. Utrecht, Mainz and Fulda quarrelled over his bones. Signs
  and wonders at last decided in favour of Fulda, which he had
  himself fixed upon as their resting place.--By order of Lullus,
  a priest of Mainz called Wilibald wrote his life about A.D. 760.
  Another life by an anonymous author in Utrecht appeared about
  A.D. 790; and yet another by the Regensburg monk Othlo about
  A.D. 1060. His literary remains consist of Epistles, Sermons,
  and Penitentials of doubtful authenticity.

  § 78.8. =An Estimate of Boniface.=--In opposition to the current
  Roman Catholic apotheosis of Boniface which assigns to him as the
  true Apostle of the Germans the highest place of honour in the
  firmament of German saints and cannot find the least shadow or
  defect in all his life, struggles and doings, ultra-protestant
  estimates have run to the very contrary extreme. Ebrard has
  carried this to the utmost length. He refuses to credit him with
  zeal, any hearty regard, any real capacity for proper mission
  work among the heathens. Alongside of Wilibrord he was only a
  despicable Romish spy; in Hesse and Thuringia only the brutal
  destroyer of the Culdee church that flourished there, and in the
  Frankish empire only the inconscionable agent of Rome who allied
  himself to the Rome-favouring dynasty of Pepin in order to secure
  the overthrow of the Culdee-favouring Merovingians, purchasing
  thus Frankish aid in subjecting the German and Frankish churches
  to the hierarchical tyranny of Rome. He can find in him no
  trace of intellectual or spiritual greatness. On the contrary
  fanaticism, hatred and a persecuting spirit, intrigue and
  dishonesty, servility, dissimulation, hypocrisy, lying and
  double dealing are there in abundance. His world-wide fame
  is accounted for by this, that he is the accursed founder of
  all mischief which has arisen upon Germany from its connection
  with the papal chair.--It is true that Boniface stopped the
  course of the national and independent development of the German
  church that had begun and put it on the track of Roman Catholic
  development and mal-development. But even had Boniface never
  crossed the Channel this fate could scarcely have been averted.
  It is further true that Boniface was far more eager in uprooting
  heretical “Celtism” and bringing Frankish and Bavarian Christians
  under the Romish yoke than in converting heathen Saxons to
  Christianity. But he was thus eager because that seemed to him
  in the first instance more necessary and important than aiming
  at new conversions. It is a crying injustice to deny that he
  showed any zeal, any energy, or that he had any success in the
  conversion of the heathen in Friesland, Hesse and Thuringia. All
  his thoughts, labours and endeavours are dominated by a steadfast
  conviction that the pope is the head and representative of
  the church in which alone salvation can be found. But yet with
  him the church laws which emanate from the Holy Spirit stand
  superior to the pope. Hence the right of final decision on all
  ecclesiastical questions belongs indeed to the pope, but only
  _secundum canones_. The expression ascribed to Boniface in
  Gratian’s Decretal: _Papa a nemine judicetur nisi devius a
  fide_ is never met with in any of his extant writings, but
  it thoroughly well characterizes his position. Thus alongside
  of the most abject submission to the chair of Peter, we see
  how firmly he speaks to pope Zacharias in connection with
  the Neustrian pallium affair about the Simoniacal greed of
  the officials, and on another occasion declares his profound
  indignation at the immoral, superstitious and blasphemous
  proceedings, fit to be compared to the old pagan Saturnalia,
  which, went on in Rome openly before the eyes of the pope
  unchecked and unpunished. He also showed brave resistance
  when papal dispensations infringed his ordinances founded
  upon the canon law, and protested vigorously, when Stephen II.,
  in A.D. 754, disregarding the archiepiscopal authority gave
  episcopal consecration to Chrodegang of Metz. But Boniface never
  mixed himself up with the political intrigues of the popes, nor
  did he ever intermeddle in the political manœuvres between Pepin
  and the Merovingians, between the Frankish empire and its German
  vassals. An inventive genius, great and profound thoughts, a
  liberal and comprehensive view of matters, we certainly often
  miss in him. All his thoughts, feelings and desires were bound
  within the narrow limits of Romish ecclesiasticism. His piety
  was deep, earnest and sincere, but is quite of the legalistic
  and hard external kind that characterizes Roman Catholicism.
  With the most painful conscientiousness he holds by Rome’s
  ecclesiastical institutions; any resistance to these is abhorrent
  to him and he persecutes heresies as cursed and soul-destroying.
  He clearly understands the absurdity of prohibiting marriage
  between those who are related only in baptism and at confirmation.
  For he sees that on this principle all marriages between Christian
  people as recipients of baptism must be forbidden since by
  baptism they have all become sons and daughters of Christ and His
  church, and so are spiritually brothers and sisters. But then he
  willingly sacrifices his understanding, and continues to denounce
  all marriages between those spiritually related as fearful sin
  and horrible incest. Very characteristic too are many of his
  questions to the popes as to what should be held on this point
  and that, mostly about very trivial and indifferent matters of
  common life. Thus he lets himself be informed that raw bacon
  should only be eaten smoked, but that the eating of the flesh of
  horses, hares, beavers, jackdaws, ravens and storks is absolutely
  forbidden, “_immundum enim est et execrabile_.”[220]

  § 78.9. =The Conversion of the Saxons.=--The first missionary
  attempts among the Saxons, who had forced their way from the
  north-west of Germany down to the neighbourhood of the Rhine,
  were made by two Anglo-Saxon monks, who were both called Ewald,
  the black or the white Ewald. A Saxon peasant received them
  hospitably, but so soon as he discovered their object, fell
  upon them with his household servants and slew them, A.D. 691.
  Boniface had many pious wishes about his heathen kinsfolk but
  did nothing for their conversion. The most that he did was
  to found the monastery of Fulda on the Saxon frontier as the
  rallying point for a future clerical raid upon Saxon paganism.
  For thirty years, however, this remained but a pious wish, till
  at last the sword of the most powerful of the Frankish kings
  took up the mission. The subjugation of the powerful as well as
  hostile Saxon people was with Charlemagne a political necessity.
  But lasting subjugation was impossible without conversion and
  conversion was impossible without subjugation; for the Saxons
  hated the religion of the Franks no less heartily than they did
  the Franks themselves. Alcuin with true magnanimity exerted all
  his influence with his royal friend against any use of force in
  conversion, but political necessity overcame the counsel of the
  much trusted friend. The Saxon war lasted for thirty-three years,
  A.D. 772-804. In the very first campaign the strongest Saxon
  fortress Eresburg was stormed and their most revered idol, the
  Erminsul, was destroyed. Frankish priests followed the Frankish
  arms and Christianized immediately the conquered districts. But
  as soon as Charlemagne’s army was engaged elsewhere, the Saxons
  proceeded to destroy again all Christian foundations. In the
  imperial diet at Paderborn in A.D. 777 they were obliged to
  swear that life and property would be forfeited by a new apostasy.
  But the most powerful of the Saxon princes, Wittekind, who had
  not appeared at the diet, organized a new revolt. The Frankish
  army sustained a fearful defeat at Mount Sunthal, all Christian
  priests were murdered, all churches were destroyed. Charlemagne
  took a dreadful revenge. At Verden he beheaded in one day 4,500
  Saxons. After a new rebellion, a second diet at Paderborn in
  A.D. 785 prescribed for them horribly bloody laws. The least
  resistance against the precepts of the church was punished with
  death. Wittekind and Albion, the two most famous Saxon chiefs,
  acknowledged the vanity of further resistance. They were baptized
  in A.D. 785 and continued thenceforward faithful to the king
  and the church. But the rebellions of the rest of the Saxons
  were still continued. In A.D. 804 Charlemagne drove 10,000 Saxon
  families from their homes on the Elbe, and gave the country to
  the Obohites [Obotrites] that were subject to him. Now for the
  first time was a lasting peace secured. Charlemagne had founded
  eight bishoprics in Saxony, and under these bishops’ care
  throughout this blood-deluged country, no longer disturbed,
  a Christianity was developed as truly hearty and fresh as in
  any other part of Germany. One witness to this among others is
  afforded by the popular epic the Heliand (§ 89, 3).[221]


               § 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES.[222]

  The sudden rush of the wild hordes of the Huns in the 5th century
drove the Slavs to the south of the Danube and to the west of the
Vistula. Again in the 6th century Slavic tribes forced their way
westward under pressure from the Mongolian Avars who took possession
of Dacia, Pannonia and Dalmatia. For the conversion of the Slavs in
north-eastern Germany nothing was done; but much was attempted on
behalf of the conversion of the southern Slavs and the Avars, who were
specially under the care of the see of Salzburg.

  § 79.1. =The Carantanians and Avars.=--The Carantanian prince
  Boruth, in what is now called Carinthia, in A.D. 748 asked the
  help of the Bavarian duke Thassilo II. against the oppression
  of the Avars. His nephew Chatimar, who had received a Christian
  training in Bavaria, when in A.D. 753 he succeeded to the throne,
  introduced Christianity into his country. After the overthrow
  of Thassilo in A.D. 788, Carinthia came under Frankish rule, and
  Charlemagne extended his conquests over the Avars and Moravians.
  Bishop Arno of Salzburg, to whom metropolitan rights had been
  accorded, conducted a regular mission by Charlemagne’s orders
  for the conversion of these peoples. In A.D. 796, Tudun, the
  prince of the Avars, with a great band of his followers, received
  baptism, and vowed in A.D. 797 to turn the whole nation of the
  Avars to Christianity, and asked for Christian teachers. In
  the 9th century, however, the name of the Avars passed away
  from history.

  § 79.2. =The Moravian Church.=--In A.D. 855 Rastislaw, Grand
  Duke of Moravia, freed his country from the Frankish yoke and
  deprived the German bishops of all their influence. He asked
  Slavic missionaries from the Byzantine emperor. The brothers
  =Cyril= and =Methodius= (§ 73, 2, 3) who had already approved
  themselves as apostles of the Slavs, answered the call in
  A.D. 863. They introduced a liturgy and public worship in the
  language of the Slavs, and by preaching in the Slavic tongue
  they won their way to the hearts of the heathen people. But in
  spite of this encouraging success they found themselves, amid
  the political convulsions of the age, in a difficult position.
  Only by attachment to the pope could they reasonably expect
  to hold their ground. They accepted therefore an invitation
  of Nicholas I. in A.D. 867, but on their arrival in Rome they
  found that Hadrian II. had succeeded to the papal chair. Cyril
  remained in Rome and soon died, A.D. 869. =Methodius= swore
  fealty to the pope and was sent away as archbishop of Moravia.
  But now all the more were the German bishops hostile to him.
  They suspected his fidelity to the pope, charged him with heresy
  and inveighed against the Slavic liturgy which he had introduced.
  John VIII., rendered suspicious of him by these means, called
  upon him in strong terms in A.D. 879 to make answer for himself
  at Rome. Methodius obeyed and succeeded in completely vindicating
  himself. The pope confirmed him in his archiepiscopal rank and
  expressly permitted him to use the Slavic liturgy, enjoining,
  however, that by way of distinction the gospel should first be
  read in Latin and then rendered in a Slavic translation. The
  intrigues of the German clergy, however, continued and embittered
  the last days of the good and brave apostle of the Slavs. He
  died in A.D. 885. A general persecution now broke out against
  the Slavic priests and the metropolitan chair of Moravia remained
  vacant for fourteen years. John IX. restored it in A.D. 899. But
  in A.D. 908 the Moravian kingdom was overthrown. The Bohemians
  and Magyars shared the spoil between them.

  § 79.3. =The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.=--On New
  Year’s day of A.D. 845 fourteen Bohemian lords appeared at
  Regensburg at the court of Louis of Germany and asked for
  baptism along with their followers. Of the motives and of
  the consequences of this step we know nothing. When Rastislaw
  raised the Moravian empire to such a height of glory the
  Bohemians connected themselves closely with Moravia. Rastislaw’s
  successor Swatopluc married a daughter of the Bohemian
  prince Borsivoi in A.D. 871. After that Methodius extended
  his missionary labours into Bohemia. Borsivoi himself and his
  wife, Ludmilla, were baptized by Methodius in A.D. 871. The sons
  of Borsivoi, also, Spitihnew, who died in A.D. 912 and Wratislaw,
  who died in A.D. 926, with the active support of their mother
  furthered the interests of the church in Bohemia.


                  § 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS.[223]

  The mission to the Frisians and Saxons called the attention of
missionaries to the neighbouring Jutes and Danes. Wilibrord (§ 78, 3)
in A.D. 696 carried the gospel across the Eider, and Charlemagne felt
it necessary in order to maintain his authority over the Frisians and
Saxons to extend his conquest and that of the church over the peninsula
of Jutland to the sea coast. He could not, however, accomplish his
design. Better prospects opened up before Louis the Pious. Threatened
with expulsion through disputes about the succession, Harald the king
of the Jutes sought the protection of the Franks. Consequently Ebo,
archbishop of Rheims, crossed the Eider in A.D. 823 at the head of an
imperial embassy and clothed with full authority from pope Paschalis I.
He baptized also a number of Danes, and when, after a year’s absence,
he returned home, he took with him several young Jutes to educate as
teachers for their countrymen. But Harald was again hard pressed and
concluded to break entirely with the national paganism. In A.D. 826 he
took ship, with wife and child, accompanied by a stately retinue, and
at Mainz, where Louis then held his court, received baptism with great
pomp and ceremony. Soon after his return a young monk followed him
from the monastery of Corbei on the Weser. =Ansgar=, the apostle of
the north, had committed to him by Louis the hard and dangerous task
of winning the Scandinavian nations for the church. Ansgar devoted his
whole life to the accomplishment of this task, and in an incomparable
manner fulfilled it, so far as indomitable perseverance, devotion and
self-denial amid endless difficulties and perverse opposition could
do it.

  § 80.1. =Ansgar= or Anschar, the son of a Frankish nobleman, born
  A.D. 801, was educated in the monastery of Old Corbie in Picardy,
  and on the founding of New Corbie in A.D. 822 was made Superior
  of it. Even in very early youth he had dreams and visions which
  led him to look forward to the mission field and the crown of
  martyrdom. Accompanied by his noble-minded brother monk Autbert,
  who would not let his beloved friend go alone, Ansgar started in
  A.D. 826 on his first missionary journey. Harald had established
  his authority in the maritime provinces of Jutland, but he
  ventured not to push on into the interior. In this way the
  missionary efforts of the two friends were restricted. On the
  frontier of Schleswig, however, they founded a school, bought
  and educated Danish slave youths, redeemed Christian prisoners
  of war and preached throughout the country. But in the year
  following Harald was driven out and fled to the province of
  Rüstringen on the Weser, which Louis assigned to him for life.
  Also the two missionaries were obliged to follow him. Autbert
  died in the monastery of Corbie in A.D. 829, having retired
  again to it when seized with illness. Soon afterwards the emperor
  obtained information through ambassadors sent by the Swedish
  king Bjorn, that there were many isolated Christians in their
  land, some of them merchants, others prisoners of war, who had
  a great desire to be visited by Christian priests. Ansgar, with
  several companions, undertook this mission in A.D. 830. On the
  way they were plundered by Norse pirates. His companions spoke
  of returning home, but Ansgar would not be discouraged. King
  Bjorn received them in a very kindly manner. A little group
  of Christian prisoners gathered round them and heartily joined
  in worship. A school was erected, boys were bought and adults
  preached to. Several Swedes sought baptism, among them the
  governor of Birka, Herigar, who built at his own cost the first
  Christian church. After eighteen months Ansgar returned to the
  Frankish court in order to secure a solid basis for his mission.
  Louis thus perceived an opportunity of founding a bishopric for
  the Scandinavian Norsemen at Hamburg on the borders of Denmark.
  He appointed Ansgar bishop in A.D. 834, and assigned to him and
  the mission the revenues of the rich abbey of Turholt in Flanders.
  Ansgar obtained in Rome from Gregory IV. the support of a bull
  which recognised him as exclusively vicar apostolic over all the
  Norse. Then he built a cathedral at Hamburg, besides a monastery,
  bought again Danish boys to educate for the priesthood and sent
  new labourers among the Swedes, at whose head was the Frankish
  monk Gauzbert. But soon misfortunes from all sides showered down
  upon the poor bishop. His patron Louis died in A.D. 840, Harald
  apostatized from the faith, the Swedish missionaries were driven
  out by the pagans, the Norse rushed down on Hamburg and utterly
  destroyed city, church, monastery, and library. Moreover Charles
  the Bald took possession of the abbey of Turholt which according
  to the Treaty of Verdun in A.D. 843 had fallen to Flanders, in
  order to bestow it upon a favourite. Ansgar was now a homeless
  beggar. His clergy, when he had no longer support for them, left
  him. His mission school was broken up. His neighbour, bishop
  Leuterich of Bremen, with whom he sought shelter, inspired by
  despicable jealousy, turned him from his door. At last he got
  shelter from a nobleman’s widow who provided for him at her
  own expense a lodging at Ramslo, a country house near Hamburg.
  In A.D. 846 Leuterich died. Louis of Germany now gave to the
  homeless Apostle of the North a fixed habitation by appointing
  Ansgar to the vacant bishopric. The bishops of Cologne and Verden
  had divided between them the shattered fragments of the Hamburg
  bishopric. But at last pope Nicholas I. in A.D. 834 put an end
  to their selfish pretensions by uniting the two dioceses of
  Hamburg and Bremen into one, and conferring upon it metropolitan
  rights for the North. But meanwhile Ansgar notwithstanding all
  the neediness in which he himself lived had been working away
  uninterruptedly on behalf the Scandinavian mission. In =Denmark=
  the king was Eric whose court Ansgar repeatedly visited as
  ambassador of the German king. By Eric’s favour he had been
  enabled to found a church in Schleswig and to organize a mission
  stretching over the whole country. Eric did not venture himself
  to pass over to Christianity, and when pagan fanaticism broke out
  in open rebellion in A.D. 854, he fell in a battle against his
  nephew who headed the revolt. A boy, Eric II., perhaps grandson
  of the fallen Eric, mounted the throne. But the chief Jovi
  reigned in his name, a bitter foe of the Christians, who drove
  away all Christian priests and threatened every Christian in the
  land with death. Yet in A.D. 855 Eric II. emancipated himself
  from the regency of Jovi and granted toleration to the Christians.
  The work of conversion was now again carried on with new zeal and
  success.--All attempts, by means of new missionaries, to gather
  again the fragments of the mission in =Sweden=, broken up by
  Gauzbert’s expulsion, had hitherto proved vain. At last Ansgar
  himself started on his journey thitherward about A.D. 850. By
  rich presents and a splendid entertainment he won king Olaf’s
  favour. A popular assembly determined to abide by the decision
  of the sacred lot and this decided in favour of the adoption
  of Christianity. From that time the Swedish mission was carried
  on without check or hindrance under the direction of Erimbert,
  whom Ansgar left there. Ansgar died in A.D. 865. The most dearly
  cherished hope of his life, that he should be honoured with the
  crown of martyrdom, was not realized; but a life so full of toil,
  privation and trouble, sacrifice, patience and self-denial, was
  surely nobler than a martyr’s crown.[224]

  § 80.2. =Ansgar’s Successor= in the see of Hamburg-Bremen was
  =Rimbert=, his favourite scholar, his companion in almost all
  his journeys, who wrote an account of his master’s life and
  pronounced him a saint. He laboured according to his ability
  to follow in the steps of his teacher, especially in his care
  for the Scandinavian mission. But he was greatly hindered by
  the wild doings of the Danish and Norse pirates. This trouble
  reached its height after Rimbert’s death, and went so far
  that the archbishop of Cologne on the pretext that the Hamburg
  see had been extinguished was able to renew his claims upon
  Bremen.--Continuation, § 93.


                   § 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.[225]

  From A.D. 665 the Byzantine rule in =North Africa= (§ 76, 3) was
for a time narrowed and at last utterly overthrown by the Saracens
from Egypt, with whom were joined the Berbers or Moors who had been
converted to Islam. In A.D. 711, called in by a rebel, they also
overthrew the Visigoth power in =Spain= (§ 76, 2). In less than
five years the whole peninsula, as far as the mountain boundaries
of the north, was in the hands of the Moors. Then they cast a covetous
glance upon the fertile plains beyond the Pyrenees, but Charles Martel
drove them back with fearful loss in the bloody battle of Poitiers
in A.D. 732. The Franks were in this the saviours of Europe and of
Christianity. In A.D. 750 the Ommaiadean dynasty at Damascus, whose
lordship embraced also the Moors, were displaced by the Abbassidean,
but a scion of the displaced family, Abderrhaman I., appeared in Spain
and founded there an independent khalifate at Cordova in A.D. 756,
which soon rose to an unexampled splendour. Also in =Sicily= the Moslem
power obtained an entrance and endeavoured from that centre to maintain
itself by constant raids upon the courts of Italy and Provence. The
expulsion of the Moors from Spain and Sicily was first completely
accomplished during the next period (§ 95).

  § 81.1. =Islam in Spain.=--The Spanish Christians under the
  Ommaiade rule were called Mozarabians, _Arabi Mustaraba_, _i.e._
  Arabianized Arabs as distinguished from Arabs proper or _Arabi
  Araba_. They were in many places under less severe restrictions
  than the Oriental Christians under Saracen rule. Many Christian
  youths from the best families attended the flourishing Moorish
  schools, entered enthusiastically upon the study of the Arabic
  language and literature, pressed eagerly on to the service of the
  Court and Government, etc. But in opposition to such abandonment
  of the Christian and national conscience there was developed
  the contrary extreme of extravagant rigorism in obtrusive
  confessional courage and uncalled-for denunciation of the prophet.
  Christian fanaticism awakened Moslem fanaticism, which vented
  itself in a bloody persecution of the Christians in A.D. 850-859.
  The first martyr was a monk Perfectus. When asked his opinion
  about Mohammed he had pronounced him a false prophet, and was
  executed. The khalif of that period, Abderrhaman II., was no
  fanatic. He wished to stop the extravagant zeal of the Christians
  at its source, and made the metropolitan Recafrid of Seville
  issue an ecclesiastical prohibition of all blasphemy of the
  prophet. But this enactment only increased the fanaticism of
  the rigorists, at whose head stood the presbyter, subsequently
  archbishop, Eulogius of Cordova and his friend Paulus
  Alvarus (§ 90, 6). Eulogius himself, who kept hidden from
  her parents a converted Moorish maiden, and was on this account
  beheaded along with her in A.D. 859, was the last victim of
  the persecution.--The rule of the Arabs in Spain, however, was
  threatened from two sides. When Roderick’s government (§ 76, 2)
  had fallen before the arms of the Saracens in A.D. 711, Pelayo,
  a relation of his, with a small band of heroic followers,
  maintained Christian national independence in the inaccessible
  mountains of Asturia, and his son-in-law Alphonso the Catholic
  in the Cantabrian mountains on the Bay of Biscay. Alphonso
  subsequently united both parties, conquered Galicia and the
  Castilian mountain land, erecting on all sides the standard
  of the cross. His successors in innumerable battles against
  the infidels enlarged their territory till it reached the
  Douro. Of these Alphonso II., the Chaste, who died in A.D. 850,
  specially distinguished himself by his heroic courage and his
  patronage of learning. Oviedo was his capital. On the east
  too the Christian rule now again made advance.--Charlemagne
  in A.D. 778 conquered the country down to the Ebro. But a
  rebellion of the Saxons prevented him advancing further, and
  the freebooting Basques of the Pyrenees cut down his noblest
  heroes. Two subsequent campaigns in A.D. 800, 801, reduced all
  the country as far as the Ebro, henceforth called the Spanish
  March, under the power of the Franks.[226]

  § 81.2. =Islam in Sicily.=--A Byzantine military officer
  fled from punishment to Africa in A.D. 827 and returned with
  10,000 Saracen troops which terribly devastated Sicily. Further
  migrations followed and in a few years all Sicily was under the
  rule of the Arabs, who made yearly devastating raids from thence
  upon the Italian coasts, venturing even to the very gates of Rome.
  In A.D. 880 they settled on the banks of the Garigliano, and put
  all central Italy under tribute, until at last in A.D. 916 the
  efforts of pope John X. were successful in driving them out.
  Spanish-Moorish pirates landed in A.D. 889 on the coasts of
  Provence, besieged the fortress of Fraxinetum, and plundered
  from this centre for a hundred years the Alpine districts and
  northern Italy. Their robber career in south Italy was most
  serious of all. It lasted for three centuries and was first
  brought to an end by the Norman invasion.--Continuation, § 95, 1.




              II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS.


                 § 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS.

  The Christianizing of the German world was in great part accomplished
without the help of Rome. Hence the German churches, even those that
were Catholic, troubled themselves little at first about the papal
chair. The Visigoth church in Spain was most completely estranged
from it. The Saracen invasion of A.D. 711 cut off all possibility
of intercourse with Rome. Even the free Christian states in Spain
down to the 11th century had no connection with Rome. The Frankish
churches, too, in Gaul as well as in Austrasia, throve and ran wild
in their independence during the Merovingian age. On the other hand,
the relation of the English Church to Rome was and continued to be
very intimate. Numerous pilgrimages of Anglo-Saxons of higher and lower
ranks were undertaken to the grave of the chief of the Apostles, and
increased the dependence of the nation on the chair of St. Peter. For
the support of these pilgrims and as a training school for English
clergy, the _Schola Saxonica_ was founded in the 8th century, and for
its maintenance and that of the holy places in the city, on Peter’s day
the 29th June was collected the so-called Peter’s pence, a penny for
every house. Out of this sprang a standing impost on all the English
people for the papal chair, which in the 13th century became a money
tax upon the kings of England which Henry VIII. was the first to
repudiate in A.D. 1532. The credit belongs to the Anglo-Saxons and
especially to Boniface of not only delivering the rich sheaves of their
missionary harvest into the granaries of Rome, but also of organizing
the previously existing churches of the Frankish territories after
the Romish method and rendering them obedient to the Roman see. Since
then there has been such a regular intercourse between the pope and
the Carolingian rulers that it absorbed almost completely the whole
diplomatic activity of the Romish curia.

  § 82.1. =The Period of the Founding of the States of the
  Church.=--From bequests and presents of ancient times the
  Roman chair succeeded to an immense landed property, _Patrimonium
  S. Petri_, which afforded it the means of greatly assuaging the
  distress of the inhabitants of Italy during the disturbances
  of the migrations of the peoples. There was naturally then no
  word of the exercise of sovereign rights. From the time of the
  restoration of the Byzantine exarchate in A.D. 567 (§ 76, 7) the
  political importance of the pope grew immensely; its continued
  existence was often dependent on the good will of the pope for
  whom generally indeed the idea of becoming the court patriarch
  of a Longobard-Roman emperor was not an enticing one. But the
  pope could not prevent the Longobard power (§ 76, 8) from gaining
  ground in the north as well as in the south of the peninsula. An
  important increase of influence, power and prestige was brought
  to the papal chair under =Gregory II.=, A.D. 715-731, through
  the rebellions in northern and central Italy occasioned by the
  Byzantine iconoclastic disputes. Rome was in this way raised
  to a kind of political suzerainty not only over the Roman duchy
  but also over the rest of the exarchate in the north--Ravenna
  and the neighbouring cities together with Venice (§ 66, 1).
  =Gregory III.=, A.D. 731-741, hard pressed by Luitprand the
  Longobard, thrice (A.D. 739, 740) applied for help to the Frank
  =Charles Martel=, who, closely bound in friendship with Luitprand,
  his ally against the Saracens, sent some clerics to Italy to
  secure a peaceful arrangement. Gregory’s successor =Zacharias=,
  A.D. 741-752, sanctioned by his apostolic judgment the setting
  aside of the Merovingian sham king Childeric III., whereupon
  =Pepin the Short=, in A.D. 752, assumed the royal title with
  the royal power which he had long possessed. The next elected
  pope called Stephen died before consecration, consequently his
  successor of the same name is usually designated =Stephen II.=,
  A.D. 752-757. The Longobard Aistulf had in A.D. 751 conquered
  Ravenna and the cities connected with it. Pope Stephen II. sought
  help anew of the Frankish king and supported his petition by
  forwarding an autograph letter of the Apostle Peter, in which
  he exhorted the king of the Franks as his adopted son under
  peril of all the pains of hell to save Rome and the Roman church.
  He himself at Pepin’s invitation went to France. At Ponthion,
  where, in A.D. 754, the king greeted him, Pepin promised the
  pope to restore to Rome her former possessions and to give
  protection against further inroads of the Longobards; while the
  pope imparted to the king and his two sons Charles and Carloman
  the kingly anointing in the church of St. Dionysius or Denis
  in Paris. At Quiersy then Pepin took counsel with his sons and
  the nobles of his kingdom about the fulfilling of his promise,
  bound the Longobard king by oath in the year following after
  a successful campaign to surrender the cities, properties and
  privileges claimed by the pope, and assigned these in A.D. 755
  as a present to St. Peter as their possessor from that time forth.
  But scarcely had he retired with his army when Aistulf not only
  refused all and any surrender, but broke in anew upon Roman
  territory, robbing and laying waste on every side. By a second
  campaign, however, in A.D. 756, Pepin compelled him actually
  to deliver over the required cities in the provinces of Rome
  and Ravenna the key of which he deposited with a deed of gift,
  no longer extant, on the grave of St. Peter; while the pope,
  transferring to Pepin the honorary title of Exarch of Ravenna,
  decorated him with the insignia of a Roman patrician. When the
  Byzantine envoys claimed Ravenna as their own property, Pepin
  answered that the Franks had not shed their blood for the Greeks
  but for St. Peter.--Aistulf’s death followed soon after this
  and amid the struggles for the succession to the throne one of
  the candidates, duke Desiderius of Tuscany, sought the powerful
  support of the pope and promised him in return the surrender
  of those cities of the eastern province of Ravenna which still
  remained in the hands of the Longobards. The pope obtained
  Pepin’s consent to this transaction, and Desiderius was
  made king. But neither Stephen nor his successor Paul I.,
  A.D. 757-767, could get him completely to fulfil his promise,
  and new encroachments of the Longobards as well as new claims
  of the pope intensified the bad feeling between them, which the
  conciliation of Pepin, who died in A.D. 768 had not by any means
  overcome.[227]

  § 82.2. After the death of Paul I. the nobles forced one of
  their own order upon the Romans as pope under the name of
  Constantine II. Another party with Longobard help appointed
  a presbyter, Philip. The former maintained his ground for
  thirteen months, but was then overthrown by a clerical party
  and, with his eyes put out, was cast into the street. They now
  united in the choice of =Stephen III.=, A.D. 768-772.--Desiderius
  wished greatly to form a marriage connection with the Frankish
  court, and found a zealous friend in Bertrada, the widow of Pepin.
  When Stephen heard of it his wrath was unbounded, and he gave
  unbridled expression to it in a letter which he sent to her sons
  Charlemagne and Carloman. Referring to the fact that the devil
  had already in Paradise by the persuasion of a woman overthrown
  the first man and with him the whole race, he characterized this
  plan as _propria diabolica immissio_, declared that any idea
  of a connection by marriage of the illustrious reigning family
  of the Franks with the _fœtentissima Longobardorum gens_, from
  which all vile infections proceed, was nothing short of madness,
  etc. Not peace and friendship, but only war and enmity with this
  robber of the patrimony of Peter would be becoming in the pious
  kings of the Franks. He laid down this his exhortation at the
  grave of Peter and performed over it a Mass. Whoever sets himself
  to act contrary to it, on him will fall the anathema and with the
  devil and all godless men he shall burn in everlasting flames;
  but whosoever is obedient to it, shall be partaker of eternal
  salvation and glory. Nevertheless Charles married Desiderata the
  daughter of Desiderius, and Gisela, Charles’ sister, married the
  son of Desiderius. But before a year had passed, in A.D. 771,
  he wearied of the Longobard wife and sent her home. Soon after
  this Carloman died. Charles seized upon the inheritance of his
  youthful nephews, who together with their mother found shelter
  with Desiderius. When =Hadrian I.=, A.D. 772-795, refused to give
  the royal anointing to Carloman’s sons, Desiderius took from him
  a great part of the States of the Church and threatened Rome. But
  Charles hastened at the pope’s call to give him help, conquered
  Pavia, shut up king Desiderius in the monastery of Corbei, and
  joined Lombardy to the Frankish empire. Further information
  as to what passed between him and Hadrian at Rome in A.D. 774
  is only to be got from the _Vita Hadriani_ (§ 90, 6) written
  during the reign of Louis of France. It relates as follows: At
  the grave of Peter the pope earnestly exhorted him to fulfil
  at last completely the promise which his father Pepin I. with
  his own consent and that of the Frankish nobles gave to pope
  Stephen II. at Quiersy in A.D. 754. Charles after reading over
  the document referred to agreed to everything promised therein,
  and produced a new deed of gift after the style (_ad instar_)
  of the old, undertaking to transfer to the Roman church
  a territorial possession which, together with the assumed
  _Promissio_ of Pepin described with geographical precision,
  embraced almost all Italy, excepting Lombardy but including
  Corsica, Venice and Istria. It is now quite inconceivable that
  Charles, let alone Pepin, should have given the pope such an
  immense territory which Pepin for a simple footing in A.D. 754,
  and Charles for at least three-fourths of it, must have first
  themselves conquered. Moreover this account of the matter is
  directly contradicted by the statement of all the witnesses of
  Pepin’s own times. On the part of the Franks the continuator of
  the Chronicler Fredégar, on the part of the Romans the biographer
  of Stephen II. in the _Liber pontificalis_ and that pope himself
  in his letters to Pepin, all speak of the negociations between
  the king and the pope as having reference simply to Rome and
  Ravenna. And since all attempts to reconcile these contradictions
  by exegetical devices have failed, we can only regard this
  as a fiction designed to palm off upon Louis of France Rome’s
  own ambitious territorial scheme. All that Charlemagne did was
  to confirm and renew his father’s gifts, as Hadrian himself
  distinctly states: _Amplius_ (=further, _i.e._ for time to
  come) _confirmavit_.--Moreover Pepin, and still more Charlemagne,
  would hardly have granted to the holy father by his gift
  absolute sovereignty over the States of the Church thus founded.
  By conferring the patriciate upon the two Frankish princes,
  the pope, indeed, himself acknowledged that the suzerainty
  now belonged to them which formerly the Byzantine emperor
  had exercised by his viceroy, the exarch of Ravenna. A more
  exact definition of these rights, however, may have been first
  given when Charles was crowned emperor, his imperial authority
  undoubtedly extending over the Papal States. The pope as a
  temporal prince was his vassal and must himself, like all
  citizens of Rome, take the oath of allegiance to the emperor.
  Judicial authority and the appointment of government officials
  belonged to him; but they were supervised and controlled by
  the Frankish ambassadors, _Missi dominici_, who heard appeals
  and complaints of all kinds and were authorized to give a final
  judgment.

  § 82.3. =Charlemagne and Leo III.=--Hadrian I. was succeeded by
  =Leo III.=, A.D. 795-816. During a solemn procession in A.D. 799
  he was murderously attacked by the nephews of his predecessor
  and severely beaten. Some of the bystanders declared that they
  had seen the bandits tear out his tongue and eyes. The legend
  vouched for by the pope himself was added that Peter by a miracle
  restored him both the next night. Leo meanwhile escaped from
  his tormentors and fled to Charlemagne. His opponents accused
  him before the king of perjury and adultery, and the hearing of
  witnesses seems to have confirmed the serious charges, for Alcuin
  hastened to burn the report which was given in to him on the
  subject. But the pope was honourably discharged and assumed again
  the chair of Peter under the protection of a Frankish guard.
  Next year Charles crossed the Alps with his army for a campaign
  against Benevento. He convened a Synod at Rome; but the bishops
  maintained that the pope, the head of all, can be judged of none;
  yet the pope with twelve sponsors swore an oath of purgation and
  prayed for his accusers. At the Christmas festival Charles went
  to the church of St. Peter. At the close of Mass the pope amid
  the applause of the people placed a beautiful golden crown upon
  his head (A.D. 800). The world is asked to believe that he did
  it by the immediate impulse of a divine inspiration; but it was
  the result of the negociations of years and the fulfilment of
  a promise by which the pope had purchased the king’s protection
  against his enemies. With the idea of the imperial power
  Charlemagne connected the idea of a theocratic Christian
  universal monarchy in the sense of Daniel’s prophecy. The
  Greeks had proved themselves unworthy of this position and
  so God had transferred it to the king of the Franks. As emperor,
  Charles stands at the head of all Christendom, and has only
  God and His law over him. He is the most obedient son, the most
  devoted servant of the church, so far as it is the vehicle and
  dispenser of salvation; but he is its supreme lord and ruler so
  far as it needs to adopt earthly forms and an earthly government.
  Church and state are two separate domains, which, however, on all
  sides limit and condition one another. Their uniting head they
  have in the person of the emperor. Hence on every hand Charles’
  legislation enters the domain of the church, in respect of her
  constitution, worship and doctrine. On these matters he consults
  the bishops and synods, but he confirms, enlarges and modifies
  their decisions according to his own way of thinking, because for
  this he is personally answerable to God. In the pope he honours
  the successor of Peter and the spiritual head of the church;
  but, because the emperor stands over church and state, he is also
  ruler of the pope. The pope who gave him imperial consecration
  did it not by any power of his own immanent in the papacy, but
  by special divine impulse and authority. Hence the crowning
  of the emperor is only to be once received at the pope’s hand.
  This rank is henceforth hereditary in the house of Charles, and
  only the emperor can beget and nominate the new emperor. The
  unity of the empire is to be maintained under all circumstances,
  and hence, contrary to the Frankish custom of dividing the
  inheritance, younger sons are to receive only the subordinate
  rank of ruling princes.[228]

  § 82.4. =Louis the Pious and the Popes of his
  Time.=--Charlemagne’s weaker son Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840,
  was not in a position to carry out the work his father had begun.
  But pious as Louis was, he was yet as little inclined as his
  immediate successor to give up the imperial suzerainty over
  the city and chair of St. Peter. The popes were most expressly
  required before receiving papal consecration to obtain imperial
  confirmation of their election. Leo’s successor =Stephen IV.=,
  A.D. 816-817, seems indeed to have evaded it, yet still he let
  the Romans take the oath of fealty to the emperor, and unasked
  submitted to make a journey over the Alps in order to get over
  the anomaly of an emperor without the consecration of Peter’s
  hand. An agreement come to on that occasion, A.D. 816, between
  emperor and pope has not been preserved. A few days after
  his return the pope died. The newly-elected =Paschalis I.=,
  A.D. 817-824, also indeed mounted the papal chair without
  imperial confirmation, but apologized by an embassy on the ground
  that he had been unwillingly obliged to act so, and praying for a
  continuation of the agreement made with his predecessor, to which
  the emperor consented. Indeed, according to a diploma of A.D. 817,
  extant only in a transcript, bearing the name of Louis, the
  king was to bestow upon the papal chair, besides what Pepin and
  Charlemagne had given, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, and many
  estates in Calabria and Naples. There was also an undertaking
  that only after having been consecrated should any newly-elected
  pope interchange friendly greetings with the emperor. All copies
  of this document can be traced back to a collection of imperial
  grants to the Romish church of the 11th century. At its basis
  there lay probably a genuine document, but it has been variously
  altered in the interests of the high church party.--Some years
  later, after he had decoyed to France and blinded his illegitimate
  nephew Bernard, who had as reigning prince in Italy rebelled
  against the law of succession passed in A.D. 817, Louis sent his
  son Lothair into Italy to quiet the tumults there, and the pope
  availed himself of this opportunity to crown the prince already
  crowned by his father as co-emperor. But scarcely had Lothair
  got over the Alps again when two of the most distinguished and
  zealous of the Frankish partisans were in A.D. 823 blinded and
  beheaded in the papal palace. Before the imperial commission
  the pope took an oath of purgation, to which 34 bishops and
  5 presbyters joined with him in swearing, but bluntly refused
  to deliver up the perpetrator of the deed. As the pope died soon
  afterwards, Lothair was sent a second time to Rome, in order
  to enforce once and for all upon his successor =Eugenius II.=,
  A.D. 824-827, the observance of imperial rights. The result of
  their conference was the so-called _Constitutio Romano_, by which
  the election of the pope (§ 46, 11) was taken from the common
  people and given to the clergy and nobles, but the consecration
  was made dependent on the emperor’s confirmation and an oath
  of homage from the newly-elected pope (A.D. 824). Nevertheless
  his successor Valentine was elected and consecrated without any
  reference to the constitution. He died, however, after six months,
  and now the Frankish party came forward so energetically that
  the new pope =Gregory IV.=, A.D. 827-844, was obliged to submit
  in all particulars to the requirements of the law. But soon
  after political troubles arose in the Frankish kingdom which
  could not fail to contribute to the endeavours of the papacy
  after emancipation. From his weak preference for his younger
  son, Charles the Bald, born of a second marriage, Louis was
  led in A.D. 829 to set aside the law of succession he himself
  had issued in A.D. 817. The sons thus disinherited rebelled with
  the assistance of the most distinguished Frankish prelates, at
  whose head was Wala, abbot of Old Corbie, cousin of Charlemagne,
  and the bishops Agobard of Lyons, Ebo of Rheims, etc., as
  assertors of the unity of the empire. Also pope Gregory IV.,
  whose predecessors had sanctioned the law of succession now set
  aside, was won over and was taken across the Alps by Lothair to
  strengthen his cause by the weight of his apostolic authority.
  The pope threatened with the ban those bishops who remained true
  to the old emperor and had obeyed his summons to attend the diet.
  But they answered the pope that he had no authority in the empire
  of the Franks, and that if he did not quietly take himself over
  the Alps again they would excommunicate him. He was inclined to
  yield, but Wala’s counsel restrained him. He answered the bishops
  earnestly and moderately, and, as a last attempt at conciliation,
  went himself personally to the camp of the emperor, but was
  unable to effect anything. But next morning Louis had no army;
  during the night most of his soldiers had passed over to the camp
  of his enemy. The emperor now had to surrender himself prisoner
  to his son Lothair, then at a diet at Compiègne in A.D. 833,
  to do humble penance in church and to resign the government. His
  penitent son, Louis the German, however, set him free in A.D. 834.
  A severe judgment was now passed upon the confederate prelates at
  the Diedenhosen in A.D. 835. But the brothers continued constantly
  at war with one another, and Louis the Pious did not live to see
  the end of it.

  § 82.5. =The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their
  Days.=--The Treaty of Verdun, A.D. 843, put an end to the bitter
  war between the sons of Louis the Pious, and made of the western
  empire three independent groups of states under Lothair, Louis
  the German and Charles the Bald. Lothair I., who got the title
  of Emperor with Italy and a strip of land between Neustria and
  Austrasia, died in A.D. 855. Of his sons, Louis II. inherited
  Italy with title of Emperor, Lothair II. the province called
  after him Lotharingia, _Lotharii regnum_, and Charles Burgundy
  and Provence. Lothair and Charles died in A.D. 869 soon after one
  another without heirs, and before the emperor Louis II. could lay
  his hands upon their territories they were seized by the uncle.
  By the treaty of Mersen, A.D. 870, Charles took the Romanic, and
  Louis the German took the German portions. Thus was completed
  the partition of the Carolingian empire into three parts
  distinguished as homogeneous groups of states by language
  and nationality: Germany, France and Italy.--Gregory IV. had
  survived the overthrow of the universal monarchy of Charlemagne.
  His successor, =Sergius II.=, A.D. 844-847, did not observe
  the obligations devolving on him by the _Constitutio Romana_.
  But Lothair I. was not inclined to let pass this slight to
  his imperial authority. His son Louis was sent into Italy with
  a powerful army, and obliged the pope and the Romans to take
  the oaths of fealty to his father with the promise not again to
  consecrate a pope before they had the emperor’s consent. But the
  next pope =Leo IV.=, A.D. 847-855, was also consecrated without
  it, but excused himself from the circumstances of the age,
  the pressure of the Saracens, while making humble professions
  of most dutiful obedience. His successor =Benedict III.=,
  A.D. 855-858, did not regard the imperial consent as necessary,
  and the anti-pope set up by the French party could not maintain
  his position.

  § 82.6. =The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna.=--Between Leo IV.
  and Benedict III. is inserted an old legend of the pontificate
  of a woman, the so-called female pope Joanna: A maiden from Mainz
  went in man’s clothes with her lover to Athens, obtained there
  great learning, then appeared at Rome as Joannes Anglicus,
  was elected pope, but having become pregnant by one of her
  chamberlains, was seized with labour pains in the midst of a
  solemn procession and died soon after, having been pope under
  the name of John VIII. for two years, five months and four days.
  This story was widely credited from the 13th to the 17th century,
  but its want of historical foundation is proved by the following
  facts:

    1. The immediate succession of Benedict III. to Leo. IV. has
       contemporary testimony from the _Annales Bertiniani_ of
       A.D. 855, also from a letter of Hincmar to Nicholas I.,
       Benedict’s successor, as well as the inscription “Benedict”
       and “Lothair,” on a Roman denarius of the same year.

    2. Neither Photius nor Michael Cærularius, who certainly would
       not have failed to make a handle of such a papal scandal
       (§ 67), know anything of the matter.

    3. The first certain trace of the existence of such a legend
       is found about A.D. 1230 in Stephen of Bourbon, yet there
       indeed the words are added: _Ut dicitur in chronicis_; but
       he makes the female pope mount St. Peter’s chair only about
       A.D. 1100, knows neither her name nor her native country,
       and describes the catastrophe of her overthrow differently
       from the legend current in later times.

    4. On the other hand, the existence of her biography in the
       _Liber pontificalis_ between that of Leo IV. and that of
       Benedict III., was regarded down to the 17th century as
       the oldest and indeed almost contemporary witness to the
       historicity of the female pope. It is wanting, however, in
       the oldest and best MSS. and must therefore be considered
       a later interpolation. This also applies to the reference
       made thereto by Marianus Sectus (d. A.D. 1086), Sigbert of
       Semblours (d. A.D. 1113), Otto of Friesingen (d. A.D. 1158),
       and Godfrey of Viterbo (about A.D. 1190). Even in the oldest
       MSS. of the Chronicle of the Roman penitentiary Martinus
       Polonus (d. A.D. 1278) we read nothing of the female pope;
       yet the story must soon have been inserted there, for
       Tolomeo of Lucca about A.D. 1312 affirms in his Church
       History, that all writers whom he had read, with the single
       exception of Martin, made Benedict III. follow immediately
       after Leo IV. Perhaps Martin himself in a second enlarged
       edition of his chronicle had inserted a biography of the
       female pope, which he might do with the less hesitation
       if it was true that the pope of his own time John XX.,
       A.D. 1276-1277, thought it wrong not to count the female
       pope and so styled himself John XXI. From that time all
       chroniclers of the Middle Ages without the slightest
       expression of doubt repeated the legend in essentially the
       same way as Martin’s chronicle and the _Liber pontificalis_
       report it. The Reformed theologian, David Blondel, in
       A.D. 1649, performed a service to the Catholic church
       by his elaborate critical treatment of the legend which
       destroyed all belief in its historicity. After this, however,
       it was again vindicated by Spanheim (_Opp._ ii. 577) and
       Kist; and even Hase regards it as still conceivable that
       the church which has affirmed the existence of things that
       never were, may have denied the existence of things that
       were, if the knowledge of it might prove hazardous to the
       interests of the papacy.

  The origin and gradual development of the legend, about the
  middle of the 12th century and certainly in Rome, may be most
  simply explained with Döllinger from a combination of the
  following data.

    1. From the time of Paschalis II. in A.D. 1099 it was customary
       for the new pope in the solemn Lateran procession when
       having his entrance on office attested to sit upon two
       old chairs standing in the Lateran with pierced seats,
       which probably came from an old Roman bath. But the popular
       wit of the Romans suggested another reason for the pierced
       seats. The chairs were thus pierced in order that before the
       consecration a deacon might satisfy himself of the manhood
       of the new pope; for, it would be added by and by, a woman
       in disguise was once made pope, etc.

    2. In a street of Rome was found a statue in white robes with
       a child and an enigmatical inscription, the letter P six
       times repeated which some read: _Parce pater patrum papissæ
       prodere partum_, others: _Papa pater patrum peperit papissa
       papellum_; so that this statue was supposed to represent the
       female pope with her child.

    3. Further the papal processions between the Lateran and the
       Vatican at a point where the direct way was too narrow were
       wont to diverge into another wider street; this was done, it
       was now said, because at this place the catastrophe referred
       to had befallen the female pope.

    4. That the name Joannes was given to the female pope is easily
       explained from the frequency of this name among the popes.
       In A.D. 1024 it had been already held by nineteen. And that
       she who had brought such a disgrace upon the papacy should
       have been described as a native of the German city of Mainz,
       is explained from national antipathy entertained by the
       Italians for everything German.

    5. Finally, the most difficult part of the problem, why this
       episode should have been inserted just between Leo IV. and
       Benedict III., may perhaps find satisfactory solution in the
       supposition that the legend may have been first introduced
       as an appendix to a codex of the _Liber ponficalis_ which
       closed with the biography of Leo IV.[229]

  § 82.7. =Nicholas I. and Hadrian II.=--The successor of
  Benedict III., =Nicholas I.=, A.D. 858-867, was chosen with
  the personal concurrence of the emperor Louis II. then in
  Rome. This pope was undoubtedly the greatest of all the popes
  between Gregory I. and Gregory VII. He was a man of inflexible
  determination, clear insight and subtle intellect, who, favoured
  by the political movement of the age, supported by public opinion
  which regarded him as a second Elijah, and finally backed up in
  his endeavours after papal supremacy by the Isidorian collection
  of decretals just now brought forward (§ 87, 2), could give
  prestige and glory to the struggle for law, truth and discipline.
  Among the many battles of his life none brought him more credit
  and renown than that with Lothair II. of Lothringia. That
  he might marry his mistress Waldrade, Lothair accused his
  wife Thielberga of committing incest before her marriage with
  her brother, abbot Hucbert, and of having obtained abortion
  to conceal her wickedness. Before a civil tribunal she was in
  A.D. 858 acquitted by submitting to a divine ordeal, the boiling
  caldron ordeal which a servant undertook for her. But Lothair
  treated her so badly that at last, in order simply to be rid of
  her tormentors, she confessed herself guilty of the crime charged
  against her before a Synod at Aachen in A.D. 859 attended by the
  two Lothringian metropolitans Günther of Cologne and Thietgaut
  of Treves, and expressed the wish that she should atone for
  her sins in a cloister. But soon she regretted this step and
  fled to Charles the Bald in Neustria. A second Synod at Aachen
  in A.D. 860 now declared the marriage with Thielberga null,
  and Lothair formally married Waldrade. Meanwhile the Neustria
  metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims had published an opinion in
  respect of civil and ecclesiastical law (_De divortio Lotharii_)
  wholly favourable to the ill-used queen, and she herself had
  referred the matter to the pope. Nicholas sent two Italian
  bishops, one of whom was Rhodoald of Porto (§ 67, 1), to
  Lothringia to investigate the affair. These took bribes and
  decided at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 in favour of the
  king. But Nicholas annulled the decisions of the Council,
  excommunicated his legates and deposed the two Lothringian
  metropolitans who had vainly trusted to the omnipotence of
  Lothringian gold in Rome. Thirsting for revenge they incited
  the emperor Louis II., Lothair’s brother, against the pope.
  He besieged Rome, but came to an understanding with the pope
  through his wife’s mediation. Lothair, detested by his subjects,
  threatened with war by his uncles Louis of Germany and Charles
  the Bald as champions of the childless Thielberga, repented and
  besought the pope for grace and protection from the ambitious
  designs of his uncles. Nicholas now sent a legate, Arsenius,
  across the Alps, who acting as plenipotentiary in all three
  kingdoms, obliged Lothair to take back Thielberga and put away
  Waldrade. But she flung herself upon him and in her arms Lothair
  soon forgot the promise to which he had sworn. At the same time
  he reconciled himself to his uncles whose zeal had somewhat
  cooled in presence of the lordly conduct of the papal legate.
  Thielberga now herself sought divorce from the pope. But Nicholas
  continued firmly to insist upon his demands. His successor
  =Hadrian II.=, A.D. 867-872, an old man of seventy-five years,
  could only gradually emancipate himself from the imperial party
  which had elected him and taken him under its protection. He
  received back again the two excommunicated metropolitans, without,
  however, restoring them to their offices, released Waldrade
  from church discipline, and always put off granting Thielberga’s
  reiterated request for divorce. Lothair now went himself to
  Rome, took a solemn oath that he had no carnal intercourse with
  Waldrade since the restoration of his wife, and received the
  sacrament from the pope’s hand. Full of hope that he would get
  success in his object he started for home, but died at Piacenza
  of a violent fever in A.D. 869. When dead the uncles pounced
  upon the kingdom. Hadrian used all his influence in favour of
  the emperor, the legitimate heir, and threatened his opponents
  with excommunication. But Hincmar of Rheims composed a state
  paper by order of his king, in which he told the pope that the
  opinion of France was that he should not interfere with things
  about which he knew nothing. The pope was obliged to let this
  insult pass unrevenged. In a dispute of his own Hincmar succeeded
  in giving the pope a second rebuff (§ 83, 2).[230]

  § 82.8. =John VIII. and his Successors.=--His successor
  =John VIII.=, A.D. 872-882, was more successful than Hadrian
  in bringing the Carolingian king to kneel at his footstool.
  In the art of intrigue and in the perfidy, hypocrisy and
  unconscionableness required therefor, he was, however, greatly
  superior. He succeeded almost completely in freeing the papal
  chair from the imperial authority. But he did so only to make it
  a playball of the wildest party interests around his own hearth.
  To his account mainly must be laid the unfathomable degradation
  and debasement of the papacy during the 10th century. When the
  emperor Louis II. died in A.D. 875, Louis the German, as elder
  and full brother of his father, ought to have been his heir.
  But the pope wished to show the world that the papal favour
  could make a gift of the imperial crown to whomsoever it chose.
  Accepting his invitation, Charles the Bald appeared in Rome and
  was crowned by the pope on Christmas Day, A.D. 875. But he had
  to pay dearly for the papal favour, by formally renouncing all
  claims to the rights of superior over the States of the Church,
  allow for the future absolute freedom in the election of popes,
  and accept a papal representative and clerical primate for all
  France and Germany. But not altogether satisfied with this,
  the pope made the new emperor submit himself to a formal act
  of election by the Lombards of Pavia, and in order to secure
  the approval of his own nobles to his proceedings he even agreed
  to give them the right of election. The Neustrian clergy, however,
  with Hincmar at their head, offered a vigorous resistance and
  at the first Synod at Pontion in A.D. 876 there were violent
  altercations. The shameful compromise satisfied neither pope
  nor emperor. In Rome a wild party faction gained ground against
  the pope, and the Saracens pressed further and further into Italy.
  From the emperor, who knew not how to keep back the advances of
  the Normans in his own country, no help could be expected. Yet
  he made hasty preparations, purchased a dishonourable peace
  from the Normans, and crossed the Alps. But new troubles at
  home imperiously called him back, and at the foot of Mount Cenis
  in A.D. 877, he died in a miserable hut of poison administered
  by his physician, a Jew. The pope got into yet greater straits
  and made his position worse by further intrigues. Also his
  negotiations with Byzantium in A.D. 879 involved him in yet
  more serious troubles (§ 67, 1). He died in A.D. 882, apparently
  by the hand of an assassin. A year before his death Charles
  the Fat, the youngest son of Louis the German, had been crowned
  emperor, and he, the least capable of all the Carolingian line,
  by the choice of the Neustrian nobles, united once more all the
  Frankish empire under his weak sceptre. Marinus, the successor
  of John VIII., died after a single year’s pontificate. So
  was it, too, with Hadrian III. And now the Romans, without
  paying any heed to the impotent wrath of the emperor, elected
  and consecrated =Stephen V.=, A.D. 885-891, as their pope. In
  A.D. 857 the German nobles at last put an end to the despicable
  rule of the fat Charles by passing an act of formal deposition.
  They chose in his place Arnulf of Carinthia, a natural son of
  Charles’ brother Carloman. Pope =Formosus=, A.D. 891-896, called
  him to his assistance in A.D. 894, and crowned him emperor. But
  he could not hold his ground in Italy and the opposition emperor
  Lambert, a Longobard, had possession of the field. Formosus died
  soon after Arnulf’s withdrawal. Boniface VI., who died after
  fifteen days, was succeeded by =Stephen VI.= in A.D. 896. This
  man, infected by Italian fanaticism, had the body of Formosus,
  who had favoured the Germans, lifted from the grave, shamefully
  abused and then thrown into the Tiber. The three following popes
  reigned only a few weeks or months, and were either murdered
  or driven away. John IX., A.D. 898-900, in order to pacify the
  German party, honoured again the memory of Formosus.--Arnulf’s
  tenure of the empire, however, had only been a short vain dream;
  but in Germany during a trying period he wielded the sceptre
  with power and dignity. When he died in A.D. 899, the German
  nobles elected his seven-year-old son, Louis the Child. He
  died in A.D. 911, and with him the dynasty of the Carolingians
  in Germany became extinct. In France this line continued to
  exist in pitiable impotence down to the death of Louis V. in
  A.D. 987.--Continuation, § 96.

  § 82.9. =The Papacy and the Nationalities.=[231]--From the
  time of Charlemagne the policy of the French kings was to
  establish bishoprics on the frontiers of their territories
  for Christianizing the neighbouring heathen countries, and
  thereby securing their conquest, or, if this had been already
  won, confirming it. The first part of this purpose the popes
  could only approve and further, but just as decidedly they
  opposed the second. There must be a reference to the chair
  of Peter, that the pope may maintain and preserve as head of
  the universal church the rights of nationalities. Each country
  won to Christianity should be received into the organism of the
  church with its national position unimpaired, and so under the
  spiritual fatherhood of the pope there would be established
  a Christian family of states, of which each member occupies
  a position of perfect equality with the others. In this way
  the interests of humanity, and at the same time, the selfish
  interests of papal policy, were secured. This policy was
  therefore directed to the emancipating as soon as possible
  the newly founded national churches from the supremacy of the
  German clergy and giving them an independent national church
  organization under bishops and archbishops of their own.


                  § 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN.[232]

  The position of metropolitan was not regarded with equal favour in
the German church and in the German state. Amid the variety of races
the metropolitans represented the unity of the national church, as
the pope did that of the universal church, while at the same time
as an estate of the empire they exercised great influence on civil
administration and foreign policy. The reigning princes recognised
in the unity of the ecclesiastical administration of the country a
support and security for the political unity and therefore opposed
the partition of the national church into several metropolitanates,
or, where the larger extension of the empire required several
archbishoprics, wished rather to give the ablest of these the rank
and authority of a primate. The popes on the other hand endeavoured to
give each of the larger countries at least two or three metropolitans,
and to prevent as far as possible the appointment of a national church
primate; for in the unity of the national church they perceived the
danger of such a prelate sooner or later giving way to the desire to
emancipate himself from Rome and secure for himself the position of an
independent patriarch.

  § 83.1. =The Position of Metropolitans in General.=--As
  representing the unity of the national churches the interests
  of the metropolitans were bound up with those of the ruling
  princes. They were the most vigorous supporters of their policy,
  and generally got in return the prince’s hearty support. This
  coalition of the metropolitans and the civil power, however,
  threatened the subordinate clergy with abject servitude, and
  drove them to champion the interests of the pope. Through
  pressure of circumstances, a widespread conspiracy of bishops
  and abbots was formed during the last years of Louis the Pious
  to emancipate the clergy and especially the episcopate from
  the dominion of the state and the metropolitans and to place
  them immediately under the papal jurisdiction. They founded upon
  the Isidorian decretals as showing their rights in the earliest
  times (§ 87, 2). Their endeavour met indeed powerful opposition,
  but the statements of the Pseudo-Isidore had now obtained the
  validity of canon law.

  § 83.2. =Hincmar of Rheims.=--Among the =French= prelates
  after the restoration of the order of metropolitans by Boniface
  the first place was held by the occupant of the see of Rheims.
  It reached the summit of its glory under Hincmar of Rheims,
  A.D. 845-882, the ablest of all the ecclesiastical leaders of
  France. His life consists of an uninterrupted series of battles
  of the most varied kind. The first fight in which he engaged was
  the predestination controversy of Gottschalk (§ 91, 5). But his
  strength did not lie in dogmatics but in church government. And
  here, every inch a metropolitan, he has fought the most glorious
  battles of his life and affirmed, against the assumptions of
  popes and emancipation efforts of bishops, the autonomy of
  reigning princes, the freedom and independence of national
  churches, and the jurisdiction of metropolitans. Of this sort
  was his contest with bishop Rothad of Soissons. Hincmar had
  deposed him in A.D. 861 for insubordination. Rothad appealed to
  pope Nicholas I. on the ground of the Sardican Canon (§ 46, 3),
  which, however, had never been accepted in the Frankish Empire.
  He had at the same time referred the pope to the Isidorian
  decretals. Thus supported, Nicholas after a hard struggle had
  Rothad reinstated in A.D. 865. The insolent defiance of his
  own nephew, Hincmar, bishop of Laon, led the archbishop into
  another obstinate fight. Here too the Isidorian decretals played
  a prominent part. Hadrian II. in A.D. 869 took the side of the
  nephew, but the metropolitan gained the victory, and the nephew,
  who defied the king as well as the metropolitan and moreover had
  entered into treasonable communication with the German court,
  ended his course by being deprived of his eyes by the king. Down
  to A.D. 875 Hincmar was inflexibly true to the king as a pillar
  of his policy and his throne. But when Charles the Bald in
  that year paid down as purchase price for the imperial throne,
  not only the autonomy of the empire but also the freedom of the
  French church and the rights of the metropolitans, he was obliged
  now to turn his weapons against him. Hincmar died in A.D. 882
  in flight before the Normans. With him the glory of the French
  archbishopric sank into its grave. The pseudo-Isidorian party
  had triumphed, the bishops were emancipated from the government
  of the princes of their country, but instead of this were often
  surrendered to the rude caprice of secular nobles.

  § 83.3. =Metropolitans in other lands.=--The =English= princes
  in the interests of the political unity of the Heptarchy for
  a long time withstood the endeavours of the popes to place a
  rival alongside of the archbishop of Canterbury. The action and
  reaction of these opposing interests were particularly strong
  in the time of Wilfrid (§ 78, 3), whom the Roman party had
  appointed archbishop of York. Wilfrid was driven away and died
  in A.D. 709 after an eventful life, without succeeding in taking
  possession of the place to which he had been appointed. At last,
  however, the pope reached his end. In A.D. 735 a Northumbrian
  prince obtained a pallium, and after that the see of York got
  an undisputed place alongside that of Canterbury.--In =Northern
  Italy= there were metropolitan sees at Ravenna, Milan and
  Aquileia which still made their old claims to self-government
  (§ 46, 1). Sergius, the prelate of Ravenna, about A.D. 760,
  thought it would be well out of the ruins of the exarchate to
  found an ecclesiastical state after the model of that of Rome.
  There was often opposition there to the Roman supremacy. On
  this account the violent archbishop John of Ravenna, who was
  also a defrauder of the church, suffered the most complete
  humiliation from Nicholas I. in A.D. 861, in spite of the
  emperor’s protection. The force of public opinion compelled
  the emperor to abandon his protégé when excommunicated by the
  pope. But during the pontificate of John VIII., Ausbert, prelate
  of Milan (died A.D. 882), who kept true to the German party,
  could defy papal anathema and deposition. His successor, however,
  again acknowledged the papal supremacy.--In =Germany=, since
  the time of Charlemagne, new metropolitan sees had been created
  at Salzburg, Cologne, Treves and Hamburg-Bremen. Mainz, however,
  still claimed the primacy and represented the unity of the German
  church. The Isidorian forgery availed not here as in the land of
  its birth to stop the contention of the archbishop. The German
  metropolitanate to the advantage of the empire maintained its
  rights untouched for centuries. Among the primates of Mainz
  the most important by far was =Hatto I.=, A.D. 891-913. Even
  under Arnulf (died A.D. 899), whose most trusted adviser he
  was, he exercised a wide as well as wholesome influence on the
  administration of the empire. It was still greater under Louis
  the Child (died A.D. 911) whom he raised to the throne and for
  whom he acted as regent. Conrad I. (§ 96, 1) also owed to him
  his election as king of the Germans. In the internal affairs
  of the German church, he directed and adjusted, organized and
  ruled in this time of general upheaval with wonderful insight,
  wisdom and energy, most conspicuously, and that too against
  papal assumptions, at the great national synod of Tribur in
  A.D. 895. The primate regarded it as a political axiom, that,
  in order to conserve and advance the unity of the empire, the
  particularism of the several races and the struggles of their
  chiefs and princes for independence should be crushed. Owing to
  the consistency and energy with which he carried out his idea,
  he did indeed make many enemies. The stories of insidious perfidy
  and bloody violence which have attached themselves to his memory
  are to all appearance due to their calumnious hatred. His sudden
  death probably gave rise to the legend that the devil fetched
  him away and cast him into the mouth of Etna. To him, and not
  to the much less important Hatto II., who died in A.D. 970, is
  the other equally baseless legend of the Mäusethurm near Bingen
  to be referred.--Continuation, § 97, 2.


                   § 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL.[233]

  The bishops subject to the archbishop were called diocesan bishops,
or, as voting members of the Provincial Synod, suffragan bishops. The
canonical election of bishops by the people and clergy was completely
done away with in the German national church. Kings without opposition
filled vacant bishoprics according to their own choice. Louis the
Pious at the Synod of Aachen, in A.D. 817, restored canonical election
by people and clergy, subject to the emperor’s confirmation, but
his successors paid no attention to the law. Deposition was usually
carried out by the Provincial and National Synods. The investiture of
bishops with pastoral staff and marriage ring by the reigning prince
is occasionally met with even in the Merovingian age and became general
after the development of the benefice system in the 9th century. Out
of the institution of bishops without dioceses, _Episcopi regionarii_,
originally intended for missionary service, arose in all probability
the institution of _Chorepiscopi_ which flourished especially in
France during the 8th and 9th centuries. With the old _Chorepiscopi_
(§ 34, 2; § 45) they have nothing in common beyond the name. They
were subordinate assistants of the diocesan bishops, whose convenience,
unspirituality and often absence on state affairs demanded such
substitutes. But by their arbitrary conduct and refractoriness they
often gave great trouble to those bishops who had any care for their
flock. A Synod at Paris, therefore, in A.D. 849, withdrew all authority
from them. From that time they gradually sank out of view. The inferior
clergy, taken generally from the serfs, stood mostly in slavish
dependence on the bishop and often had not the barest necessaries
of culture. Their appointment lay with the bishop, yet the founder of
a church and his successors frequently retained the right of patronage
in choosing their own officiating clergymen.[234] Especially in the
later Merovingian and earlier Carolingian periods, the Frankish clergy,
superior and inferior, had become terribly corrupt. Boniface was the
first to reintroduce some sort of discipline (§ 78, 5) and Charlemagne’s
powerful government contributed in an extraordinary measure to the
ennobling of the clergy. Yet the corruption was too general and too
great to be altogether eradicated. Louis the Pious, therefore, in
A.D. 816, extended to the whole kingdom a reformation which Chrodegang
of Metz had introduced fifty years previously among his own clergy, by
which means discipline and order were again improved for some decades.
But in the troublous times of the last Carolingians everything went
again into confusion and decay. Exemption from civil jurisdiction
was accorded the clergy during this period only to this extent, that
the secular courts could not proceed against a clergyman without the
advice of the bishop, and the bishop himself was subject only to the
jurisdiction of the king and the Provincial Synod.

  § 84.1. =The Superior Clergy.=--In the German states from
  the earliest times the superior clergy constituted a spiritual
  aristocracy which by means of their higher culture won a more
  influential position in civil life than the secular nobles. In
  all important affairs of state the bishops were the advisers of
  the king; they were almost exclusively employed on embassies; on
  all commissions there were clerical members and always one half
  of the _Missi dominici_ were clerics. This nearness to the person
  of the king and their importance in civil life made them rank as
  one of the estates of the realm. The Frankish idea of immunity,
  in consequence of which by royal gift along with the rights of
  territorial lords there were handed over to the new proprietors
  also the princely right of levying taxes and administering
  justice, brought to them secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction
  over a great part of the land. As the court of the Frankish
  king was moved from place to place, he required a special court,
  chapel, with a numerous court-clergy, at the head of which was
  an Arch-chaplain, usually the most distinguished prelate in
  the land. The names _Capella_ and _Capellani_ were originally
  applied only to court chapels and court chaplains, and were
  derived from the fact that in the chapel was kept the _Cappa_
  or coat of Martin of Tours as a precious relic and the national
  palladium of France. The court clergy formed the nursery for
  future bishops of the realm. In addition to the ring and staff
  as episcopal insignia we find in the Carolingian age the bishop’s
  cap, consisting of two long sheets of tin or pasteboard running
  up to a peak, covered with silk of the same colour as the dress
  used in celebrating mass, generally richly ornamented with gold
  and precious stones, called by the old pagan name _Infula_ or
  _Mitra_.[235]

  § 84.2. =The Inferior Clergy.=--The enormous expansion of
  episcopal dioceses rendered a new arrangement of the =inferior
  clergy= indispensable. The extension churches in towns and the
  country churches which previously had been served by the clergy
  of the cathedral church, obtained a regular clergy of their
  own. As these churches were always dedicated to a saint they
  were called _Tituli_, and the clergy appointed to officiate in
  them, _Intitulati_, _Incardinati_, _Cardinales_. Thus originated
  the idea of _Parochia_, παροικία and of _Parochus_ or parish
  priest,[236] who, because the _cura animarum_ was committed to
  him was also called Curate, as in the French curé. Over about
  ten parishes was placed an _Archipresbyter ruralis_ who was
  called _Decanus_, Dean. As the right of administering baptism
  belonged originally to him exclusively, his church was called
  _Ecclesia baptisimalis_; his diocese, _Christianitas_ or _Plebs_;
  he himself also, _Plebanus_. A further arrangement was first
  introduced in the 8th century by Heddo of Strasburg [Strassburg],
  who gave to each of the deans in his diocese seven archdeacons,
  _præpositi_, provosts. Besides the parish churches there were
  many chapels or oratories where divine service was conducted
  only at certain times by the neighbouring parish clergy or
  chaplains appointed for that purpose. To this class also belong
  the domestic chapels in episcopal residences or on the estates
  of noblemen which were served by special domestic or castle
  chaplains. The latter indeed had in addition the duty of feeding
  the dogs, waiting at table and taking charge of the lady’s pony.
  Notwithstanding repeated reinforcement of the old law: _Ne quis
  vage ordinetur_, there was still a great number of so-called
  _Clericis vagis_, mostly vagabonds and idlers, who, ordained by
  unprincipled bishops for a reward, roamed over the country like
  clerical pedlars.

  § 84.3. =Compulsory Celibacy= was stoutly resisted by the German
  clergy. The inferior clergy were mostly married. At ordination
  they were ordered indeed to separate from their wives and to
  abstain from marital intercourse, but the promise was rarely
  fulfilled. Among the unmarried clergy, fornication, adultery
  and unnatural lust were prevalent. A bishop, Ulrich of Augsburg,
  addressed to Nicholas I. a philippic against the law of celibacy
  with fearless exposures of its evil consequences. The =moral
  condition= of the clergy was generally speaking shockingly low.
  Legacy hunting, forging of documents, simony and chaffering for
  benefices were carried on in a shameless way. The lordly habits
  of the bishops consisted in hunting, going about with dogs and
  falcons, and in wild drunken revels. In the 7th century it was
  the peculiar pleasure of the Frankish bishops in wild scenes
  of blood that induced them to take part in the wars, and led
  to their being afterwards obliged to fit out contingents for
  the field at the cost of their ecclesiastical revenues. Pepin,
  Charlemagne and Louis the Pious passed stringent laws against
  these warlike habits of churchmen; but the later Carolingians
  not only tolerated but actually encouraged them.

  § 84.4. =Canonical life.=--Augustine’s institution of a
  _monasterii Clericorum_ (§ 45, 1) was often imitated in later
  times. But bishop =Chrodegang of Metz=, who died in A.D. 766,
  gave it for the first time, about A.D. 760, a fixed and permanent
  form. His rule or _Canon_ is closely connected with the monastic
  rule of St. Benedict (§ 85), with the omission of the vow of
  poverty. He built a commodious residence Domus, _monasterium_
  (comp. Germ. words Dom and Münster), in which all the clergy of
  his cathedral church were obliged to live, pray, work, eat and
  sleep under the constant and strict supervision of the bishop
  or his archdeacon. This was the _Vita canonica_. After morning
  devotions all the members of the establishment gathered together
  in the hall where the bishop or provost read to them a chapter
  from the Bible, most frequently from Leviticus, from the rule or
  from the fathers, and added thereto the necessary explanations
  and exhortations. The hall was therefore called the Chapter House;
  then the name =Chapter=[237] was given to the whole body gathered
  together there. The =Colleges=[238] were a subsequent development
  of the chapter in non-episcopal city churches, with a provost
  or deacon at their head. Louis the Pious allowed Chrodegang’s
  rule to be revived and generalized by the deacon Amalarius of
  Metz, and at the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817 enforced
  it for the whole kingdom. It is known as _Regula Aquisgranensis_.
  But soon after the Canons endeavoured to emancipate themselves
  more and more from the burdensome yoke of episcopal control.
  Gunther of Cologne (§ 82, 7) who, though deposed by the pope,
  retained his official position, was obliged to purchase the
  support of his chapter by a bargain in accordance with which
  a great part of the ecclesiastical revenues of the chapter were
  placed at their own full disposal as Prebends or Benefices. And
  what this one chapter gained for itself was afterwards contended
  for by others.[239]--Continuation, § 97, 3.


                        § 85. MONASTICISM.[240]

  While from the 5th century one rush of migrating peoples was rapidly
followed by another, the monkish orders fell into decay, barbarism and
corruption. They would scarcely have survived this period of commotion,
at least would not have proved the great blessing that they have
been to the German west, had not the spirit of ancient Rome with its
practical turn, its appreciation of law and order and its organizing
talent, given them at the right time, what they hitherto wanted, a
rule answering to the requirements and circumstances of the age, and
by means of it firm footing, unity, order and legal form. This task was
accomplished by =Benedict of Nursia= (d. A.D. 543), the patriarch of
Western Monasticism. The rule, which he prescribed in A.D. 529 to the
monks of the monastery of Monte Cassino in Campania founded by him, was
not unduly ascetic, combined strict discipline with a certain degree
of mildness and indulgence, estimated the needs of human nature as well
as the circumstances of the times, and was, in short, adaptable and
practical. From the rule of Cassiodorus (§ 47, 23) Benedict’s disciples
borrowed that zeal for scholarly studies about which their master had
given no directions, and Gregory the Great inspired the order with
enthusiasm for missionary labours. Thus the Benedictine order obtained
its full consecration to its calling of worldwide significance. Soon
spreading over all the West, being introduced into France by Maurus in
A.D. 543, it nobly fulfilled its vocation by cultivating the soil and
the mind, by clearing the forests, bringing in waste lands, zealously
preaching the gospel, rooting out superstition and paganism, educating
the young, fostering and restoring literature, science and art. The
barbarous age, however, which saw the overthrow of the Merovingians
and the rise of the Carolingians, exerted a deteriorating influence
also on the Benedictines. But Charlemagne restored strict discipline,
and assigned to the monasteries the task of erecting schools and
prosecuting scholarly studies. By authority of Louis the Pious and
by order of the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817, =Benedict of
Aniane= undertook a reformation and re-organization of all the monkish
systems throughout the empire. At the head of a commission appointed
for that purpose he visited all the Frankish monasteries, and compelled
them to organize themselves after his improved Benedictine Rule.

  § 85.1. The one source of information regarding the life
  of =Benedict of Nursia= is the miracle-laden record of the
  miracle-loving pope Gregory the Great in the second book of
  his Dialogues. Benedict’s =Rule= comprises 73 chapters. The
  first principle of the monastic life is obedience to the Abbot,
  as representative of Christ. The choice of abbot lies with the
  brothers. Of serving brothers the rule knows nothing. The chief
  occupation is agriculture. Idleness is strictly forbidden. Charge
  of the kitchen and reading at table are duties performed by all
  the monks in turn week about. Divine service begins at 3 a.m. and
  is rendered regularly through all the seven hours (§ 56, 2). Two
  meals a day are partaken of and each monk has daily half a bottle
  of wine. Flesh meat is given only to the sick and weak. At table
  and after the _Completorium_ or last hour of prayer, no word
  was allowed to be spoken. All the brothers slept in a common
  dormitory, each in a separate bed, but completely dressed and
  girded, so as to be ready at call for matins. The discipline was
  strict and reasonable; first private, then public rebuke, then
  penal fasting, corporal punishment, and finally excommunication.
  Hospitality and attention to the poor were enjoined on all
  monasteries. Reception was preceded by a year’s novitiate.
  The vow included _Stabilitas loci_, _Conversio morum_ (poverty
  and chastity) and _Obedientia_. The _Oblati_ were a special kind
  of novices, _i.e._ children who in their early youth were placed
  in the monastery by their parents. They were educated in the
  monastic schools and were not allowed to go back to the world.

  § 85.2. =Benedict of Aniane= (A.D. 821) was originally called
  Witiza and was the son of a Visigoth count. He had served as
  a soldier under Charlemagne. In attempting to save his brother
  he was himself almost drowned. His ambition was now directed
  to an ascetic life, in which his personal performances were
  most remarkable. On the river Anianus in Languedoc he founded
  in A.D. 779 the monastery of Aniane. He was the indispensable
  and all-powerful counsellor of Louis the Pious. In order to have
  him always near him, Louis founded for him the monastery of Inda
  or the Cornelius-Münster near Aachen. In the interests of his
  cloister reform he published in A.D. 817 a _Codex regulorum_ in
  which he collected all the monastic rules previously known.

  § 85.3. The rule of the elder Benedict made no reference to
  =Nunneries=; but his sister Scholastica is regarded as the
  founder of the order of female Benedictines. Another form of
  female asceticism was developed after the model of the canonical
  life of the secular clergy in the institution of canonesses. The
  rule, which Louis the Pious at Aachen in A.D. 816 allowed them
  to draw up for themselves, is distinctly milder than that of
  the nuns. The ladies’ orders gradually became places of resort
  for the unmarried daughters of the nobles. The canonical age for
  taking the nun’s vows was twenty-five. The novitiate lasted three
  years. Besides the _propria professio_ the _paterna devotio_ was
  also regarded as binding. In regard to dress the adoption of the
  veil was the main thing; but in addition they wore the wreath as
  a symbol of virginity and the ring as token of spiritual marriage.
  At this time the cutting of the hair was only a punishment for
  unchaste nuns. The honourable position of the wife among the
  Germans secured special respect for the abbess, and obtained
  for the most famous nunneries exemption, civil prerogatives and
  proprietary, even princely rights. The frequent appearance of
  =Double-Cloisters= where monks and nuns, naturally in separate
  dwellings, under a common rule either of an abbess as often in
  England, or of an abbot, was also peculiarly German.

  § 85.4. =The Greater Monasteries=, formed as they were of a vast
  number of separate buildings for agriculture, cattle rearing,
  handicraft and arts of all kinds, for elementary teaching, for
  higher education, for hospitable entertainment, caring for the
  sick, etc., came by and by to attain the proportions of little
  towns. Frequently they were the centre around which cities were
  raised. The monastery of Vivarium in Calabria, Cassiodorus’
  foundation, inspired Western monasticism with an enthusiasm
  for scholarly studies. The regulations of Monte Cassino were
  extended to all monasteries of the West. Columbanus’ monastery
  of Bobbio rooted out paganism and Arianism in northern Italy. The
  monasteries of Iona in Scotland and Bangor in Ireland gained high
  repute in the struggle of the Celtic church against the Roman.
  The English monastery of Wearmouth was a famous school of science.
  In France St. Denys near Paris and Old Corbei in Picardy gained
  a high reputation. In South Germany St. Gall, Reichenau, Lorsch
  and Hirschau, in Central Germany Fulda, Hersfeld and Fritzlar,
  and in North Germany New Corbei, a branch from Old Corbei, were
  main centres of Christian culture.

  § 85.5. In its new Western form also monasticism was still
  without the clerical character. But there was an ever-increasing
  tendency to draw the monastic and the clerical institutions
  more and more closely together. By means of celibacy and
  the introduction of the canonical life (§ 84, 4) the clergy
  came to have the monkish character, and on the other hand,
  most of the monks, in the first instance for monastic and
  mission services, took clerical orders. By and by monks sought
  appointments as curates (§ 84, 2), and thus rivalries arose
  between them and the clergy. The monasteries were wholly under
  the jurisdiction of the bishops in whose diocese they lay. The
  exemptions of this period were limited to security for the free
  election of the abbot, independent administration of property
  and gratuitous performance of consecrations by the bishop. In
  the Frankish empire, however, abbots were ordinarily appointed
  to vacancies by the court, and rich abbeys were also often
  bestowed upon distinguished noblemen _in commendam_, _i.e._,
  for temporary administration with the enjoyment of their revenues,
  or even to court and military officers as a reward for special
  services. Such lay abbots or _abbacomites_ often stayed in the
  monasteries for months with their families, their huntsmen and
  their soldiers, and made them the scene of their drinking bouts,
  their field sports and their military exercises. The kings
  retained the richest abbacies to themselves or gave them to
  their sons and daughters, wives and concubines.

  § 85.6. =The Stylites= (§ 44, 6) on account of the climate,
  could gain no footing, though attempts were indeed made, _e.g._
  by Wulflaich (§ 78, 3). In place of them we find male and female
  recluses, =Reclusi= (_Inclusi_) and _Reclusæ_, who shut themselves
  up in cells which they never quitted. =Hermits of the Woods=,
  unfettered by any rules, found great favour among the Germans.
  Their national melancholic temperament inclining them to solitude,
  their strong love of nature, their passionate delight in roaming
  unchecked through woods and mountains, contributed to make such a
  mode of life attractive. It was during the 6th century that this
  craze for hermit life reached its height in Germany, and its main
  seat was in Auvergne with its wild mountains, glens and gorges.
  But as the cell of the saint was often in later times developed
  into a monastery on account of the crowds of disciples that
  gathered round, the hermit life gradually passed over into a
  regulated cœnobite life. In Switzerland Meinard, son of a count
  of Zollern, was a hermit of this sort. In A.D. 861 he had been
  murdered by two robbers, and this was afterwards discovered, the
  legend says, by means of two ravens feeding upon the body of the
  murdered man. His cell in later times grew into the beautiful
  Benedictine abbey of Maria-Einsiedeln with its miracle-working
  image of the mother of God, which at this day is visited by more
  than a hundred thousand pilgrims yearly.


            § 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES.

  The inalienableness of church property being regarded as the first
principle of its administration, it grew by enormous strides from year
to year through donations and legacies, At the end of the 7th century
there was in Gaul fully a third of the whole territory in the possession
of the churches and monasteries, while the national exchequer was
quite exhausted. In this emergency Charles Martel founded the benefice
system, for which he also converted into money the abundant possessions
of the church. His sons, however, Carloman and Pepin the Short, in
consideration of the reorganization of the Frankish church effected by
Boniface (§ 78, 5), sought to avert the impoverishment of many churches
and cloisters by a partial restitution so far as the neediness of the
times would allow. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious did still more in
this direction, so that partly by these means, partly by the continued
donations of rich people, church property soon acquired its earlier
proportions. Thus, _e.g._, the monastery of Luxeuil had in the 9th
century an estate with 15,000 farm-houses upon it.--The administration
of the property of churches and monasteries lay in the hands of the
bishops and abbots. For defending and maintaining secular and legal
rights there were ecclesiastical and monastic advocates, _Advocati
ecclesiæ_. This institution, however, often degenerated into an
agency for oppressing the peasants and plundering the property of
their clients; for many advocates assumed arbitrary powers and dealt
with the property of the church and its proceeds just as they chose.

  § 86.1. =The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries.=--The main
  sources of their growing wealth were donations and legacies.
  Princes often made bequests of enormous magnitude and rich people
  in private life vied with them. Occasions were never wanting;
  restoration from sickness, escape from danger, the birth of
  a child, etc., regularly won for the church whose patron saint
  had been helpful, some valuable present. The clergy also used
  all means in their power to encourage this prevailing readiness
  to bestow presents; and to this must in great measure be traced
  the beginnings of the forging of deeds. A peculiar form for
  bequeathing a gift was that of the _Precaria_, according to
  which the giver retained to himself for his lifetime the use
  of the goods which he gifted. Church property was farther greatly
  increased by the personal possessions of the clergy and the
  monks, which at the death of the former and at the _conversio_
  of the latter usually became part of the revenue of the church
  or cloister to which their owners belonged. Besides the proceeds
  of its own estates the church drew the tithes of all property
  and incomes of parishioners, the claim being enforced as a _jus
  divinum_ by a reference to the Mosaic legislation and made a
  law of the empire by the injunction of Charlemagne. On the other
  hand the clergy were forbidden to exact payment for discharge
  of official duties, so called stole-dues, because they were
  performed by the priest dressed in the _stola_. The cathedral
  church was entitled to an annual tax, _Honor cathedræ_, levied
  upon all the churches of the diocese. The inferior clergy, on the
  other hand, often arrogated to themselves the right in accordance
  with a bad custom of grasping by violent plunder the possessions
  of their deceased bishop, _Spolium_.[241]

  § 86.2. =The Benefice System.=--In consequence of the vast
  gifts of the Merovingians to the churches and their ministrants,
  when Charles Martel assumed the government, the sources of crown
  revenue that hitherto seemed inexhaustible were almost completely
  dried up, while this prince, in order to deliver the country from
  the Saracens and in order to maintain his rule over against the
  innumerable petty tyrants who threatened to dismember the empire,
  required a yet fuller treasury than any of his predecessors. Out
  of these circumstances grew the =Benefice System=. The soldiers
  who had served the nation and princes had been as before rewarded
  by grants of lands. These, however, were no longer given as
  hereditary possessions but only for the lifetime of the receiver
  (_Beneficium_), and for this he was under obligation to supply
  a proportionate contingent for military service. When the crown
  lands had been well nigh exhausted, Charles Martel did not
  hesitate to lay claim to the church property. His son Carloman
  at the first Austrasian national Synod in A.D. 742 (§ 78, 5)
  promised to restore the church property that had thus been
  alienated, but had soon to confess his inability to perform his
  promise. At the second Austrasian Synod at Lestines in A.D. 743
  he therefore limited the immediate restitution to the most
  pressing cases of notoriously poor and needy churches and
  monasteries. He was driven to this by the absolutely needful
  claims of the civil and military departments. But the claim
  of the church to get back the property was secured by the
  beneficiary giving a _Precarial_ letter and by the payment of
  an annual tax of a solidus for every farm house on the estate.
  The king also promised the full restoration on the death of
  the beneficiary, with express retention, however, of the right,
  if the needs of the times required it, to lease out again the
  vacant _precariæ_. Even Pepin at the Neustrian national Synod
  at Soissons in A.D. 744 granted similar concessions, but yet
  in the execution of them did not go so far as his brother. In
  A.D. 751 he caused a _descriptio et divisio_, _i.e._ an inventory
  of church property with an exact fixing of the limits of its
  various titles to be made.[242]--The annual tax referred to was
  transformed by Charlemagne into a second tithe, the so-called
  _Nonæ_. But even after the partial restitution effected by the
  descendants of Pepin there still remained upon the restored
  property the beneficial burdens that had been laid upon it,
  especially the obligation to supply and equip a certain number
  of soldiers, and this was thence transferred to the whole
  property of the church.--The benefice system, originating
  in the pressure of circumstances, continued to spread more
  and more, and formed the foundation of the entire social and
  civil organization of the Middle Ages.[243]


                   § 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION.

  The construction of ecclesiastical legislation for the German
empire was at first wholly the work of the Synods. The popes exerted
scarcely any influence upon it, but all the more powerfully was
felt the influence of the kings. They summoned the Synods, laid
down to them the subjects to be discussed, and confirmed according
to their own judgment their decisions. From the time that the Frankish
bishoprics were filled by native Franks the independent life of
the Synods was quenched, and ecclesiastical affairs were arranged
at the national assemblies in which the bishops also took part as
territorial nobles. The great national Synods, too, at which Boniface’s
reorganization of the church in accordance with Roman ecclesiastical
law as carried (§ 78, 5) were _Concilia mixta_ of this kind; and
even under Charlemagne and Louis of France these were still prevalent.
Charles, however, made their proceedings more orderly by grouping the
nobles into three ranks as bishops, abbots and counts. Under the Pepin
dynasty alongside of the synodal we have the royal decrees, arranged
in separate chapters, and hence the ordinances are called _Capitularia_.
Purely ecclesiastical Synods in later times again gained a footing and
were particularly numerous in the times of Hincmar.

  § 87.1. =Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law.=--Gregory II.
  furnished Boniface with a _Codex canonum_, undoubtedly the
  _Dionysiaca_ (§ 43, 3), and Hadrian II. presented Charlemagne
  with one which was solemnly received at the National Synod of
  Aachen in A.D. 802. There was in Spain a new collection which
  was erroneously attributed to bishop Isidore of Seville, who to
  distinguish him from the Frankish Pseudo-Isidore is designated
  the genuine Isidore, or more correctly as _Hispana_. This
  collection in form attaches itself to _Dionysiaca_. In the
  9th century it was introduced among the Franks, and here gave
  contents and name to the Pseudo-Isidorian collection. In close
  connection with this masterpiece of forgery stands the collection
  of laws by Benedictus Levita of Mainz, which was indeed called
  a collection of capitularies, but was gathered mainly from
  documents of ecclesiastical legislation, genuine and spurious. A
  collection of true and genuine capitularies was made in A.D. 827
  by Ansegis, Abbot of Fontenelles. Benedict’s collection was
  included in it as 5th, 6th, and 7th books. Besides these large
  collections many bishops prepared epitomized collections for
  the use of their own dioceses, of which several are extant under
  the name of _Capitula Episcoporum_. Decidedly in the interest
  of the Pseudo-Isidore are the _Capitula Angilramni_, composed
  and subscribed by bishop Angilramnus of Metz (d. A.D. 791). The
  dates and contents of the three first-named collections were
  determined in the interest of the Pseudo-Isidorian, and are still
  a matter of controversy. Benedict, according to his own credible
  statement, undertook his work at the command of the archbishop
  Otgar, of Mainz, for the archives of Mainz, but completed and
  published it probably in France only after Otgar’s death, which
  occurred in A.D. 847. But while in earlier times it was generally
  believed that Benedict had used the Pseudo-Isidore, Hinschius
  has become convinced that the author of the capitula is identical
  with the Pseudo-Isidore, and from Benedict’s capitularies has
  unravelled first the composition of the capitula and then that
  of the decretals.[244]

  § 87.2. =The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore.=--In
  the fiftieth year of the 9th century there appeared in France
  under the name of Isidorus Mercator a collection of canons and
  decretals, which indeed completely embraced the older so-called
  _Isidoriana_, but was enlarged by the addition of a multitude
  of forged decretals. The surname Mercator, otherwise Peccator,
  is probably derived from the well known Marius Mercator
  (§ 47, 20), who had also occupied himself with the translation
  of ecclesiastical documents, which the Pseudo-Isidore used
  for his work. It begins with the fifty _Canones Apostt._, then
  follow fifty-nine forged decretals which are assigned to the
  thirty oldest popes from Clement to Melchiades (d. A.D. 314).
  The second part embraces, besides the original document of
  the Donation of Constantine, genuine synodal decrees falsified
  apparently only in one passage. The third part, again, contains
  decretals of Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, down to
  Gregory II. (d. A.D. 731), of which thirty-five are not genuine.
  The non-genuine decretals are for the most part not altogether
  forgeries, but are rather based upon the literature of theology
  and canon law then existing, amplified or altered, and wrought
  up to serve the purposes of the compiler. The system of the
  Pseudo-Isidore is characterized by the following peculiarities:
  Over the _Imperium_ is raised the _Sacerdotium_, ordained of
  Christ to be governor and judge of the world. The unity and
  head of the _Sacerdotium_ is represented by the pope. Bishops
  are related to the pope as the other apostles were to Peter.
  The metropolitan is only _primus inter pares_. Between the pope
  and the bishops as an intermediate rank we have the primates or
  patriarchs. This rank, however, belongs only to such metropolitan
  sees as either were ordained to it by the apostles and their
  successors, or to such sees in more recently converted lands
  as were elevated to this position in consequence of the multitude
  of bishops belonging to them. Provincial Synods should be held
  only with the consent of the pope, their decrees become valid
  only after receiving his confirmation, and all _causæ majores_,
  especially all complaints against bishops, belong solely to
  his own judicature. Priests are the _Familiares Dei_, the
  _Spirituales_; the laity, on the other hand, are the _Carnales_.
  No clergyman, least of all a bishop, may be taken before a
  secular tribunal. A layman may not appear as an accuser against
  a clergyman, and the Synods are enjoined to render charges
  against a bishop as difficult as possible. An expelled bishop,
  before the charges against him can be examined, must have been
  fully restored (_Exceptio Spolii_). If the accused regards his
  judges as _inimici_ or _suspecti_, he may appeal to be examined
  before the pope. For the establishing of a charge at least
  seventy-two witnesses are necessary, etc.

  § 87.3. The forgery originated in France, where it had been in
  existence for some years before it was known in Rome, as appears
  from the process against Rothad of Soissons (§ 83, 2). Rothad
  first brought it to Rome in A.D. 864. Blondel and Kunst regard
  Benedict Levita as its author. He first gave currency to the
  forgery in his Collection of Capitularies. and so arouses
  the suspicion that he is himself the forger. Philipps fathers
  it upon Rothad of Soissons; Wasserschleben ascribes it to
  archbishop Otgar of Mainz, who, as a prominent head of the
  clerical conspiracy against Louis the Pious (§ 82, 4), would
  have reason to defend himself against the judgment which would
  befall conspirators. But this doom did not in any very special
  manner threaten Otgar. On Louis’ restoration he was not sentenced
  or deposed by any synod, but was without more ado received into
  favour by the emperor. The Pseudo-Isidore’s hostile attitude
  toward the chorepiscopi (§ 84), while gaining no footing in
  Germany, certainly prevailed in France; and France, not Germany,
  was the place where this collection first appeared between
  A.D. 853 and 864. Since now, moreover, the prominence given
  by the Pseudo-Isidore to the rank of primate may be regarded
  as equally favourable to the see of Rheims as to that of Mainz,
  Weizsäcker and v. Noorden have sought the original home of the
  forgery in the diocese of Rheims, and point to Ebo, archbishop of
  Rheims, Hincmar’s predecessor, as the forger. And Ebo certainly
  stood in the front rank of the revolt referred to. Before him
  Louis had specially to humble himself. He was therefore taken
  prisoner immediately upon the emperor’s restoration, and deprived
  of his office at the Synod of Didenhofen in A.D. 835 (§ 82, 4).
  The emperor Lothair, indeed, restored him in A.D. 840, but
  his position was still very insecure, as he had before a year
  passed to save himself by flight on the approach of Charles
  the Bald, and never again saw Rheims, which till Hincmar’s
  elevation remained in the hands of chorepiscopi. The composition
  of the collection, according to v. Noorden, belongs to the
  period immediately preceding and lasting through his restitution.
  Finally Hinschius regards Rheims as undoubtedly the scene
  of the composition of these forgeries, but he cannot ascribe
  them to Ebo because, according to his demonstration, Benedict’s
  Pseudo-Isidore used as his authority only a collection completed
  after A.D. 847, and by that time Ebo could not have the shadow
  of a hope of restoration. But he also advances other weighty
  considerations. Ebo himself had never attempted to make good
  the claims which the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals would have
  afforded him. If his own affairs had first led him to think
  of forging decretals he must have foreseen that the extensive
  studies necessary for such a work would have demanded many years
  of laborious effort, and would be concluded much too late to
  serve his purpose. It would, therefore, seem to him safer to
  confine himself to what his immediately present circumstances
  urgently required; whereas the actual Pseudo-Isidore, on the
  contrary, puts in the mouths of the early popes, with no little
  zeal and emphasis, a vast array of other exhortations and decrees
  that seemed to him useful amid the troubles of that age for the
  well being of the church and its ministers. Thus the whole work
  assumes more of the character of a _pia fraus_ of a somewhat
  high church cleric of that time than of a forgery devised in
  the selfish interests of an individual. This much, however,
  must be admitted, that the directions quoted about judicial
  procedure against accused bishops exactly fit the case of Ebo.
  As the first attempt to use the non-genuine decretals only found
  in Pseudo-Isidore was made at the Synod of Soissons in A.D. 853,
  by those clerics who had been ordained by Ebo after his deposition
  but rejected by Hincmar, the final redaction and publication must
  fall between A.D. 847 and 853. Langen fixes the date at A.D. 850,
  and refers its authorship to Servatus Lupus (§ 90, 5). Nobody
  then doubted their genuineness. Even Hincmar seems for a long
  time to have had no doubts. But he decidedly repudiated their
  legal authority in the Frankish church, and energetically opposed
  them when they were sought to be enforced against the independence
  of the church. Thus he could always refer to them where their
  contentions agreed with his own, or, as in the case against his
  nephew, where they supported his rights as primate, in order to
  defeat his opponents with their own weapons. Subsequently however,
  in A.D. 872, in a letter written in the name of his king to pope
  Hadrian, he characterized them in contrast with the genuine and
  valid decretals as _secus a quoquam compilata sive conficta_.
  The Magdeburg Centuriators were the first conclusively to prove
  them spurious. The Jesuit Turrianus, however, entered the lists
  once more on their behalf. But the reformed theologian, David
  Blondel, castigated so sharply and thoroughly this theological
  unprincipledness, that even in the Roman Catholic church their
  non-genuineness has been now since admitted.[245]

  § 87.4. Among the many spurious documents which the
  Pseudo-Isidore included in his collection of ecclesiastical
  laws, we find an =Edictum Constantini Imperatoris=. In the
  first part of it, the so-called _Confessio_, Constantine makes
  a confession of his faith, and relates in detail in what a
  wonderful way he was converted to Christianity by pope Sylvester,
  and cured of leprosy (§ 42, 1). Then in the second part, the
  so-called _Donatio_, he confers upon the chair of Peter, with
  recognition of its absolute primacy over all patriarchates of
  the empire, imperial power, rank, honour, and insignia, as all
  privileges and claims of imperial senators upon its clergy. In
  order that the possessor of this gift may be able to all time to
  maintain the dignity of his position, he gives him the Lateran
  palace, transfers to him independent dominion over “_Romanam
  urbem et omnes Italiæ seu_ (in Frankish Latin of the 8th and
  9th centuries this means ‘as well as’) _occidentalium regionum
  provincias, loca et civitates_” (therefore not merely Italy
  but the whole West Roman empire); he removes his own imperial
  residence to Byzantium, “_quoniam ubi principates Sacerdotum et
  Christ. religionis Caput ab Imperatore cœlesti constitutum est,
  justum non est, ut illic Imperator terrerum habeat potestatem_.”
  In a letter of Hadrian I. to Charlemagne in A.D. 788, in which he
  salutes the emperor as a second Constantine who is called upon by
  God not only to restore to the apostolic chair the “_potestas in
  his Hesperiæ partibus_,” which had been already assigned it by
  the first Constantine, but also all later legacies and donations
  “of various patricians and other God-fearing men,” which the
  godless race of the Longobards in course of time tore from it,
  we have the first hint at the idea of a _Donatio Constantini_.
  The same pope, too, according to the _Vita Hadriani_ in the
  Romish Pontifical, on the occasion of Charles’ visit to Rome
  in A.D. 774 is said to have reclaimed from him an enormous grant
  of land (§ 82, 2). It seemed therefore an extremely probable
  supposition that assigned Rome as the place where this document
  originated, and the period of the overthrow of the Longobard
  empire, whether actually accomplished or on the eve of taking
  place, as the date of its fabrication (§ 82, 1, 2). Against
  this view, almost universally prevalent, quite recently Grauert
  has advanced a vast array of powerful arguments, _e.g._, the
  limitation of the _Donatio_ of Constantine to Italy which
  is here suggested contradicts its own express statement. The
  words of the letter of Hadrian referred to speak not of a
  dominion =over= Italy, and which they could have read, “_in
  has H. partes_,” but of a dominion in Italy which was founded
  upon Constantine’s munificence and enlarged by many subsequent
  presents. They do not, therefore, refer like the words of
  the _Donatio_ to sovereign territorial authority, but to the
  exceedingly wide-spread and rich property included in the
  _Patrimonium Petri_ (§ 46, 10). The “potestas,” said to have
  been assigned by Constantine to the Roman see, does not exceed
  the authority which even according to the _Vita Sylvestri_ of
  the Pontifical had been given by Constantine to that pope.--Thus
  the donation document is met with first in the Pseudo-Isidore.
  It was often afterwards referred to by the Frankish government.
  By Rome, on the other hand, although even Nicholas I. was made
  acquainted with the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals by Rothad, and
  referred to them in A.D. 865, they are never used, either against
  the Franks or against the Byzantines until, in A.D. 1053, we meet
  an allusion to them in a letter from Leo IX. to the patriarch
  Michael Cærularius (§ 67, 3). Grauert accounts for this by saying
  that there were two recensions of Pseudo-Isidore, a shorter,
  which had only the first part of the document, the so-called
  _Confessio_; and a longer, which had also the _Donatio_, and
  that Rothad took probably only the shorter one to Rome. From
  these and other data adduced by Grauert it seems more than
  probable that the foundry in which the document was forged
  was not in Rome, but rather in France among the high church
  party there, from which also the full-fledged forgery
  proceeded. It would also seem that a double purpose was
  served by its composition. On the one hand, over against the
  Greeks it represented the chair of Peter as raised above all
  the patriarchates of the empire, and the Western empire as a
  thoroughly legitimate one transferred by Constantine the Great
  to the pope, and then by him to the kings of the Franks. And,
  on the other hand, it also made it clear to the Frankish princes
  that all temporal power in the West essentially, and from of old,
  belonged to the pope, and is bestowed upon them by means of their
  coronation by the pope’s hands.--That from the time when they met
  with the document unto the 11th century the Byzantines did not
  contest its genuineness, need not surprise us when we consider
  the uncritical character of the age. They would also be the less
  disposed to do so as they could only thereby hope to win that
  perfect equality in spiritual authority as well as in secular
  rank with the Roman bishop which the fourth œcumenical council
  had assigned to their patriarchal see. But while the Byzantines
  may be regarded as inconsiderately incorporating this donation
  of Constantine into their historical and legal books, blotting
  out indeed the passages which seemed to them to favour the
  pretensions of the pope to universal sovereignty, it is a
  more difficult task to secure for it acceptance among Western
  diplomatists. Even in A.D. 999 a state paper of Otto III.
  describes it as a pure fiction. High church tendencies, however,
  raised their standard also in the West during the 11th century
  (§ 96, 4, 5). Indeed, even in A.D. 1152, an Arnoldist (§ 108, 7),
  named Wetzel, wrote to the Emperor Frederick I.: “Their lies
  and heretical fables are now so completely exploded that even
  day-labourers and cow-men could prove to scholars their emptiness,
  and the pope with his cardinals ventures not for shame to show
  himself in the city of Rome.” The victory, however, of the papacy
  over the Hohenstaufen gained currency for it again, and it was
  the treatise of Laurentius Valla, “De falso credita et ementita
  Constantini donatione declamatio,” which Ulrich von Hutten issued
  in multitude from the press, gave it the death blow (§ 120, 1).
  When, thereafter, even Baronius admitted the spuriousness of the
  document, though assigning its fabrication to the Greeks, who
  wished by it to prove that the Roman primacy was not of Christ
  but from Constantine, it found no longer a vindicator even in the
  Roman Catholic church.




                    III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE.


                     § 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.

  The German Arians undoubtedly used the language of the people
in their services. The adoption of Catholicism, however, led to the
introduction of the Latin tongue. The last trace of acquaintance with
Ulfilas’ translation of the Bible is found in the 9th century. The
nations converted directly to Catholicism had from the first the Latin
language in public worship. Only the Slavs still retained the use of
their mother tongue (§ 79, 2). The Roman liturgy, as well as the Roman
language, was adopted in all churches with the exception of those of
Milan and Spain. After Pepin had entered into closer relations with
the popes, he endeavoured, in A.D. 754, at their desire, to bring about
a uniformity between the Frankish ritual and the Roman pattern; and
Charlemagne, whom Hadrian I. presented with a Roman Sacramentarium,
carried it out with relentless energy. The slightness of the liturgical
contributions of the Germans is to be accounted for partly by the
fact that the Roman liturgy was already presented to them in a
richly developed and essentially complete form, but also partly
by the exclusion of the national languages and the refusal to give
the people a share in the liturgical services. Under the constraint
of a foreign tongue the Germans could not put the impress of their
national character on a department in which language plays so important
a part.

  § 88.1. =Liturgy and Preaching.=--Alongside of the Roman or
  Gregorian =Liturgy= many others also were in use. The people
  and clergy of Milan so determinedly adhered to their old
  Ambrosian liturgy, that even Charlemagne could not dislodge
  it, and down to the present day Milan has preserved this
  treasure. No less energetically did the Spaniards hold by
  their national liturgy, the so-called Mozarabic (§ 81, 1).
  It has a strong resemblance to the oriental liturgies, but
  was further elaborated by bishops Leander and Isidore of Seville
  (§ 80, 2), and was recognised by the National Synod of Toledo in
  A.D. 633 as valid for the whole of Spain. The Gallican liturgies
  too of the Carolingian times betrayed a certain dependence upon
  the oriental rituals. =Preaching=, in the services of the Western
  churches was always subordinate to the liturgy, and the relapse
  into savagery occasioned by the migrations of the peoples drove
  it almost completely out of the field. The missionary fervour in
  the Western church during the 7th century was the first thing to
  re-awaken a sense of its importance. But then very few priests
  could compose a sermon. Charlemagne, therefore, about A.D. 780,
  had a Latin Homiliarium compiled by Paulus Diaconus [Paul
  Warnefrid] (§ 90, 3) from the fathers for all the Sundays and
  Festivals of the year, as a model for their own composition,
  or, where that was too much to be expected, for reading in
  the original or in a translation. During the whole Middle
  Ages and beyond the Reformation it continued to be one of the
  most read and most diligently used books in the Roman Catholic
  church. Missionaries naturally preached themselves or through
  interpreters in the language of the people; even in constituted
  churches preaching was generally conducted in the speech of
  the country. Charlemagne and the Synods of his time insisted
  at least upon German or Romanic preaching.

  § 88.2. =Church Music= (§ 59, 4, 5).--After Gregory’s ordinance
  church music continued to be restricted to the clergy. Charlemagne
  indeed insisted, but unsuccessfully, that all the people should
  take part in singing the _Gloria_ and the _Sanctus_. In the
  7th-9th cent. a number of Latin hymn-writers flourished, of
  whom the most distinguished were Bede, Paul Warnefrid, Theodulf
  of Orleans, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafrid Strabo. The
  beautiful Pentecost hymn _Veni creator Spiritus_ is ascribed
  to Charlemagne. The old classical form and colouring were
  more and more lost, but all the more the essentially Christian
  and Germanic character of simplicity and spirituality became
  prominent. Toward the end of our period the composition of Latin
  hymns obtained a new and fruitful impetus from the adoption
  of the so-called =Sequences= or =Proses= in the Mass. Under
  the long series of notes, hitherto without words attached,
  which were appended to the Alleluia to express inarticulate
  jubilation, hence called _jubilationes_, were now placed
  appropriate rhythmical words in Latin prose, which, however,
  soon assumed the form of metre, rhyme and strophes. The first
  famous writer of Sequences was the monk Notker Balbulus of
  St. Gall, who died in A.D. 912. Connected in form with the
  Latin Sequences were the more recently introduced Old Frankish
  _Lais_ (Celtic=verse, song) and the Old German _Leiche_ (=melody,
  song), to simple airs that had been used for popular songs. The
  only one which the church allowed to the people, and that only
  in services outside of the church, in processions, rogations and
  pilgrimages, in going to the church, at translations of relics,
  funerals, consecrations of churches, popular religious festivals,
  etc., was the singing or rather reciting of the _Kyrie eleison_
  from the great Litany. The fondness of the Germans for singing
  and composing hymns led, in the second half of the 9th century,
  to the attaching to these words short rhyming sacred verses in
  their mother tongue, and this in such a manner that the _Kyrie
  eleison_ always formed the refrain of a strophe, so that they
  were called =Leisons=. This was the beginning of German church
  music. Of the Leisons only one hymn to St. Peter in the Old
  High-German dialect has come down to our day.--=The Gregorian
  Music=, _Cantus firmus_ or _choralis_, won a most complete
  victory over the Ambrosian (§ 59, 5). In A.D. 754 Pepin at
  the request of Stephen II. ordered that in France only the
  Roman singing should be allowed, and Charlemagne secured for
  it complete and exclusive ascendency in all the West by violently
  extirpating the already very degenerate Ambrosian music, by
  establishing the celebrated singing schools of Metz, Soissons,
  Orleans, Paris, Lyons, etc., at the head of which he placed
  teachers brought from Rome, and by introducing instruction in
  singing in all the higher and lower schools. The first =Organ=
  came to France in A.D. 757 as a present to Pepin the Short from
  the Greek emperor Constantinus Copronymus; the second to Aachen
  with an embassy from the emperor Michael I. in Charlemagne’s
  time. From that time they became more common. They were still
  as instruments very imperfect. They had only from 9 to 12 notes,
  and the keys were so stiff that they had to be beaten down with
  the fist.[246]--Continuation, § 104, 10, 11.

  § 88.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass.=--As the idea of sacrifice
  gained place there sprang up in addition to the masses for the
  souls of the departed (§ 58, 3) private masses for various other
  purposes, for the success of some undertaking, for the recovery
  of a sick person, for good weather and a good harvest, etc.
  To some extent the multiplication of masses was limited by the
  ordinance that celebration should be made at the same altar
  and by the same priest only once in the day. From the wish to
  secure that as many masses as possible should be said for their
  souls after death, churches and monasteries were formed into
  fraternities with a stipulated obligation to celebrate a certain
  number of masses for each deceased member of the fraternity in
  all the churches and monasteries belonging thereto. Fraternities
  of this kind, into which as a special favour princes and nobles
  were received, were called =Confederacies for the Dead=.

  § 88.4. =The Worship of Saints= (§ 57).--This practice
  found a very ready response from the Germans. It afforded
  some compensation for the abandoned worship of their ancestors.
  But over all other saints towered the mother of God, the meek
  and gentle queen of heaven. In her the old German reverence
  for woman found its ideal and full satisfaction. In respect of
  =Image Worship= (§ 57, 4) the Germans lagged behind, partly from
  the scarcity of images, partly from national aversion to them.
  The Frankish church of the Carolingian age protested formally
  against them (§ 92, 1). But all the greater was the zeal shown
  in the =Worship of Relics= (§ 57, 5) in which the worshipper
  had the saint concretely and bodily. The relics of the West were
  innumerable. Rome was an inexhaustible storehouse; and from the
  successive missionaries, from the deserts and solitudes, from the
  monasteries and bishops’ seats, there went forth crowds of new
  saints whose bones were venerated with enthusiasm. The gaining
  of a new relic for a church or monastery was regarded as a piece
  of good fortune for the whole land, and amid thousands assembled
  from far and near the translation was carried out, accompanied
  with liberal gifts of money. The Frankish monastery of Centula
  could show in the 9th century an immensely long list of the
  relics which it possessed, from the grave of the Innocents,
  the milk of the Holy Virgin, the beard of Peter, his cloak,
  the _Oratorium_ of Paul, and even from the wood of the three
  tabernacles that Peter wished to build on Tabor. The custom of
  making =Pilgrimages= (§ 57, 6) also found great favour among the
  travel-loving Germans, especially among the Anglo-Saxons. The
  places most frequented by pilgrims were the tomb of the chief
  Apostles at Rome, then the tomb of Martin of Tours, and, toward
  the end of our period, that of St. James of Compostella, _Jacobus
  Apostolus_ the elder, the supposed founder of the Spanish church,
  whose bones were discovered there by Alfonso the Chaste. The
  immoralities consequent upon pilgrimages, about which even
  the ancient church complained, were also only too apparent
  in this later age. On account of them Boniface urges that his
  countrywomen should be forbidden to go on pilgrimages, since
  this only served to supply the cities of Gaul and Italy with
  prostitutes. The idea of =Guardian Angels= (§ 57, 3) was eagerly
  adopted by the Germans. They were specially drawn to the warlike
  Archangel Michael, the conqueror of the great dragon (Dan. xii. 1;
  Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7 ff.).--Continuation, § 104, 8.

  § 88.5. =Times and Places for Public Worship.=--The beginning
  of the church year was changed from Easter to Christmas. All
  Saints’ Day (§ 57, 1), originally a Roman local festival, was
  made a universal ordinance by Gregory IV. who, in A.D. 835, fixed
  its date at 1st Nov. The abundance of relics and the multitude
  of masses that were said made it necessary to increase the number
  of altars in the churches beyond what Charlemagne had enjoined.
  Afterwards they were usually limited to three. The high altar
  stood out by itself in the middle of the choir recess. The side
  altars leant on pillars or on the chief altar. A relic shrine
  generally from the 8th century formed the back of the altar. No
  trace of a chancel is found, not even of a confessional chair. In
  churches which had the right of baptizing (§ 84, 2) there were as
  a rule separate baptistries. In place of these, after the right
  of baptizing was conferred on all churches, the baptismal font
  was introduced, either on the left side of the main entrance or
  at the point where the transepts crossed the nave. This change
  required the substitution of sprinkling for immersion. Clocks and
  towers became always more common. The latter, at first separate
  from the buildings, were from Charlemagne’s time attached to the
  church edifice. The baptism of bells, their consecration with
  water, oil and chrism, with the bestowing on them of some saint’s
  name, was forbidden by Charlemagne, but it was nevertheless
  continued, and is common to this day in the Roman Catholic church.

  § 88.6. Most attention was paid to ecclesiastical architecture
  and painting, south of the Alps during the Ostro-gothic period,
  north of the Alps during the Carolingian period. The Anglo-Saxons,
  however, in their island home also developed a taste for art.
  During the 9th century it received special attention in the
  German monasteries of St. Gall and Fulda. The monk Tutilo of
  St. Gall, d. A.D. 912, was pre-eminently distinguished both as
  a master in architecture, painting and sculpture, and in poetry
  and scholarship. The old Roman basilica style still maintained
  the front rank in church building. Yet at Ravenna, the Byzantium
  of Italy, during the Gothic domination there were several
  beautiful churches in the Byzantine cupola style. Einhard
  received from Charlemagne the rank of a court architect. Of
  all the churches built in Charlemagne’s time the most important
  was the cathedral of Aachen. It was built in the cupola style
  after the pattern of the cathedral church of Ravenna. Intended
  as a royal chapel, it was connected by a pillared passage with
  the palace. It was therefore also of only moderate dimensions.
  Its being appropriated as the coronation church led subsequently
  to its enlargement by the addition to it in A.D. 1355 of a
  large choir in the Gothic style. The church afforded abundant
  scope for the use of the art of the statuary. Costly shrines
  for relics were required, crucifixes, lamps, _ciboria_, incense
  vessels, etc., on which might be lavished all the refinements
  of artistic skill. The church books had artistically carved
  covers. Church doors, episcopal thrones, reading desks,
  baptismal fonts, afforded room for practice in _relievo_
  work. Among the various kinds of pictorial representations
  miniature painting was most diligently practised upon copies
  of the church books.--Continuation, § 104, 12, 14.


       § 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

  The remains of Christian popular poetry of this period afford a
convincing proof of the powerful and profound manner in which the
truths of Christianity (§ 75, 1) had been grasped by the German races.
The great mass of the people indeed had adopted the new faith in a
purely historical fashion. Only gradually did it make its way into
the inner spiritual life, and meanwhile out of the not fully conquered
paganism there grew up a rich crop of superstitions in connection
with the Christian life. It must be confessed that the state of
morality among the Germans had fallen very low as compared with
that which prevailed before Germany’s conversion to Christianity.
A sadder contrast is scarcely conceivable than that presented by a
comparison of the description in Tacitus of the old German customs
and discipline and the account of Gregory of Tours of colossal
criminality and brutish sensuality in the Merovingian Age. But
never more than here does the fallacy: _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_,
require to be guarded against. The moral deterioration of the German
peoples was carried out independently of their contemporaneous, merely
external, Christianization. The cause of it lies only in the overturning
of the foundations of German life by the migration of the peoples.
Severed from their original home, the most powerful guardian of
ancestral customs, and set down as conquerors in the midst of rich
countries with morally base surroundings, which had a poisonous effect
upon them, with that eagerness and tenacity which characterize children
of nature, they seized upon the seductive treasures and enjoyments,
and their unfettered passion broke through all restraints of discipline
and morality. The clearest proof of this view lies in the fact that the
moral decay appeared in so remarkable a degree only among such peoples
as settled in the corrupt Roman world and became amalgamated with it,
most conspicuously among the Franks in Gaul and the Longobards in Italy,
whereas among the Anglo-Saxons and the inhabitants of Germany the moral
development was more normal.

  § 89.1. =Superstition.=--A powerful impulse was given to
  superstition on the one hand by the church, according to the
  educational method recommended by Gregory the Great (§ 75, 3),
  refusing recklessly to root out every element of paganism and
  rather endeavouring to give Christian applications to heathen
  institutions and views and to fill pagan forms with Christian
  contents, and on the other hand, by the representatives of the
  church not regarding belief in the existence of heathen deities
  as a delusion but counting the gods and goddesses as demons.
  The popular belief therefore saw in them a set of dethroned
  deities who in certain realms of nature maintain their ancient
  sway, whom therefore they dare not venture altogether to
  disoblige. The fanciful poetic view of nature prevailing
  among the Germans contributed also to this result, with its
  love of the mysterious and supernatural, its fondness for
  subtle enquiries and intellectual investigations. Thus, in
  the worship of the saints as well as in the church’s belief in
  angels and devils, new rich worlds opened themselves up before
  the Christianized Germans, which the popular belief soon improved
  upon. The pious man is exposed on all sides to the vexations of
  demons, but he is also on all sides surrounded by the protecting
  care of saints and angels. The popular belief made a great deal
  of the devil, but the relation of men to the prince of darkness
  and his attendant spirits seemed much too earnest and real to be
  as yet the subject of the humour which characterized the devil
  legends of the later Middle Ages, in which the cheated, “stupid”
  devil is represented as at last possessed only of impotent rage
  and sneaking off in disgrace.

  § 89.2. =Popular Education.=--The idea of a general system
  of education for the people was already present to the mind
  of Charlemagne. Yet as we may suppose only beginnings were made
  toward its realization. Bishop Theodulf of Orleans was specially
  active in founding schools for the people in all the villages
  and country towns of his diocese. The religious instruction of
  the youth was restricted as a rule to the teaching of the Lord’s
  Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. Whatever grown up man or woman
  did not know these two was at Charles’ command to be subjected
  to flogging and fasting and to be made to learn them besides.
  As evidence of the extent of a religious consciousness among
  the people may be adduced the German forms of adjuration,
  belief, confession and prayer, of the 8th and 9th centuries
  which are still preserved. Further means of advancing the
  religious education of the people were afforded by the attempts
  to make the biblical and patristic books accessible to the people
  by translations in their own language. Among the Germans the
  monastery of St. Gall was famous for its zeal in originating
  a national literature. Among the Anglo-Saxons this effort was
  made and carried out by Alfred the Great, who died in A.D. 901
  (§ 90, 10).

  § 89.3. =Christian Popular Poetry.=--It makes its first
  appearance at the end of the 7th century and continued far
  down into the 9th century. It flourished chiefly in England
  and Germany. Under the name of the Northumbrian =Cædmon=, who
  died in A.D. 680, there has been preserved a whole series of
  biblical poems of no small poetic merit, which range over the
  whole of the Old and New Testament history. The most important
  Anglo-Saxon poet after him was his countryman =Cynewulf= living
  about a century later. His poems are less homely and simple,
  but more elaborate than those of Cædmon, and as full of poetic
  enthusiasm as these. He too paints for us in his “Christ” the
  picture of the Redeemer as that of a manly victorious prince
  among his true “champions and earls” with such clear-cut features
  that “whoever once beholds them will never again forget them.”
  His poetically wrought up legends bear more of the Romish stamp
  with traces of saint worship and the doctrine of merit.[247]
  Still higher than these two Anglo-Saxon productions stands
  the German-Saxon epic the =Heliand=, of the time of Louis of
  France, a song of the Messiah worthy of its august subject,
  truly national, perfect in form, simple, lively and majestic
  in style, transposing into German blood and life a genuine deep
  Christianity. In poetic value scarcely less significant is the
  “Krist” of Otfried, a monk of Weissenberg about A.D. 860. Near
  to his heart as well as to that of the Anglo-Saxon singers lay
  the thought: _thaz wir Kriste sungun in unsere Zungun_. It is,
  however, no longer popular but artistic poetry, in which the old
  German letter rhyme or alliteration gives place to the softer
  and more delicate final rhyme. To this class belongs also the
  so-called =Wessobrunner Prayer=, of which the first poetical
  half is probably a fragment of a larger hymn of the creation,
  and a poem in High German on the end of the world and the last
  judgment, known by the name of =Muspilli=, extant only as a
  fragment which is, however, almost unsurpassable in dignity
  and grandeur of description.

  § 89.4. =Social Condition.=--From the point of view of German
  law the contract of betrothal had the validity of =marriage=
  and the subsequent nuptial ceremony or surrender of the bride
  to the bridegroom in a public legal manner by her father or legal
  guardian was held to be only the carrying out of that contract.
  The bridal ceremony with the ecclesiastical benediction of the
  marriage bond already legally tied, was frequently celebrated
  only on the day following the marriage, therefore after its
  consummation. The Capitulary of Charlemagne of A.D. 802 came
  to the support of the claims of the church (§ 61, 2), ordaining
  that without previous careful enquiry as to the relationship of
  the parties by the priest, and the elders of the people, and also
  without the priestly benediction, no marriage could be concluded.
  The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals ascribed this demand to the popes
  of the 4th and 5th centuries. But the right to perform marriages
  was not thereby committed to the church; it was only that the
  religious consecration of the civil ordinance of marriage was
  now made obligatory. It seemed best of all when sooner or later
  the spouses voluntarily renounced marital intercourse; but this
  was strictly forbidden during Lent (§ 56, 4, 5), on all festivals
  and on the station days of the week (Wednesday, Friday, Saturday
  and Sunday). Second marriages were branded with the reproach of
  incontinence and called forth a lengthened penance. There was on
  the other hand as yet no prohibition of divorce, and the marrying
  again of those separated was only unconditionally forbidden in
  particular cases. The church was not willing to tolerate mixed
  marriages with heathens, Jews and Arians. The Germans found it
  most difficult to reconcile themselves to the strict requirements
  of the church in regard to the prohibited degrees of relationship.
  National customs had regarded many such marriages, especially
  with a brother’s widow, as even a pious duty.[248]--Continuation,
  § 104, 6.--=Slavery= or Serfdom was an institution so closely
  connected among the Germans with their notions of property that
  the church could not think of its entire abolition; indeed the
  church itself, with its large landed possessions, owned quite
  a multitude of slaves. Yet it earnestly maintained the religious
  and moral equality of masters and servants, assigned to the
  manumission of slaves one of the first places among good works,
  and was always ready to give protection to bondmen against cruel
  masters.[249]--The church with special energy entered upon the
  task of =Caring for the Poor=; even proud and heartless bishops
  could not overlook it. Every well appointed church had several
  buildings in which the poor, the sick, widows and orphans were
  maintained at the church’s cost.[250]

  § 89.5. =Practice of Pubic Law.=--The custom of =Blood Revenge=
  was also a thoroughly German institution. It had, however,
  been fairly restricted by the custom of =Composition= or the
  payment of satisfaction in the form of a pecuniary fine. The
  church from its dislike of capital punishment decidedly favoured
  this system. As a means of securing judicial evidence oaths
  and ordeals were administered. Only the freeman, who was quite
  capable of acting in accordance with his own judgment, was
  allowed to take an =Oath=; the husband took the oath for his
  wife, the father for the children, the master for the slave.
  Relatives, friends and equals in rank swore along with him as
  sharers of his oath, _Conjuratores_. Although they repeated with
  him the oath formula, the meaning of their action simply was
  that they were fully satisfied as to the honour and truthfulness
  of him who took the oath. Where the oath of purgation was not
  allowed, _conjuratores_ were not forthcoming and the other means
  of proof awanting, the =Ordeal= (_Ordale_ from _Ordâl_=judgment)
  was introduced. Under this may be included:

    1. The Duel, derived from the old popular belief: _Deum adesse
       bellantitus_. Only a freeman was allowed to enter the lists.
       Old men, women, children and priests were allowed to put in
       their place another of the same rank by birth.

    2. Various fire tests; holding the bare hand a length of time
       in the fire; in a simple shirt walking over burning logs of
       wood; carrying glowing iron in the bare hand for nine paces;
       walking barefoot over nine or twelve glowing ploughshares.

    3. Two water tests: the accused was obliged to pick up with
       his naked hand a ring or stone out of a kettle filled with
       boiling water, or with a cord round his naked body he was
       cast into deep water, his sinking was the proof of his
       innocence.

    4. The cross test: he whose arms first sank with weariness from
       the cruciform position, was regarded as defeated.

    5. The Eucharist test, applied especially to priests: it was
       expected that the criminal should soon die under the stroke
       of God’s wrath. As a substitute for this among the laity
       we find the test of the consecrated morsel, _Judicium offæ_
       which the accused was required to swallow during mass.

    6. The bier test, _Judicium feretri_: if when the accused
       touched the wound of the murdered man blood flowed from
       the wound or forth from the mouth, it was regarded as proof
       of his guilt.

  The church with its belief in miracles occupied the same
  ground as that on which the ordeal practice was rooted. It
  could therefore only combat the heathen conception of the
  ordeal and not the thing itself. But the church took charge of
  the whole procedure, and certainly did much to reduce the danger
  to a minimum. It was Agobard of Lyons, who died in A.D. 840, who
  first contended against the superstition as worthy of reprobation.
  Subsequently the Roman chair, first by Nicholas I., forbade
  ordeals of all kinds.--Among the various kinds of privileges
  involving the inviolability of person and goods, profession and
  business, the privileges of the church were regarded as next
  highest to those of the king. Any injury done to ecclesiastical
  persons or properties and any crime committed in a sacred place,
  required a threefold greater composition than _ceteris paribus_
  would have otherwise been required. The bishop ranked with the
  duke, the priest with the count.

  § 89.6. =Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises=
  (§ 61, 1).--=The German= State allowed the church a share in
  the administration of punishments, and regarded an evildoer’s
  atonement as complete only when he had submitted to the
  ecclesiastical as well as the secular judgment. Out of this grew
  the institution of Episcopal =Synodal Judicatures=, _Synodus_,
  under Charlemagne. Once a year the bishop accompanied by a royal
  _Missus_ was to travel over the whole diocese, and, of every
  parish priest assisted by assessors sworn for the purpose, should
  inquire minutely into the moral and ecclesiastical condition
  of each of the congregations under him and punish the sins and
  shortcomings discovered. Directions for the conducting of Synodal
  judicatures were written by Regino of Prüm and Hincmar of Rheims
  (§ 90, 5). The state also gave authority to =Ecclesiastical
  Excommunication= by putting its civil forces at the disposal
  of the church. Pepin ordained that no excommunicated person
  should enter a church, no Christian should eat or drink with
  him, none should even greet him. Directions for the practice of
  =Penitential Discipline= are given in the various =Penitentials=
  or Confessional-books, which, after the pattern of forensic
  productions, settle the amount of penal exactions for all
  conceivable sins in proportion to their enormity. The Penitential
  erroneously ascribed to Theodore archbishop of Canterbury
  (§ 90, 8) is the model upon which most of these are constructed.
  The Confessional-books that go under the names of the Venerable
  Bede and Egbert of York obtained particularly high favour. All
  these books, even in their earliest form extremely perverse and
  in their later much altered forms full of contradictions, errors
  and arbitrary positions, reduced the whole penitential practice
  to the utmost depths of externalization and corruption. How
  confused and warped the church idea of penitence had become is
  seen by the rendering of the word _pœnitentia_ by penance, _i.e._
  satisfaction, atonement. In the Penitentials _pœnitere_ is quite
  identical with _jejunare_. The idea of _pœnitentia_ having been
  once associated with external performances, there could be no
  objection to substitute the customary penitential act of fasting
  (§ 56, 7) for other spiritual exercises, or by adoption of
  the German legal practice of receiving composition to accept
  a money tax for ecclesiastical or benevolent purposes. In this
  way the first traces made their appearance of the Indulgences
  of the later Roman Catholic church. It therefore followed from
  this, that, as satisfaction could be rendered for all sins by
  corresponding acts of penance, so these works might also be
  performed vicariously by others. Thus in the Penitentials there
  grew up a system of =Penitential Redemptions= which formed the
  most despicable mockery of all earnest penitence. For example,
  a direction is given as to how a rich man may be absolved from
  a penance of seven years in three days, without inconveniencing
  himself, if he produces the number of men needed to fast for
  him. Such deep corruption of the penitential discipline, however,
  aroused, in the 8th and 9th centuries, a powerful reaction
  against the Confessional-books and their corrupt principles.
  It was first brought forward at the English Synod at Clovesho
  in A.D. 747; in its footsteps followed the French Synods of
  Chalons in A.D. 813, of Paris A.D. 829, of Mainz, A.D. 847.
  The Council of Paris ordered that all Confessional-books should
  be seized and burnt. They nevertheless still continued to be
  used.--There did not as yet exist any universal and unconditional
  compulsion to make confession. The custom, however, of a yearly
  confession in the Easter forty days’ season was even during the
  9th century so prevalent, that the omission of it was followed by
  a severe censure by the synodal court. The formulæ of absolution
  were only deprecative, not judicative.[251]




                     IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.


            § 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.[252]

  With the exception of Ulfilas’ famous efforts, the Arian period of
German church history is quite barren in scientific performances. Yet
those few who preserved and fostered the scientific gains of earlier
times were honoured and made use of by the noble-minded Ostrogoth king
Theodoric, and under him Boethius [Boëthius] and Cassiodorus (§ 47, 23)
performed the praiseworthy task of saving the remnants of classical
and patristic learning. For Spain the same office was performed by
Isidore of Seville, who died in A.D. 636, whose text-books continued
for centuries, even on this side the Pyrenees, to supply the groundwork
of scholarly studies. The numerous Scottish and Irish monasteries
maintained their reputation down to the 9th century for eminent piety
and distinguished scholarship. Among the Anglo-Saxons the learned Greek
monk Theodore of Tarsus, who died in A.D. 690, and his companion Hadrian,
enkindled an enthusiasm for classical studies, and the venerable Bede,
who died in A.D. 735, though he never quitted his monastery, became
the most famous teacher in all the West, The Danish pirates did indeed
crush almost to extinction the seeds of Anglo-Saxon culture, but Alfred
the Great sowed them anew, though this revival was only for a little
while. In Gaul Gregory of Tours, who died in A.D. 595, was the last
representative of Roman ecclesiastical learning. After him we enter
upon a chaos without form and void, from which the creative spirit of
Charlemagne first called a new day which spread over the whole West its
enlightening beams. This light, however, was put out even by the time of
the great emperor’s grandson, and then we suddenly pass into the night
of the _Sæculum Obscurum_ (§ 100).

  § 90.1. =Rulers of the Carolingian Line.=--=Charlemagne=,
  A.D. 768-814, may be regarded as beginning his scientific
  undertakings on his first entrance into Italy in A.D. 774.
  On this occasion he came to know the scholars Peter of Pisa,
  Paul Warnefrid, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Theodulf of Orleans,
  and brought them to his palace. From A.D. 782, however, the
  particularly brilliant star of his court was the Anglo-Saxon
  scholar Alcuin, whom Charles had met in Italy in the previous
  year. Scientific studies were now carried on in an exceedingly
  vigorous manner in the palace. The royal family, the whole court
  and its surroundings engaged upon them, but of them all Charles
  himself was the most diligent and successful of Alcuin’s students.
  In the royal school, _Schola palatina_, which was ambulatory
  like the royal residence itself, the sons and daughters of the
  king with the children of the most distinguished families of
  the land received a high-class education. The teaching staff
  was constantly recruited from England, Ireland and Italy. After
  such preparations Charles issued in A.D. 787 a circular to all
  the bishops and abbots of his kingdom which enjoined under threat
  of his severe royal displeasure that schools should be erected in
  all monasteries and cathedral churches. Meanwhile his endeavours
  were most successful, but were rather one-sided in the preference
  given to classical and patristic literature, without a proper
  national foundation. Charles’s great and generous nature indeed
  had a warm interest in national culture, but those around him,
  with the single exception of Paul Warnefrid, had in consequence
  of their Latin monkish training lost all taste for German thought,
  language and nationality, and fearing lest such studies might
  endanger Christianity and cause a relapse into paganism, they
  did not help but rather hindered the king’s effort to promote
  a national literature.--=Louis the Pious=, A.D. 814-840, had his
  weak government disturbed by the strifes of parties and of the
  citizens. This period, therefore, was not specially favourable
  to the development of scientific studies, but the seed sown by
  his father still bore noble fruit. His son Lothair issued an
  ordinance which gave a new organization to the educational system
  of Italy, indeed created it anew. But Italy restless and full of
  factions was the land where least of all such institutions could
  be successfully conducted. A new golden age, however, dawned
  for France under =Charles the Bald=, A.D. 840-877. His court
  resembled that of his great grandfather in having gathered to
  it the élite of scholars from all the West. The royal school
  gained new renown under the direction of _Joannes Scotus Erigena_.
  The cathedral and monastic schools of France vied with the most
  famous institutions of Germany (St. Gall, Fulda, Reichenau, etc.),
  and over the French episcopal sees men presided who had the most
  distinguished reputation for scholarship. But after Charles’s
  death the bloom of the Carolingian period passed away with almost
  inconceivable rapidity amid the commotions of the time into thick
  darkness, chaos and barbarism.

  § 90.2. =The most distinguished Theologians of the
  Pre-Carolingian Age.=

    1. In Merovingian France flourished =Gregory of Tours=,
       sprung of a good Roman family. When in A.D. 573, in
       order to get cured of an illness, he made a pilgrimage
       to the tomb of St. Martin (§ 47, 14), he had the bishopric
       of Tours conferred upon him, where he continued till his
       death in A.D. 595. His _Historia Ecclesiastica Francorum_
       in ten Bks. affords us the only exact and trustworthy
       information we possess of the Merovingian age. The
       _Ll. VII. Miraculorum_ are a collection of several
       hagiographic writings, four of them recounting some
       of the innumerable miracles of St. Martin.

    2. Scientific studies were prosecuted more vigorously on the
       other side of the Pyrenees than on this. In the empire of
       the Suevi (§ 76, 4) archbishop =Martin of Braccara=, now
       Braga, distinguished himself in the work of Catholicising
       the Arian population. He was previously abbot of the
       monastery of Dumio, and died about A.D. 580. He was a
       voluminous writer on church law and also in the departments
       of moral and ascetical theology. His writings in the latter
       section have so much in common with those of Seneca that
       they were at one time ascribed to the Roman moralist. The
       treatise _De Correctione Rusticorum_ is very important for
       the history of the morals, legal institutions and culture
       of that period.--The great star of the Spanish Visigothic
       kingdom was =Isidorus [Isidore] Hispalensis=, who died
       in A.D. 636. He was descended from a distinguished Gothic
       family, and, as successor of his brother Leander, rose to
       the archbishopric of Seville (Hispalis). His writings are
       diligent compilations, which have preserved to us many
       fragments and items of information otherwise unknown.
       Incomparably greater, however, was the service they rendered
       in conveying classical and patristic learning to the German
       world of that age. His most comprehensive work consists
       of xx. Bks. _Originum s. Etymologiarum_, an encyclopædic
       exhibition of the whole field of knowledge of the day. He
       also wrote a _Chronicon_ reaching down to A.D. 627, and
       _Hist. de regibus Gotorum_, a shorter _Hist. Vandalorum
       et Suevorum_, and a continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus
       de viris illustr_. Of more importance than his numerous
       compilations of mystico-allegorical expositions of Scripture
       are the iii. Bks. _Sententiarum_, a well-arranged system of
       doctrine and morals from patristic passages, especially from
       Augustine and Gregory the Great, and the _Lb. II. de ecclest.
       officiis_. The two last-named works were highly prized
       as text-books throughout the Middle Ages. The two books
       _Contra Judæos_ belong to the department of apologetics.
       He also composed a monastic rule (comp. further § 87, 1
       and 88, 1).--Isidore’s elder brother =Leander of Seville=,
       who died in A.D. 590, had a good reputation as a church
       leader (§ 76, 2; 88, 1), and had no insignificant rank
       as a theological writer. The same may be said of the two
       bishops of Toledo, =Ildefonsus=, who died in A.D. 669, and
       =Julianus=, who died in A.D. 690.

    3. England’s greatest and most famous teacher was the
       Anglo-Saxon, the =Venerable Bede=. Trained in the monastery
       of Wearmouth, he subsequently took up his residence in
       the monastery of Jarrow, where he died in A.D. 735. He
       was a proficient in all the sciences of his time and
       withal a model of humility, piety and amiability. While
       his numerous pupils reached the highest places in the
       service of the church, their famous teacher continued
       in quiet retirement as a simple monk. He himself wished
       nothing else. Even on his deathbed he continued unweariedly
       to teach and write. Immediately before his death he
       dictated the last chapter of an Anglo-Saxon translation
       of the Gospel of John. By far his most important work
       for us is the _Hist. ecclest. gentis Anglorum_ in 5 Bks.
       reaching down to A.D. 731 (Engl. Transl. by Giles, Lond.,
       1840; and by Gidley, Lond., 1871). Connected with this are
       his biographies of several saints of his native land, also
       a history of the monastery of Wearmouth, and a _Chronicon
       de sex ætatibus mundi_ reaching down to A.D. 729. His
       commentaries ranging over almost all the books of the Old
       and New Testament give evidence of a wonderful knowledge
       of the fathers. His numerous sermons are mostly exegetical
       and practical, rarely doctrinal. He was distinguished too
       as a poet in Latin as well as in his mother tongue.

  § 90.3. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of
  Charlemagne.=

    1. The brightest star in the theological firmament of this
       period was the Anglo-Saxon =Alcuin= (Albinus) with the
       Horatian surname of Flaccus, which he got for his poetical
       productions. He was educated in the famous school of York
       under Egbert and Elbert. When the latter was made archbishop
       in A.D. 766, Alcuin undertook the presidency of the schools.
       While on a visit to Rome in A.D. 781 he met Charlemagne who
       took him to his court, where he became the emperor’s teacher,
       friend and most trusted counsellor. Down to his death in
       A.D. 804 he was the king’s right hand in all religious
       ecclesiastical and educational matters. In order to allay
       a feeling of home-sickness, he undertook a journey in
       A.D. 789 to his native country as ambassador of Charlemagne,
       returned in A.D. 793, and did not again quit France. In
       A.D. 796 Charles gave him the abbacy of Tours. He soon
       raised its monastic school to the highest rank as a seminary
       of learning. His exegetical works are mere compilations. The
       _Ll. II. de fide s. et Individuæ Trinitatis_ may be regarded
       as his dogmatic masterpiece; a compendium of dogmatics based
       upon Augustine’s writings. The _Quæstiones de Trin._ treat
       of the same matter in the catechetical form of question and
       answer. He contributed to the doctrinal controversies of his
       time the _Libellus de processione Spiritus S._ (§ 91, 2) and
       by several learned controversial tracts against the leaders
       of the Adoptionists (§ 91, 1). It is doubtful whether at all,
       and if so to what extent, he had to do with the composition
       of the _Libri Carolini_ (§ 94, 1) which appeared during his
       stay in England. His numerous epistles, about 300 in number,
       are very important for the history of his times. In his
       Latin poems he sometimes very happily imitates his classical
       models.[253]

    2. =Paulus Diaconus= or Paul (the son of) Warnefrid, of
       an honourable Longobard family, was next to Alcuin the
       most distinguished scholar of his age. Probably sorrow
       at the overthrow of his people (§ 82, 2) drove him into
       the monastery of Monte Cassino; but Charlemagne took
       him to his court in A.D. 782, where he was an object
       of admiration as a Homer among the Grecians, a Virgil,
       Horace, Tibullus, among the Latinists, and a Philo (!)
       among the Hebraists. Love of his native land, however,
       led him back to his monastery in A.D. 786, where he died
       at a very advanced age in A.D. 795. What was specially
       praiseworthy in this learned and amiable man, all the more
       that few then took interest in those matters, was love and
       enthusiasm for the language, the national legends and heroic
       tales, the old laws and customs of his fellow-countrymen.
       His most important work is the _Historia s. de Gestis
       Langobardorum_ in 6 bks., reaching down to A.D. 774. The
       earlier _Hist. Romana_, composed at the wish of a daughter
       of king Desiderius, is, so far as its earlier periods are
       concerned, compiled from the classical historians, but for
       the later periods down to the overthrow of the Gothic rule
       is more independent. At the Frankish court he composed the
       _Hist. Episcoporum Mettensium_. He was also distinguished
       as a poet. On his _Homiliarius_ comp. § 88, 1.[254]

    3. =Theodulf, bishop of Orleans=, distinguished as a Christian
       poet and learned theologian, and especially as a promoter
       of popular education, stood in high repute with Charlemagne,
       but under Louis the Pious, being suspected of treasonable
       correspondence with Bernard of Italy, was deposed and
       banished in A.D. 818. Subsequently, however, he was
       pardoned and recalled, but died in A.D. 821 before he
       reached his diocese. His book _De Spiritu S._ was a
       contribution to the controversy about the procession
       of the Holy Spirit (§ 91, 2). At Charlemagne’s request
       he described and explained the baptismal ceremony in the
       book _De ordine baptismi_. His numerous poems have been
       published in 6 bks.

    4. =Paulinus=, patriarch of Aquileia, who died in A.D. 804,
       and bishop =Leidrad of Lyons=, who died in A.D. 813, took
       part in Alcuin’s controversy against the Adoptionists by
       the publication of able treatises.

    5. Of the works of =Hatto=, abbot of Reichenau, subsequently
       bishop of Basel, who died in A.D. 836, we still have
       the so-called _Capitulare Hattonis_, with prefatory
       directions for the official guidance of the Basel clergy,
       and the _Visio Wettini_, describing the vision of a monk
       of Reichenau called Wettin, who in A.D. 824 three days
       before his death was conducted by an angel through hell,
       purgatory and paradise. Hatto wrote it in prose and Walafrid
       Strabo rendered it into verse. It made a great impression
       on his contemporaries and was probably not without influence
       upon Dante’s _Divina Comediá_.

  § 90.4. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of Louis
  the Pious.=

    1. =Agobard of Lyons=, a Spaniard by birth, died as
       archbishop of Lyons in A.D. 840. As the resolute defender
       of the integrity of the empire and the head of the national
       church party among the Frankish clergy, he was drawn into
       a conspiracy against Louis the Pious in A.D. 833 (§ 82, 4),
       which led to his deposition and banishment in A.D. 835.
       After two years, however, he was pardoned. He was a man
       of remarkable culture and extraordinary force of character,
       and withal a vigorous opponent of all ecclesiastical and
       extra-ecclesiastical superstition. On his writings referring
       to these matters see § 92, 2. In the book _Adv. dogma
       Felicis_ he contended against Adoptionism (§ 91, 1). In
       connection with his battle against the insolence and pride
       of the numerous and wealthy Jews in his diocese he wrote and
       dedicated to the emperor the accusatory tract _De insolentia
       Judæorum_, followed by several similar addresses to the
       most influential councillors of the crown. Another series
       of writings from his pen was devoted to the vindication
       of the attitude which he had assumed in the struggle
       between Louis the Pious and his sons. Several treatises
       on the position and task, the rights and duties of the
       ministerial office show a reformatory tendency. He engaged
       in a passionate controversy with Amalarius of Metz about
       the necessity of a liturgical reform. Against Fredigis of
       Tours, Alcuin’s successor, he maintained the view regarding
       the prophets and apostles that the Holy Spirit _non solum
       sensum prædicationis et modos vel argumenta dictionum
       inspiraverit, sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus
       in ora illorum ipse formaverit_.

    2. =Claudius, bishop of Turin=, who died in A.D. 839, was
       also a Spaniard by birth and a scholar of Felix of Urgel
       (§ 91, 1), without, however, imbibing his heretical views.
       He was throughout his whole career a zealous and determined
       reformer. His reformatory notions were set forth first
       of all in his exegetical works that covered almost the
       whole range of Scripture. Of these only the commentary
       on Galatians is now extant. He also vindicated his position
       against the attacks of his old friend the abbot Theodemir
       in his _Apologeticus_ (§ 92, 2).

    3. =Jonas of Orleans=, the successor of Theodulf, was one of
       the most distinguished prelates of his age, who wrought
       earnestly and successfully for the restoring of discipline
       and order in his diocese. In the struggle between Louis the
       Pious and his sons he resolutely took the side of the old
       king. He died in A.D. 844. His three books, _De institutione
       laicali_ constitute a handbook of morals for married
       persons, which also, because it deals with the sins and
       vices that were then rampant, is of value as a picture of
       the moral condition of his age. The book _De institutione
       regia_, addressed to Louis’ son Pepin, may be regarded
       as an appendix to the former treatise. In opposition to
       the iconoclastic opinions of Claudius (§ 92, 2) he wrote
       _Ll. III. De cultu imaginum_.

    4. The principal work of the priest =Amalarius of Metz= is
       his _De ecclesiasticis officiis_ in 4 bks., a detailed
       description of all the ceremonies of public worship and
       the ecclesiastical furniture and vestments, with many
       arbitrary mystico-allegorical explanations, which called
       forth a crushing rejoinder from Agobard. On his revision
       of the rule of Chrodegang, see § 84, 4.

    5. From the pen of the German monk =Christian Druthmar= of Old
       Corbei we have a commentary on Matthew, which is remarkable
       for the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper which it sets forth
       (§ 91, 3), as well as for the hermeneutical principle there
       laid down, that first and foremost the exegete must secure
       a thorough understanding of the historical literal sense,
       before he may think of developing the spiritual sense, which
       must have the former as its basis.

    6. =Rabănus [Rabanus] Magnentius Maurus=, the most
       distinguished scholar of his age, was descended from an
       old Roman family but one that had long been Germanized at
       Mainz. His earliest education was received at the monastery
       of Fulda. He then became a pupil of Alcuin at Tours. In
       A.D. 803 he became himself a teacher at Tours, and in
       A.D. 822 was made abbot of Fulda. After the death of Louis
       the Pious he took the side of Lothair against Louis the
       German, and was consequently obliged to resign his position
       as abbot and to quit Fulda in A.D. 842. Subsequently,
       however, he obtained Louis’ favour, and upon Otgar’s
       death in A.D. 847 (§ 87, 3) was appointed his successor
       in the archiepiscopal see of Mainz. He died in A.D. 856.
       The monastic school at Fulda was raised by him to the
       highest eminence. His commentaries extending over almost
       all the Old and New Testaments are mainly occupied with
       the development of the so-called spiritual sense, manifest
       wonderful familiarity with the writings of the Latin fathers
       from Ambrose to Bede, and were held in the highest esteem
       throughout the Middle Ages. The same may be said of his
       numerous homilies. The encyclopædic work _De universo_
       in 22 bks., is a continuation of Isidore’s _Origines_.
       His book _De institutione clericorum_ in 3 bks. affords
       a summary of all that was then to be learnt by the clergy
       for the practical work of the ministry. The _Tractatus de
       diversis quæstionibus ex V. et N. T. contra Judæos_ is an
       apologetic treatise. He wrote against Gottschalk’s doctrine
       of predestination in a letter to bishop Noting of Verona
       (§ 91, 5), and another to the abbot Eigil of Prüm against
       Radbert’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (§ 91, 3). Of his
       many other works we may mention a _Martyrologium_ based
       upon ancient authorities.

    7. =Walafrid Strabo= received his early training in the
       monastery of Reichenau. He studied subsequently under
       Rabanus at Fulda, in which institution he became a teacher.
       About A.D. 842 he was made abbot of Reichenau; the seminary
       here he raised to high repute, although he died in his
       early prime in A.D. 849. Among his evangelical writings
       his so-called _Glossæ ordinariæ_, _i.e._ short explanations
       of the Latin text of the Bible, mostly culled from the
       commentaries of Rabanus, were extremely popular, and
       continued in use throughout the Middle Ages as an exegetical
       handbook. In the liturgical department we have his treatise
       _De exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum_, in
       which he expresses himself on the image controversy in
       the spirit of the old Frankish church (§ 92, 1). Walafrid
       was also famous as a writer of sacred and secular poems.

  § 90.5. =The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of Charles
  the Bald.=

    1. The powerful metropolitan =Hincmar of Rheims=, who died
       in A.D. 882 (§ 82, 7; 83, 2), was not indeed strong in
       dogmatics, but in his writings just as well as in his life
       and struggle he was heart and soul a church leader and
       statesman. His most important work from a theological point
       of view is the _Capitula Synodica ad presbyteros parochiæ
       suæ_ on various points of worship and discipline, a notable
       witness to the zeal and care which this man, so much taken
       up with affairs of state and ecclesiastical controversies,
       showed in the discharge of his ministerial duties. Of his
       writings in connection with the Gottschalk controversy
       (§ 91, 5, 6) only the prolix work _De predest. Dei et libero
       arbitrio_ vindicating the decrees of Quiersy of A.D. 853 are
       now extant.

    2. =Paschasius Radbertus=, who died about A.D. 865, was
       monk, and, from A.D. 844-851, also abbot of the monastery
       of Corbei in Picardy. But among the monks of that place
       there was a cotery which occasioned the most profound grief
       to the pious-minded abbot; especially the learned monk
       Ratramnus under the protection of court favour took delight
       in contesting the somewhat ultra-pietistic views of his
       abbot. Probably it was this that led Radbertus to resign his
       office in A.D. 851. Besides the two treatises controverted
       by Ratramnus he composed biblical commentaries, which are
       more independent and contain more of his own than was common
       at that time. He also wrote 3 bks. on faith, love and hope;
       besides several Hagiographies.

    3. =Ratramnus=, the antagonist of the former, takes a very
       prominent place among the clear and subtle thinkers of that
       age. Besides his controversial treatises against Radbertus
       (§ 91, 3, 4) and against Hincmar (§ 91, 5, 6), he took part
       in the burning controversy between the Greeks and Latins
       (§ 67, 1) and wrote, _Contra Græcorum opposita Romanam eccl.
       infamantium_.

    4. =Florus Magister= was a cleric of the diocese of Lyons
       distinguished no less for great learning than for poetic
       gifts. His principal work _De actione Missarum, s. expositio
       in Canonem Missæ_ is, notwithstanding its title, not so
       much a liturgical treatise as a controversial tract against
       Radbertus’ doctrine of the Eucharist (§ 91, 3). In the
       liturgical controversy between Agobard and Amalarius,
       he took the side of Agobard and argued against Amalarius
       in several epistles. In the predestinarian controversy
       he published the work _Contra J. Scoti Erigenæ erroneas
       definitiones_ (§ 91, 5). He also composed a _Martyrologium_.

    5. =Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt=, who died in A.D. 853, won
       great reputation not only by his compiled exegetical works
       and his _Homiliarium_ for the festival part of the year,
       but also as author of a Church History, which, however, is
       nothing more than a working up of extracts from Rufinus.

    6. =Servatus Lupus=, scholar of Rabanus, was from A.D. 842
       abbot of Ferrières. His 130 epistles are important for the
       history of his time, as he was in constant correspondence
       with the most famous men of his day. On the side of
       Gottschalk in the predestinarian controversy he wrote
       his treatise _De tribus quæstionibus_.

    7. =Remigius of Auxerre=, who died about A.D. 908, was
       teacher of the monastic school at Rheims, and subsequently
       at Paris. Besides numerous commentaries on the books of
       the Old and New Testaments in the usual compilatory and
       allegorical style, he has left in his _Expositio Missæ_
       a mystico-allegorical explanation of the ceremonies of
       the mass.

    8. =Regius of Prüm=, abbot of the monastery there,
       subsequently resigned his rank and retired into the
       monastery of Treves. He died in A.D. 915. His _Chronicon_
       reaching down to A.D. 906 is of great value for his own
       times. His 2 bks. _De cantis synodalibus et disciplinis
       ecclesiasticis_ are a directory for the visitation of
       churches to be carried out by means of synodical judicatures.

  § 90.6.

    9. =Anastasius Bibliothecarius= was abbot of a Roman monastery
       and librarian under popes Nicholas I., Hadrian II. and
       John VIII., and visited the Byzantine court in A.D. 869
       as member of an embassy of Emperor Louis II., and was also
       present at the 8th œcumenical Council at Constantinople
       (§ 67, 1). He translated the acts of this synod into Latin,
       wrote the lives of several saints, and composed a _Hist.
       ecclest. s. Chronographia tripartita_ drawn from three
       Byzantine historical works of that period. To the _Liber
       Pontificalis s. de vitio Roman. pontificum_, reaching down
       to the death of Stephen V. in A.D. 891, which has been
       ascribed to him, he can only have contributed the _Vita_
       of pope Nicholas I., and perhaps also the _Vitæ_ of his
       four immediate predecessors. It is a history of the popes
       gathered together from various sources that had their
       origin at different times, the earliest of which goes back
       to A.D. 354. The oldest extant recension of it reaches
       down to Pope Conon in A.D. 687, and forms an important
       link in the chain of Romish fabrications and interpolations,
       by means of which the numerous fabricated acts of Romish
       martyrs, as well as already existing fables referring
       to particular popes and emperors (comp. _e.g._ § 42, 1),
       gained credence, more recently introduced liturgical
       practices had assigned to them a more remote antiquity,
       and the popes were represented as legislators for the
       whole church. The complete biographies often written by
       contemporaries preserved in this collection are of great
       historical value.

   10. =Eulogius of Cordova= was chosen archbishop in A.D. 858,
       but was not received by the Moorish government, and suffered
       martyrdom in A.D. 859 (§ 81, 1). The most important of his
       writings is the historical _Memoriale Sanctorum s. Ll. III.
       de Martyrib. Cordubens_. The _Apologeticus Sanctorum_ is a
       continuation of the former with violent invectives against
       Islam and its false prophet. =Paulas [Paul] Alvarus= of
       Cordova, from his youth closely associated with Eulogius,
       wrote his life and vindicated in a _Judiculus luminosus_
       the tendency to court martyrdom then frequently shown by
       Christians but often objected to.

  § 90.7.

   11. =Joannes Scotus Erigena=, the miracle as well as the
       enigma of his age, by birth probably an Irishman, who
       flashed out as a brilliant meteor in the court of Charles
       the Bald and passed away from view, without its being known
       whence he came or whither he went, was the greatest scholar,
       the most profound, subtle and liberal thinker of his times,
       with a speculative power the like of which was not seen
       for centuries before and after. He died after A.D. 877.
       His extant works embrace fragments of his commentary
       on the Areopagite (§ 47, 11), and a Latin faithful,
       literal and therefore hard to understand translation
       of the Areopagite’s writings, also a translation of a
       work of Maximus Confessor on difficult passages from
       the writings of Gregory Nazianzen (_Loca ambigua_), his
       controversial treatise _De prædestinatione_ (§ 91, 5),
       a homily on the prologue of John’s gospel, a fragment of
       a speculative-mystical treatise _De egressu et regressu
       animæ ad Deum_, and the _Opus palmare_ of the author, by
       far the most comprehensive of his writings, the 5 bks. _De
       divisione naturæ_. Based upon the gnosis of the school of
       Origen, but resting mainly on the theosophical mysticism of
       the Areopagite and the dialectic of Maximus Confessor, he
       produced in this treatise a system of speculative theology
       of magnificent dimensions which, in spite of every effort
       to hold by the doctrinal position of the church, is but
       one piece of heterodoxy from beginning to end. He starts
       from the principle that true theology and true philosophy
       are only formally different, but essentially identical.
       The _Fides_ have to express the truth as _Theologia
       affirmativa_ (καταφατική) in the biblically revealed and
       ecclesiastically communicated shell, accommodating itself
       to the finite understanding by figurative and metaphorical
       expressions. But the task of the _Ratio_ is to strip off
       this shell (_Theologia negativa_, ἀποφατική), and by means
       of speculation raise the faith to knowledge. The title of
       this book is to be explained from its fundamental thought
       that nature, _i.e._ the sum of all being and non-being, by
       which he understands everything the existence of which is
       yet unknown, or merely potential, or necessarily belonging
       to things past, comprises four forms of existence:--_Natura
       creatrix non creata_, _i.e._ God as the potential sum of
       all being, _Natura creatrix creata_, _i.e._ the eternal
       thoughts of God regarding the world as the eternal primal
       types of all creation, _Natura creata non creans_, _i.e._
       the world in time as the visible product and sensible
       realization of the eternal invisible world of ideas,
       and _Natura nee creata nee creans_, _i.e._ God as the
       final end of all created being, to whom all creation
       when all contradictions have been overcome returns in
       the ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων. The Aristotelian threefold
       division into the unmoved and moving, the moved and moving,
       and the moved and not moving, seems to have afforded
       him the starting-point for his fourfold division; while
       the divergent conception of them, their enlargement and
       development may be traced to Platonic and Neo-Platonic
       influences.--That such a system must essentially tend
       to pantheism soon became evident, but on the other hand
       Erigena’s own Christian consciousness strongly reacted
       against the pantheistic current of his thought, and he was
       anxiously concerned to preserve the fundamental truths of
       Christian Theism. By the fundamental fourfold division of
       his system he could not give to the doctrine of the Trinity
       a necessary and controlling but only an accidental and
       occasional position. Only the presence of this doctrine
       in Scripture and tradition obliged him to maintain it.
       He speaks indeed of three persons in God, but he uses the
       expression only in an improper sense, and has no intention
       of explaining Father, Son and Spirit as mere names of
       divine relations (_habitudines_, _relationes_): _Pater
       vult, Filius facit, Spir. S. perficit_. In the Son as
       the creative Word of God are all original causes of
       things, undistinguished, unordered; by the Spirit are
       they differentiated into the various phenomena and
       effects in the kingdom of nature as well as of grace.
       On his doctrine of evil, comp. § 91, 5. As Origen has
       in himself the germs of all orthodoxy and heterodoxy of
       the ancient church undeveloped and uncontrasted, so also
       in Erigena are there the germs of the contradictions
       of later scholasticism and mysticism. Had he lived
       three centuries later he would probably have set the
       whole learned world astir, but now he passed unhonoured,
       misunderstood, scarcely regarded worth dealing with for
       heresy (§ 91, 5), and apparently leaving little trace
       behind him. His great work _De divisione naturæ_ was
       first condemned by a provincial Council at Sens, and
       this judgment was confirmed by Honorius III. in A.D. 1225.
       The book was characterized as _Scatens vermibus hæreticæ
       pravitatis_; orders were given that it should be sought out
       everywhere and burnt.[255]

  § 90.8. =The Monastic and Cathedral Schools= had as their
  main task the training of capable servants for the church. The
  handbooks mainly in use were those of Cassiodorus, Isidore, Bede,
  Alcuin and Rabanus. Great diligence was shown, especially in the
  monasteries, in founding libraries and multiplying books by means
  of good copies. Alcuin made a threefold division of all sciences;
  ethics, physics and theology. Ethics corresponded to what was
  afterwards called the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic);
  Physics to the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and
  Astronomy). These two together comprehended the whole range
  of the seven _free_ arts, _i.e._ worthy of the study of a free
  man, liberal studies. Latin was the language of intercourse
  and instruction. Greek, which was spread by Theodore of Tarsus,
  a Greek monk, who, after being long a teacher in Rome, was in
  A.D. 669 made archbishop of Canterbury, and by his pupils was
  also taught in the more important schools. Acquaintance with
  Hebrew was much more rare, and was often obtained by means
  of intercourse with learned Jews. Boethius [Boëthius] was the
  vehicle of instruction in philosophy. In the 9th century the works
  ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (§ 47, 11) were sent to
  France as a present from the Byzantine emperor Michael to Louis
  of France. He was identified with the founder of the church of
  Paris of the same name, and patriotic feeling gave an immense
  impulse to the study of his writings. The abbot Hildmin of
  St. Denys, and subsequently Joannes Erigena, translated them
  into Latin. Encyclopædic works, giving compendiums of the whole
  range of the sciences then known, were produced by Isidore and
  Rabanus.[256]--Continuation, § 99, 3.

  § 90.9. =Various Branches of Theological Science.=--The labours
  of the German church in the department of scientific theology was
  directed to the church’s immediate needs, and hence the character
  of its theology was biblical and practical, and the reputation of
  the fathers so extravagantly high, that wherever it was possible,
  teaching, preaching, proving and refuting were all carried on in
  their very words. Charlemagne’s powerful efforts in the direction
  of reform gave even in the department of theology abundant
  occasion and encouragement to scholars round about him to a
  more independent procedure, and the theological controversies
  of the 9th century afforded sufficient scope to independent
  thinking.

    1. =Exegesis= on the basis of the Vulgate was most diligently
       prosecuted. Charlemagne set Alcuin to produce a critical
       revision of its very corrupt text. Agobard combated the
       mechanical theory of inspiration by the assertion that the
       holy prophets were something better than Balaam’s ass. Only
       one out of the very numerous exegetes, Christian Druthmar,
       recognised it as a first principle, most essential and
       necessary, if not the only task of the exegete, to bring
       out the grammatical and historical sense of the words
       of Scripture. The literal sense was and continued to
       be regarded as the scullion of interpretation, while it
       was thought that the most precious treasures of Divine
       wisdom were to be found in the _allegorical_ sense,
       _i.e._ with application to the mysteries of the faith,
       the _tropological_ or moral, and the _anagogical_, which
       aimed at the elevation of the mind.

    2. In =Systematic Theology= Apologetics was most feebly
       represented. The humble form of the paganism to be
       controverted did not require elaborate defences of the
       Christian faith, but the advance of Mohammedanism and the
       great number of Jews established in France, especially
       under Louis of France, by means of their wealth and bribes,
       developed an incredible arrogance. While Jewish and pagan
       slaves were not allowed to have baptism, Christian slaves
       on the other hand were compelled to observe the Sabbath,
       to work on Sunday, to eat flesh on fast days; they openly
       blasphemed Christ, insulted the church and sold Christian
       slaves to the Saracens. Agobard fought against them
       energetically by word, Scripture and action, but the
       needy court protected them. Isidore and Rabanus in their
       apologetical writings proved the nullity of the Jewish
       beliefs. From the time of Charlemagne theologians were
       much more eagerly engaged in polemics (§§ 91, 92). Isidore
       in his _Ll. III. Sententiarum_ collected from patristic
       passages a system of doctrine and morals, which continued
       a favourite text-book for centuries. Alcuin’s _Ll. III.
       De fide Trinitatis_ form a compendium of dogmatics. The
       introduction of the Pseudo-Areopagita into the West prepared
       the way for speculative mysticism, which had its first
       representative in Joannes Scotus Erigena.

    3. In =Practical Theology= homiletical literature was but
       poorly represented. Besides the Homiliarius of Paul
       Warnefrid (§ 88, 1), we meet with Bede, Walafrid, Rabanus
       and Haymo as authors of sermons. On the other hand great
       and constant interest was shown in developing a theory of
       worship, in describing it and giving a mystical explanation
       of it. Isidore with _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ was
       the first in this department. Charlemagne set to all his
       theologians the task of explaining the baptismal ceremony.
       In the time of Louis the Pious, Agobard appears as a
       reformer of the liturgy, in connection with which he
       passionately contended against Amalarius, against whom
       also Florus Magister entered the lists. Important works
       in this department were also written by Rabanus, Walafrid
       and Remigius. On works treating of church law and church
       discipline, see § 87 and § 89, 5.

    4. Finally, as to the department of =Historical Theology= all
       knowledge of earlier church history was derived from Rufinus
       and Cassiodorus. Even Haymo’s Church History is made up
       simply of extracts from Rufinus. All the greater diligence
       was shown throughout the Middle Ages in chronicling the
       ecclesiastical and political events of the immediate
       present and also keeping the past in memory. This endeavour
       shows itself in a threefold direction. (a) The writing of
       =National Chronicles=. The Visigoths had their Isidore, the
       Ostrogoths their Cassiodorus,[257] the Longobards their Paul
       Warnefrid, the Franks their Gregory of Tours, the Britons
       their Gildas[258] and Nennius,[259] the Anglo-Saxons
       their Bede.--(b) Then we have the clumsy compilations of
       =Annals= and =Chronicles= which most monasteries produced,
       and which were continued from year to year.--(c) And
       further, =Biographies=, both of distinguished statesmen
       and distinguished churchmen. The _Vitæ Sanctorum_ are
       innumerable, mostly quite uncritical, composed purely for
       the glorification of some local saint. To this category
       belong the numerous _Martyrologies_, arranged in the
       order of the Calendar. Among the most famous were those
       prepared by Bede, Ado of Vienne, Usuardus, Rabanus, Notker
       Balbulus, Wandelbert, etc. In the department of historical
       biography proper may be included the portion of the
       _Liber pontificalis_ belonging to this period, the _Hist.
       Mettensium Episcoporum_ of Paul Warnefrid, and Isidore’s
       continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus_, which was further
       continued by Ildefonsus of Toledo.

  § 90.10. =Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great=,
  A.D. 871-901.--Alfred the Great, the greatest and noblest of
  all the kings that England has ever had, was the grandson of
  Egbert who had united in A.D. 827 the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
  When five years old he received papal anointing at Rome and two
  years later in company with his pious father he travelled thence,
  made a considerable stay at the brilliant court of Charlemagne
  where he received the impress of its superior culture, and
  began his reign in A.D. 871 in his 22nd year when the kingdom
  was sorely oppressed by Danish invasions. He applied all the
  energy of his mind to the difficult problems of government, to
  the emancipation and civilization of his country and people by
  driving out the Danish robbers, and then improving the internal
  condition of the land by attention to agriculture, industry and
  trade, by a wise organization, legislation and administration,
  by the founding of churches, monasteries and schools, and
  by furthering every scientific endeavour from a thoroughly
  national point of view. When already thirty-six years of age
  he learnt the Latin language and used this acquirement for the
  enriching of Anglo-Saxon literature by translations from his
  own hand, with many important additions of his own, of Boëthius’
  _Consolatio philosophiæ_, the Universal History of Orosius, Bede’s
  History of the Church of England and the _Regula pastoralis_ of
  Gregory the Great. He also began a translation of the Psalms.
  He stimulated his learned friends to a like activity, among whom
  bishop Asser of Sherborne in his _Vita Alfredi_ (Engl. transl.
  in “Six Old English Chronicles”) has reared a worthy memorial
  of his master.[260]--Continuation, § 100, 1.


                     § 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.

  The first important heresy that grew up independently on German
soil was Adoptionism. This heresy took its rise at that point in the
development of Christology that was reached by the 6th œcumenical
Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680 (§ 52, 8), for it recognises
the double nature and the double will while denying the double sonship.
Frankish orthodoxy, however, saw in it not a further development of
doctrine, but a relapse into Nestorianism, and so condemned the new
doctrine. During the same period the dogma of the procession of the
Holy Spirit was the subject of lively controversy, and the Frankish
church came forward as defender of Western orthodoxy against the Greeks.
In the Eucharistic controversy the most eminent Frankish theologians
opposed the Transubstantiation doctrine of Balbutus [Balbulus].
A further controversy as to the conception of the Blessed Virgin
was closely connected with the one just referred to. Neither of
them was made the subject of any synodal decision. On the other
hand very definite synodal decisions were passed in reference to the
predestination controversy, without, however, bringing that controversy
by any means to a conclusion. Of subordinate importance was the dispute
over the expression _Trina Deitas_.

  § 91.1. =The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.=--Of all
  Christian dogmas none were so offensive to the Moslems as that
  of the Trinity which to their barren monotheism necessarily
  appeared as Tritheism, and none were the subject of so much scorn
  as the idea that God should have a son. It need not, therefore,
  surprise us to find that Spanish theologians endeavoured to
  put this doctrine in a form as little offensive as possible
  to the Moslems. One =Migetius= went so far as to adopt a very
  crude form of Sabellianism, for he, undoubtedly approaching
  the Mohammedan view of the prophetic order, represented the
  Trinitarian development of the one Divine Being as a threefold
  historical manipulation of God: in David the person of the
  Father is revealed, in Christ as son of David that of the Son,
  and finally, in the Apostle Paul that of the Holy Spirit. At
  a Spanish synod of A.D. 782 he was successfully opposed by the
  archbishop =Elipandus of Toledo=, who took the opportunity of
  attempting a further development of the Christological dogma.
  This also was more fully elaborated by =Felix of Urgel= in
  the Spanish Mark. Both taught: That Christ is properly Son of
  God only according to His divine nature (_Filius Dei Naturâ_);
  according to His human nature He is properly, like all of us,
  a servant of God, and only by the decision of the Divine will
  is He adopted as the Son of God (_Filius Dei Adoptivus_), just
  as all of us may by Him and after His example be raised from the
  condition of servant into the family of God. According to His
  Divine nature therefore He is the =Only Begotten=, according to
  His human nature the =First Begotten= Son of God. The adoption
  of the human nature into Divine Sonship began with its conception
  by the Holy Ghost, but was more definitely determined in His
  baptism, and perfected in His resurrection. The first scene of
  the controversy called forth by this doctrine was enacted on
  Spanish soil. Two representatives of the Asturian clergy, the
  presbyter Beatus of Libana and bishop Etherius of Osma, contended
  by word and writing against the heresy of Elipandus (A.D. 785).
  This was done perhaps with the view of emancipating the Asturian
  church from the see of Toledo then under Saracen domination. The
  Asturians applied to Hadrian I., who in an epistle to the bishops
  of Spain in A.D. 786 condemned Adoptionism as a heresy. The
  controversy entered upon a second stage through the interference
  of Charlemagne. The absence of Adoptionism in Frankish Spain
  afforded him an excuse for interfering, and he readily seized
  upon this, because it gave him an opportunity of posing as the
  defender of orthodoxy in the West, _i.e._ as Emperor _in esse_.
  Before a Synod at Regensburg in A.D. 792, Felix was compelled
  to renounce this heresy, and was sent to Rome to pope Hadrian I.
  There he had to make a second recantation, but escaped from
  prison and fled to Saracenic territory. In the meantime Alcuin
  had returned from his travels in England, and immediately engaged
  in controversy by addressing an affectionate exhortation to
  Felix. The Spaniards gave a very firm reply and Charlemagne
  then convened the famous œcumenical German Synod of Frankfort
  in A.D. 794. After further investigation Adoptionism was again
  condemned, and the judgment of the synod, in order that it might
  have an œcumenical character, was sent to Spain accompanied
  by four complete reports as representing the various national
  churches and authorities. But on the Spaniards this made little
  impression. Just as little effect had a learned controversial
  tract of Alcuin’s, to which Felix made a smart rejoinder.
  Meanwhile Charlemagne sent a clerical commission under Leidrad
  of Lyons and Benedict of Aniane (§ 85, 2) into the Spanish
  Mark, in order to root out the weeds of heresy that were growing
  there. Felix declared himself ready for further enquiry. At the
  national Synod of Aachen in A.D. 792 he disputed for six days
  with Alcuin, and declared himself at last thoroughly convinced.
  Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia published new controversial
  tracts, and Leidrad went a second time into the Spanish Mark
  where he succeeded in rooting out the heresy. But all the more
  determined were the bishops of Saracenic Spain in maintaining
  their doctrine, and Elipandus answered a conciliatory letter of
  Alcuin in a passionate and angry tone. Felix remained until the
  end of his life in A.D. 818 under the guardianship of the bishop
  of Lyons. Leidrad’s successor, Agobard, found among his papers
  undoubted evidence that to the end he was at heart an Adoptionist,
  and from this took occasion to publish another controversial
  tract. This was the very last of these productions. But in Spain
  Adoptionism seems to have maintained its hold down to the second
  half of the 9th century. At last about that time Paulus Alvarus
  of Cordova (§ 90, 6) contended with a certain Joannes Spalensis
  on account of his Adoptionist views. In the 12th century the
  controversy again broke out on German soil (§ 102, 6).[261]

  § 91.2. =Controversy about the Procession of the Holy
  Spirit.=--At a Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767, held for
  the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast
  controversy, the addition to the creed of the _Filioque_ was
  spoken about (§ 67, 1). The result of the discussion is unknown.
  In Charlemagne’s time Alcuin and Theodulf defended the Latin
  doctrine in special treatises, and at a Synod at Friaul in
  A.D. 791 Paulinus of Aquileia justified its adoption into
  the creed and the Carolingian books (§ 92, 1). The discussion
  was renewed when the Latin monks of Mount Olivet, blamed by
  the Greeks because of the addition, appealed to the usage of
  the Frankish church. Pope Leo III. communicated in regard to
  this with Charlemagne, and a Council at Aachen in A.D. 809
  defended the addition. But the pope, although not contesting
  the correctness of the doctrine, disallowed the change in the
  creed, and had two silver tablets erected in St. Peter’s in Rome
  with the creed wanting the addition. This was evidently a damper
  upon the ecclesiastico-political movements of the emperor.

  § 91.3. =The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.=--Vacillations
  about the doctrine of the Supper (§ 58, 2) lasted down to the
  9th century. Paschasius Radbertus, monk at Corbie, undertook
  in A.D. 831, in his treatise _De Sanguine et corpore Domini_,
  theologically to justify, and on all sides to develop the
  doctrine of the Supper, which had long ago struck its roots
  in the practice of the church and the faith of the people.
  The air of genuine piety which meets us in this work impresses
  us favourably, and it cannot be denied that he had a profound
  perception of fulness, power, and depth of the Sacrament. It
  was, therefore, quite in accordance with popular belief. He
  could, also, refer to facts from the _Vitæ Sanctorum_, where
  the inner _Veritas_ had come to outer manifestation. He thinks
  that the fact that this did not always happen is to be accounted
  for partly by this, that the Supper in its very nature is
  a _Mysterium_ for faith and not a _Miraculum_ for unbelief,
  partly by the divine condescendence which takes into account the
  natural horror at flesh and blood, and would take away from the
  heathen all occasion for blasphemy. At this time, A.D. 831, the
  Scriptures were not appealed to. Meantime Radbertus was made
  abbot of Corbie, and in this important position he revised his
  work, and presented it to Charles the Bald in A.D. 844. The king
  called upon the learned monk, =Ratramnus= of Corbie, to express
  his opinion on the subject, and he was only too ready to do
  an injury to his abbot. Without naming him, he contested his
  doctrine in his treatise, _De corp. et sang. Domini ad Carolum
  Calvum_, with bitter criticism, and subtly developed his own
  view, according to which the body and blood of Christ are enjoyed
  only _spiritualiter et secundum potentiam_. Rabanus Maurus,
  Scotus Erigena, and Florus of Lyons also opposed the magical
  transformation doctrine of Radbertus in favour of a merely
  spiritual enjoyment. Hincmar and Haymo, on the other hand,
  took the side of Radbertus, while Walafrid Strabo, and the able,
  energetic Christian Druthmar, found in the idea of impanation
  and consubstantiation a more fitting expression for the solemn
  mystery. But Radbertus had spoken the word which gave clear
  utterance to the ecclesiastical feeling of the age; the protest
  of so many great authorities might delay, but could not destroy
  its effects. Continuation, § 101, 2.

  § 91.4. =Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.=--This
  notion of the magical operation of the Divine prevailed with
  Radbertus when soon afterwards he undertook in his own way,
  and also in accordance with Ps. xxii. 10 and Jer. xxxi. 22,
  in the tract, _De partu virginali_, to establish the opinion
  already expressed by Ambrose and Jerome (§ 57, 2), that Mary
  brought forth _utero clauso_, and without pain. Ratramnus also
  has left a treatise on this theme: _De eo quod Christus ex
  Virigine natus est_. He maintains equally with Radbertus that
  during conception as well as in bearing, the Virgin did not
  lose her virginity. But while Radbertus contended against those
  who taught less than this, _i.e._, that though Mary conceived
  as a virgin, she bore after the manner of all women, Ratramnus
  directed his attack against those who affirmed more than that,
  _i.e._, that Christ at His birth did not leave His mother’s womb
  in the usual, natural manner, by His mother bearing Him. Further,
  while the former was angry at the profaning of the mystery of
  the birth of Christ, by ranking it under the laws of nature, the
  latter emphasized the fact that in no case should it be regarded
  as in itself ignominious to be placed under the laws of nature.
  Finally, while Radbertus unconditionally repudiated the position,
  _Vulvam aperuit_, Ratramnus felt compelled by Luke ii. 23 to
  admit it in a certain sense. C. v. “_Utique vulvam aperuit,
  non et clausam corrumperet, sed et per eam suæ nativitatis
  ostium aperiret, sicut et in Ezech. xliv. 3 porta et clausa
  describitur et tamen narratur Domino aperta; non quod liminis
  sui fores dimoverit ad ejus egressum, sed quod sic clausa
  patuerit dominanti_,” and c. viii. “_Exivit clauso sepulchro
  (?) et ingressus foribus obseratis (Jo. xx. 9) ... ut et clausam
  relinqueret et per eam transiret ... nec haureundo patefecit_.”
  The polemic, therefore, was most probably occasioned not by
  anything in the writings, but rather in their oral utterances.
  Neither understood the other’s view, and the one drew consequences
  from the other’s statements that were not warrantable. But when
  Ratramnus pretends to be debating, not with his abbot but with an
  unnamed German opponent, this can only be regarded as a literary
  artifice.

  § 91.5. =The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.=--The
  earlier predestinarian controversy (§ 53, 5), was, so far
  from being brought to a conclusion, that all the gradations
  of doctrinal views, from that of Semi-Pelagianism to a doctrine
  of predestination to condemnation that went far beyond Augustine,
  could find representatives among the teachers of the church. In
  the 9th century the controversy broke out in a passionate form.
  =Gottschalk=, the son of Berno, a Saxon count, had been placed
  by his parents when a child in the monastery of Fulda. A Synod
  at Mainz in A.D. 829 allowed him to go forth, but the abbot of
  Fulda at that time, Rabanus Maurus, got Louis the Pious to annul
  this dispensation. Transferred to the monastery of Orbais, in
  the diocese of Soissons, Gottschalk sought comfort in the study
  of the writings of Augustine, and was an enthusiastic defender
  of the doctrine of absolute predestination. In one point he
  even went beyond Augustine himself, for he taught a two-fold
  predestination (_Gemina prædestinatio_), a predestination to
  salvation and a predestination to condemnation, while Augustine
  had spoken of the latter mostly as a giving over to deserved
  condemnation. He took advantage of two journeys into Italy in
  A.D. 840 and A.D. 847 for spreading his doctrine. Impelled with
  a vehement desire to make converts, he made an attempt upon
  bishop Noting of Verona. Through him Rabanus, from A.D. 847
  archbishop of Mainz, obtained information thereof, and issued
  to Noting, as well as to Count Eberhard of Friaul, with whom
  Gottschalk was living, threatening letters which distorted
  Gottschalk’s doctrine in many particulars, and drew from it
  unfair consequences, making the _Prædestinatio ad damnationem_
  a _Prædestinatio ad peccatum_. Rabanus’s own doctrine
  distinguished prescience and predestination, and placed the
  condemnation of the wicked under the former point of view. At
  the same time, in A.D. 848, he convened a Synod at Mainz, before
  which Gottschalk stated his doctrine without reserve, in the
  joyous conviction that it was in accordance with the doctrine
  of the church. But the Council excommunicated him, and assigned
  him for punishment to his metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar
  had him anew condemned at the Synod of Quiersy in A.D. 849,
  then, because he steadily refused to recant, had him savagely
  scourged and consigned to imprisonment for life in the monastery
  of Hautvilliers. Gottschalk offered to prove the justice of
  his cause by submitting to an ordeal; but Hincmar, though in
  other instances a defender of the ordeal, denounced this as the
  proposal of a second Simon Magus. The inhuman treatment of the
  poor monk, and the rejection of the doctrine of Augustine by two
  church leaders, occasioned a mighty commotion in the Frankish
  church, which was mainly directed against Hincmar. At first,
  bishop Prudentius of Troyes took the condemned monk’s part. Then
  Charles the Bald asked the opinions of Ratramnus of Corbie and
  the abbot Servatus Lupus of Ferrières. Both of these took the
  side of Gottschalk. Hincmar’s position threatened to become very
  serious. He looked out for supporters, and succeeded in finding
  champions in the deacon Florus of Lyons, the priest Amalarius of
  Metz, and the learned Joannes Scotus Erigena. But the latter’s
  advocacy was almost more dangerous to the metropolitan than the
  charges of his accusers. For the speculative Irishman founded
  his objections to the doctrine of predestination on the position,
  unheard of before in the West, that evil is only a μὴ ὄν, and
  condemnation therefore not a positive punishment of God, but
  consisting only in the consciousness of a defect. Hincmar’s
  position was now worse than ever, for his opponents made him
  responsible for the heresies of Scotus. And not only an old
  objector, Prudentius of Troyes in his _De prædest. c. Joh.
  Scotu_, but even archbishop Wessilo of Sens and the deacon
  Florus of Lyons, who had hitherto supported him, now put on
  their armour against him. But Charles the Bald took the part
  of the sorely-beset metropolitan, and summoned the national
  Synod of Quiersy of A.D. 853, where in four articles (_Capitula
  Carisiaca_), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting the _gemina
  prædestinatio_, was set forth as the orthodox faith. The
  Neustrian objectors were now compelled to keep silence, but
  archbishop Remigius of Lyons set a Lothringian national Synod
  of Valence of A.D. 855 over against the Neustrian Synod. This
  Synod expressly condemned the decisions of the Synod of Quiersy,
  together with the Scottish mixture (_pultus Scotorum_), and
  laid down six conflicting articles as the standard of orthodoxy.
  Finally the rulers of the West Franks combined their forces and
  called an Imperial Synod at Savonnières, a suburb of Toul, in
  A.D. 859. But harmony was not yet secured, and they were likely
  to part with bitter feelings, when Remigius made the proposal to
  reserve decision for a subsequent assembly to be convened in a
  less agitated time, and meanwhile to maintain the peace. This
  was agreed upon, and so the controversy put out of view, for
  the proposed assembly was never brought about. Gottschalk, left
  in the lurch by his former friends, now turned for help to the
  powerful pope Nicholas I. The pope ordered Hincmar to answer
  before the papal plenipotentiaries for his proceedings against
  the monk at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 (§ 82, 7). Hincmar
  preferred not to comply to this demand, and to his delight the
  pope himself annulled the decisions of the Synod because his
  legates had been bribed. Moreover the metropolitan succeeded by
  intercession and well-planned letters in winning over the pope.
  Thus then Gottschalk was cheated out of his last hope. For twenty
  years he languished in prison, but with his latest breath he
  rejected every proposal of recantation. He died in A.D. 868,
  and by Hincmar’s orders was buried in unconsecrated earth.

  § 91.6. =The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.=--From his
  prison Gottschalk had accused his metropolitan of a second
  heresy. Hincmar had removed from a church hymn, _Te trina Deitas
  unaque poscimus_, the expression, =trina Deltas=, as favouring
  Arianism, and substituted the words, _sancta Deitas_. His
  opponents therefore charged him with Sabellianism, and Ratramnus
  made this accusation in a controversial tract no longer extant.
  Ratramnus, on the other hand, to whom Hincmar applied, supported
  the change, but would not commit himself to a written approval
  of it, whereupon Hincmar himself undertook a defence of the
  expression substituted in his treatise, _De una et non trini
  Deitate_.[262]


                  § 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.

  The independence which Charlemagne gave to the German church first
awakened in it the consciousness of its vocation as a reformer.
This consciousness was maintained throughout the Middle Ages,
though hampered indeed by much narrowness, one-sidedness, and error.
Charlemagne himself stood first in the series of reformers with his
energetic protest against image worship. Louis the Pious too persevered
in this same direction, and encouraged Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of
Turin when they contested similar forms of ecclesiastical superstition.

  § 92.1. =The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship,
  A.D. 790-825.=--On the occasion of an embassy of the emperor
  Constantinus Copronymus (§ 66, 2) Pepin the Short convened a
  Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767 (§ 91, 2) where the question
  of image worship was dealt with. We have no further information,
  as the acts of this Synod have been lost. Then in A.D. 790
  Hadrian I. sent to Charlemagne the acts of the 7th occasional
  Synod of Nicæa (§ 66, 3). Charles, as emperor-elect, regarded
  himself as grievously wronged by the assumption of the Greeks,
  who, without consulting the German court, sought to enact
  laws that were wholly antagonistic to the Frankish practice.
  He published under his own name a state paper in 4 bks., the
  so-called _Libri Carolini_, in which the Byzantine proceedings
  were censured in strong terms, the synodal acts refuted one by
  one, every form of image worship denounced as idolatry, while at
  the same time the position of the iconoclasts was repudiated and,
  with reference to Gregory the Great (§ 57, 4), the usefulness
  of images in quickening devotion, instructing the people and
  providing suitable decoration for sacred places was admitted.
  Veneration of saints, relics, and the cross is, on the other
  hand, permitted. Charlemagne sent this writing to the pope,
  who in the most courteous language wrote a refutation, which,
  however, made no impression upon Charlemagne. On the contrary he
  now hastened preparations for calling a great œcumenical Synod of
  all German churches that would outdo the Synod of the Byzantine
  court. Alcuin utilized his visit to England for securing a
  representation at this Synod of the Anglo-Saxon church. The
  Synod met at Frankfort in A.D. 794 and confirmed the positions
  of the Caroline books. The pope found it prudent to yield to
  the times and the people. Under Louis the Pious the matter was
  brought forward anew on the occasion of an embassy from the
  iconoclast emperor Michael Balbus. A national Synod at Paris
  in A.D. 825 condemned image worship sharply, in opposition to
  Hadrian I., and affirmed the positions of the Caroline books.
  Pope Eugenius II. kept silent on this subject. In the Frankish
  empire down to the 10th century no recognition was given to the
  2nd Nicene Council, and official opposition was continued against
  image worship.

  § 92.2. Soon after the Parisian council of A.D. 825, =Agobard
  of Lyons= made his appearance with a powerful polemic: _Contra
  superstitionem eorum, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum
  adorationis obsequiem deferendum putant_. He goes much further
  than the Caroline books, for not only does he regard it as
  advisable, on account of the inevitable misuse on the part of
  the people, to banish images entirely, but with image worship
  he also rejects all adoration of saints, relics, and angels. Man
  should put his trust in the omnipotent God alone, and worship
  and reverence only the one Mediator, Christ. He comes forward
  also as a reformer of the liturgy. He finds fault with all
  sensuous additions to Divine service, would banish from it all
  non-Biblical hymns, urges to earnest study of Scripture, contends
  against the folly of the ordeal (_De Divinis Sententiis_), the
  popular superstitions about witchcraft and weather omens (_Contra
  insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_), and the
  idea that by presents to churches a stop can be put to epidemics
  and pestilences. Also on inspiration he entertained very liberal
  opinions (§ 90, 9). No one thought on account of these views to
  charge him with heresy. =Claudius of Turin= went still further
  than Agobard. By the help of Augustine he was able to grasp more
  profoundly than any of his contemporaries the essential core of
  saving truth, that man without any merit of works is justified
  and saved by the grace of God in Christ alone. Louis the
  Pious appointed him to the bishopric of Turin with the express
  injunction that he should contend against image worship in his
  Italian diocese. He found there image worship along with an
  extravagant devotion to relics, crosses and pilgrimages carried
  on to such a degree that he felt himself constrained reluctantly
  because of the condition of affairs to cast images and crosses
  out of the churches altogether. The popular excitement over this
  proceeding rose to the utmost pitch, and his life was saved and
  his office retained only through dread of the Frankish arms. When
  pope Paschalis intimated to him his displeasure, he said the pope
  is only to be honoured as apostolic, when he does the works of
  an apostle, otherwise Matt. xxiii. 2-4 applies to him. Against
  the views of his early scholar and friend the abbot Theodemir,
  regarding monastic psalmody, he vindicated himself in A.D. 825
  in his controversial tract _Apologeticus_, which is now known
  only from the replies of his opponents. A Scotchman, Dungal,
  teacher at Pavia, entered the lists against him and accused him
  before the emperor, who, however, contented himself with calling
  upon bishop Jonas of Orleans to refute the apologetical treatise.
  This refutation appeared only after the death of Claudius. It
  assumed the position of the Frankish church on the question of
  image worship, as also Dungal had done.




                            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.




                            SECOND SECTION.

               CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.




              I. Relations between the Different Churches.


                         § 152. EAST AND WEST.

  The papacy formed new plans for conquest in the domain of the Eastern
church, but with at most only transient success. Still more illusory
were the hopes entertained for a while in Geneva and London in regard
to the Calvinizing of the Greek church.

  § 152.1. =Roman Catholic Hopes.=--The Jesuit missions among the
  Turks and schismatic Greeks failed, but among the Abyssinians
  some progress was made. By promising Spanish aid, the Jesuit
  Paez succeeded, in A.D. 1621, in inducing the Sultan Segued to
  abjure the Jacobite heresy. Mendez was made Abyssinian patriarch
  by Urban VIII. in A.D. 1626, but the clergy and people repeatedly
  rebelled against sultan and patriarch. In A.D. 1642 the next
  sultan drove the Jesuits out of his kingdom, and in it henceforth
  no traces of Catholicism were to be found.--In Russia the false
  Demetrius, in A.D. 1605, working in Polish Catholic interests,
  sought to catholicize the empire; but this only convinced the
  Russians that he was no true czar’s son. When his Catholic Polish
  bride entered Moscow with 200 Poles, a riot ensued, in which
  Demetrius lost his life.[445]

  § 152.2. =Calvinistic Hopes.=--=Cyril Lucar=, a native of Crete,
  then under Venetian rule, by long residence in Geneva had come
  to entertain a strong liking to the Reformed church. Expelled
  from his situation as rector of a Greek seminary at Ostrog by
  Jesuit machinations, he was made Patriarch of Alexandria in
  A.D. 1602 and of Constantinople in A.D. 1621. He maintained
  a regular correspondence with Reformed divines in Holland,
  Switzerland, and England. In A.D. 1628 he sent the famous Codex
  Alexandrinus as a present to James I. He wrought expressly
  for a union of the Greek and Reformed churches, and for this
  end sent, in A.D. 1629, to Geneva an almost purely Calvinistic
  confession. But the other Greek bishops opposed his union
  schemes, and influential Jesuits in Constantinople accused
  him of political faults. Four times the sultan deposed and
  banished him, and at last, in A.D. 1638, he was strangled as
  a traitor and cast into the sea.--One of his Alexandrian clergy,
  Metrophanes Critopulus, whom in A.D. 1616 he had sent for his
  education to England, studied several years at Oxford, then
  at German Protestant universities, ending with Helmstadt, where,
  in A.D. 1625, he composed in Greek a confession of the faith
  of the Greek Orthodox Church. It was pointedly antagonistic to
  the Romish doctrine, conciliatory toward Protestantism, while
  abandoning nothing essential in the Greek Orthodox creed, and
  showing signs of the possession of independent speculative power.
  Afterwards Metrophanes became Patriarch of Alexandria, and in
  the synod, presided over by Lucar’s successor, Cyril of Berrhoë,
  at Constantinople in A.D. 1638, gave his vote for the formal
  condemnation of the man who had been already executed.[446]

  § 152.3. =Orthodox Constancy.=--The Russian Orthodox church,
  after its emancipation from Constantinople and the erection of
  an independent patriarchate at Moscow in A.D. 1589 (§ 73, 4),
  had decidedly the pre-eminence over the Greek Orthodox church,
  and the Russian czar took the place formerly occupied by the
  East Roman emperor as protector of the whole Orthodox church.
  The dangers to the Orthodox faith threatened by schemes of union
  with Catholics and Protestants induced the learned metropolitan,
  Peter Mogilas of Kiev, to compose a new confession in
  catechetical form, which, in A.D. 1643, was formally authorized
  by the Orthodox patriarchs as Ὀρθόδοξος ὁμολογία τῆς καθολικῆς
  καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἀνατολικῆς.--Thirty years later
  a controversy on the eucharist broke out between the Jansenists
  Nicole and Arnauld, on the one side, and the Calvinists Claude
  and Jurieu, on the other (§ 157, 1), in which both claimed to
  be in agreement with the Greek church. A synod was convened
  under =Dositheus of Jerusalem= in A.D. 1672, at the instigation
  of French diplomatists, where the questions raised by Cyril
  were again taken into consideration. Maintaining a friendly
  attitude toward the Romish church, it directed a violent
  polemic against Calvinism. In order to save the character of
  the Constantinopolitan chair for constant Orthodoxy, Cyril’s
  confession of A.D. 1629 was pronounced a spurious, heretical
  invention, and a confession composed by Dositheus, in which
  Cyril’s Calvinistic heresies were repudiated, was incorporated
  with the synod’s acts.


                 § 153. CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM.

  The Jesuit counter-reformation (§ 151) was eminently successful
during the first decades of the century in Bohemia. The Westphalian
Peace restrained its violence, but did not prevent secret machinations
and the open exercise of all conceivable arts of seduction. Next to
the conversion of Bohemia, the greatest triumph of the restoration was
won in France in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Besides such
victories the Catholics were able to glory in the conversion of several
Protestant princes. New endeavours at union were repeatedly made, but
these in every case proved as fruitless as former attempts had done.

  § 153.1. =Conversions of Protestant Princes.=--The first
  reigning prince who became a convert to Romanism was the
  Margrave =James III. of Baden=. He went over in A.D. 1590
  (§ 144, 4), but as his death occurred soon after, his conduct
  had little influence upon his people. Of greater consequence
  was the conversion, in A.D. 1614, of the Count-palatine Wolfgang
  William of Neuburg, as it prepared the way for the catholicizing
  of the whole Palatinate, which followed in A.D. 1685. Much was
  made of the passing over to the Catholic church of =Christina
  of Sweden=, the highly gifted but eccentric daughter of Gustavus
  Adolphus. As she had resigned the crown, the pope gained no
  political advantage from his new member, and Alexander VII.
  had even to contribute to her support. The Elector of Saxony,
  =Frederick Augustus II.=, passed over to the Roman Catholic
  church in A.D. 1697, in order to qualify himself for the Polish
  crown; but the rights of his Protestant subjects were carefully
  guarded. An awkwardness arose from the fact that the prince was
  pledged by the directory of the Regensburg Diet of A.D. 1653 to
  care for the interests of the evangelical church. Now that he
  had become a Catholic, he still formally promised to do so, but
  had his duties discharged by a commissioner. Subsequently this
  officer was ordered to take his directions from the evangelical
  council of Dresden.

  § 153.2. =The Restoration in Germany and the Neighbouring
  States= (§ 151, 1).--Matthias having, in violation of the royal
  letter of his predecessor Rudolph II. (§ 139, 19), refused to
  allow the Protestants of Bohemia to build churches, was driven
  out; the Jesuits also were expelled, and the Calvinistic
  Elector-palatine Frederick V. was chosen as prince in A.D. 1619.
  Ferdinand II. (A.D. 1619-1637) defeated him, tore up the
  royal letter, restored the Jesuits, and expelled the Protestant
  pastors. Efforts were made by Christian IV. of Denmark and other
  Protestant princes to save Protestantism, but without success.
  Ferdinand now issued his =Restitution Edict= of A.D. 1629,
  which deprived Protestants of their privileges, and gave to
  Catholic nobles unrestricted liberty to suppress the evangelical
  faith in their dominions. It was then that Gustavus Adolphus of
  Sweden, in religious not less than political interests, made his
  appearance as the saviour of Protestantism.[447] The unhappy war
  was brought to an end in A.D. 1648 by the publication at Münster
  and Osnabrück of the =Peace of Westphalia=, which Innocent X.
  in his bull “_Zelo Domus Dei_” of A.D. 1651 pronounced “null
  and void, without influence on past, present, and future.”
  Germany lost several noble provinces, but its intellectual
  and religious freedom was saved. Under Swedish and French
  guarantee the Augsburg Religious Peace was confirmed and even
  extended to the Reformed, as related to the Augsburg Confession.
  The church property was to be restored on January 1st,
  A.D. 1624. The political equality of Protestants and Catholics
  throughout Germany was distinctly secured. In =Bohemia=,
  however, Protestantism was thoroughly extirpated, and in the
  other Austrian states the oppression continued down to the time
  of Joseph II. In =Silesia=, from the passing of the Restitution
  Edict, over a thousand churches had been violently taken from
  the evangelicals. No compensation was now thought of, but
  rather the persecution continued throughout the whole century
  (§ 165, 4), and many thousands were compelled to migrate, for
  the most part to Upper Lusatia.

  § 153.3. Also in =Livonia=, from A.D. 1561 under Polish rule,
  the Jesuits gained a footing and began the restoration, but
  under Gustavus Adolphus from A.D. 1621 their machinations
  were brought to an end.--The ruthless =Valteline Massacre=
  of A.D. 1620 may be described as a Swiss St. Bartholomew on
  a small scale. All Protestants were murdered in one day. The
  conspirators at a signal from the clock tower in the early
  morning broke into the houses of heretics, and put all to death,
  down to the very babe in the cradle. Between four and five
  hundred were slaughtered.--In =Hungary=, at the close of the
  preceding century only three noble families remained Catholic,
  and the Protestant churches numbered 2,000; but the Jesuits, who
  had settled there under the protection of Rudolph II. in 1579,
  resumed their intrigues, and the Archbishop of Gran, Pazmany,
  wrought hard for the restoration of Catholicism. Rakoczy of
  Transylvania, in the Treaty of Linz of A.D. 1645, concluded
  a league offensive and defensive with Sweden and France, which
  secured political and religious liberty for Hungary; but of
  the 400 churches of which the Protestants had been robbed only
  ninety were given back. The bigoted Leopold I., from A.D. 1655
  king of Hungary, inaugurated a yet more severe persecution,
  which continued until the publication of the Toleration Edict
  of Joseph II. in A.D. 1781. The 2,000 Protestant congregations
  were by this time reduced to 105.

  § 153.4. =The Huguenots in France= (§ 139, 17).--Henry IV.
  faithfully fulfilled the promises which he made in the Edict of
  Nantes; but under Louis XIII., A.D. 1610-1643, the oppressions
  of the Huguenots were renewed, and led to fresh outbreaks.
  Richelieu withdrew their political privileges, but granted
  them religious toleration in the Edict of Nismes, A.D. 1629.
  Louis XIV., A.D. 1643-1715, at the instigation of his confessors,
  sought to atone for his sins by purging his land of heretics.
  When bribery and court favour had done all that they could do in
  the way of conversions, the fearful dragonnades began, A.D. 1681.
  The formal =Revocation of the Edict of Nantes= followed in
  A.D. 1685, and persecution raged with the utmost violence.
  Thousands of churches were torn down, vast numbers of confessors
  were tortured, burnt, or sent to the galleys. In spite of the
  terrible penal laws against emigrating, in spite of the watch
  kept over the frontiers, hundreds of thousands escaped, and were
  received with open arms as _refugees_ in Brandenburg, Holland,
  England, Denmark, and Switzerland. Many fled into the wilds of
  the Cevennes, where under the name of Camisards they maintained
  a heroic conflict for years, until at last exterminated by an
  army at least ten times their strength. The struggle reached
  the utmost intensity of bitterness on both sides in A.D. 1702,
  when the fanatical and inhumanly cruel inquisitor, the Abbé
  du Chaila, was slain. At the head of the Camisard army was
  a young peasant, Jean Cavalier, who by his energetic and skilful
  conduct of the campaign astonished the world. At last the
  famous Marshal Villars, by promising a general amnesty, release
  of all prisoners, permission to emigrate with possessions,
  and religious toleration to those who remained, succeeded in
  persuading Cavalier to lay down his arms. The king ratified
  this bargain, only refusing the right of religious freedom.
  Many, however, submitted; while others emigrated, mostly to
  England. Cavalier entered the king’s service as colonel; but
  distrusting the arrangements fled to Holland, and afterwards
  to England, where in A.D. 1740 he died as governor of Jersey.
  In A.D. 1707 a new outbreak took place, accompanied by prophetic
  fanaticism, in consequence of repeated dragonnades, but it
  was put down by the stake, the gallows, the axe, and the wheel.
  France had lost half a million of her most pious, industrious,
  and capable inhabitants, and yet two millions of Huguenots
  deprived of all their rights remained in the land.[448]

  § 153.5. =The Waldensians in Piedmont= (§ 139, 25).--Although
  in A.D. 1654 the Duke of Savoy confirmed to the Waldensians
  their privileges, by Easter of the following year a bloody
  persecution broke out, in which a Piedmontese army, together
  with a horde of released prisoners and Irish refugees,
  driven from their native land by Cromwell’s severities, to
  whom the duke had given shelter in the valleys, perpetrated
  the most horrible cruelties. Yet in the desperate conflict
  the Waldensians held their ground. The intervention of the
  Protestant Swiss cantons won for them again a measure of
  toleration, and liberal gifts from abroad compensated them
  for their loss of property. Cromwell too sent to the relief
  of the sufferers the celebrated Lord Morland in A.D. 1658.
  While in the valleys he got possession of a number of MSS.
  (§ 108, 11), which he took home with him and deposited in
  the Cambridge Library. In A.D. 1685 the persecution and civil
  war were again renewed at the instigation of Louis XIV. The
  soldiers besieged the valleys, and more than 14,000 captives
  were consigned to fortresses and prisons. But the rest of the
  Waldensians plucked up courage, inflicted many defeats upon
  their enemy, and so moved the government in A.D. 1686 to release
  the prisoners and send them out of the country. Some found their
  way to Germany, others fled to Switzerland. These last, aided
  by Swiss troops, and led by their own pastor, Henry Arnaud, made
  an attack upon Piedmont in A.D. 1689, and conquered again their
  own country. They continued in possession, notwithstanding all
  attempts to dislodge them.

  § 153.6. =The Catholics in England and Ireland.=--When James I.,
  A.D. 1603-1625, the son of Mary Stuart, ascended the English
  throne (§ 139, 11), the Catholics expected from him nothing
  short of the complete restoration of the old religion. But
  great as James’ inclination towards Catholicism may have been,
  his love of despotic authority was still greater. He therefore
  rigorously suppressed the Jesuits, who disputed the royal
  supremacy over the church; and the bitterness of the Catholics
  now reached its height. They organized the so-called =Gunpowder
  Plot=, with the intention of blowing up the royal family and
  the whole Parliament at the first meeting of the house. At
  the head of the conspiracy stood Rob. Catesby, Thomas Percy
  of Northumberland, and Guy Fawkes, an English officer in the
  Spanish service. The plan was discovered shortly before the day
  appointed for its execution. On November 5th, A.D. 1605, Fawkes,
  with lantern and matches, was seized in the cellar. The rest of
  the conspirators fled, but, after a desperate struggle, in which
  Catesby and Percy fell, were arrested, and, together with two
  Jesuit accomplices, executed as traitors. Great severities were
  then exercised toward the Catholics, not only in England, but
  also in Ireland, where the bulk of the population was attached
  to the Romish faith. James I. completed the transference of
  ecclesiastical property to the Anglican church, and robbed
  the Irish nobles of almost all their estates, and gifted them
  over to Scottish and English favourites. All Catholics, because
  they refused to take the oath of supremacy, _i.e._ to recognise
  the king as head of the church, were declared ineligible
  for any civil office. These oppressions at last led to the
  fearful =Irish massacre=. In October, A.D. 1641, a desperate
  outbreak of the Catholics took place throughout the country.
  It aimed at the destruction of all Protestants in Ireland.
  The conspirators rushed from all sides into the houses of the
  Protestants, murdered the inhabitants, and drove them naked and
  helpless from their homes. Many thousands died on the roadside
  of hunger and cold. In other places they were driven in crowds
  into the rivers and drowned, or into empty houses, which were
  burnt over them. The number of those who suffered is variously
  estimated from 40,000 to 400,000. Charles I., A.D. 1625-1649,
  was suspected as instigator of this terrible deed, and it may
  be regarded as his first step toward the scaffold (§ 155, 1).
  After the execution of Charles, Oliver Cromwell, in A.D. 1649,
  at the call of Parliament, took fearful revenge for the Irish
  crime. In the two cities which he took by storm he had all
  the citizens cut down without distinction. Panic-stricken, the
  inhabitants of the other cities fled to the bogs. Within nine
  months the whole island was reconquered. Hundreds of thousands,
  driven from their native soil, wandered as homeless fugitives,
  and their lands were divided among English soldiers and settlers.
  During the time of the English Commonwealth, A.D. 1649-1660,
  all moderate men, even those who had formerly demanded religious
  toleration, not only for all Christian sects, but also for Jews
  and Mohammedans, and even atheists, were now at one in excluding
  Catholics from its benefit, because they all saw in the
  Catholics a party ready at any moment to prove traitors to their
  country at the bidding of a foreign sovereign.--The Restoration
  under Charles II. could not greatly ameliorate the calamities of
  the Irish. Religious persecution indeed ceased, but the property
  taken from the Catholic church and native owners still remained
  in the hands of the Anglican church and the Protestant occupiers.
  To counterbalance the Catholic proclivities of Charles II.
  (§ 155, 3), the English Parliament of A.D. 1673 passed the =Test
  Act=, which required every civil and military officer to take
  the test oaths, condemning transubstantiation and the worship
  of the saints, and to receive the communion according to the
  Anglican rite as members of the State church. The statements
  of a certain Titus Oates, that the Jesuits had organized a plot
  for murdering the king and restoring the papacy, led to fearful
  riots in A.D. 1678 and many executions. But the reports were
  seemingly unfounded, and were probably the fruit of an intrigue
  to deprive the king’s Catholic brother, James II., of the right
  of succession. When James ascended the throne, in A.D. 1685,
  he immediately entered into negotiations with Rome, and
  filled almost all offices with Catholics. At the invitation of
  the Protestants, the king’s son-in-law, William III. of Orange,
  landed in England in A.D. 1688, and on James’ flight was
  declared king by the Parliament. The Act of Toleration, issued
  by him in A.D. 1689, still withheld from Papists the privileges
  now extended to Protestant dissenters (§ 155, 3).[449]

  § 153.7. =Union Efforts.=

    1. Although =Hugo Grotius= distinctly took the side of
       the Remonstrants (§ 160, 2), his whole disposition was
       essentially irenical. He attempted, but in vain, not
       only the reconciliation of the Arminians and Calvinists,
       but also the union of all Protestant sects on a common
       basis. Toward Catholicism he long maintained a decidedly
       hostile attitude. But through intimate intercourse with
       distinguished Catholics, especially during his exile
       in France, his feelings were completely changed. He now
       invariably expressed himself more favourably in regard
       to the faith and the institutions of the Catholic church.
       Its semi-Pelagianism was acceptable to him as a decided
       Arminian. In his “_Votum pro Pace_” he recommended as the
       only possible way to restore ecclesiastical union, a return
       to Catholicism, on the understanding that a thorough reform
       should be made. But that he was himself ready to pass over,
       and was hindered only by his sudden death in A.D. 1645, is
       merely an illusion of Romish imagination.[450]

    2. King Wladislaus [Wladislaw] IV. of Poland thought
       a union of Protestants and Catholics in his dominions
       not impossible, and with this end in view arranged the
       =Religious Conference of Thorn= in A.D. 1645. Prussia
       and Brandenburg were also invited to take part in it.
       The elector sent his court preacher, John Berg, and asked
       from the Duke of Brunswick the assistance of the Helmstadt
       theologian, George Calixt. The chief representatives of
       the Lutheran side were Abraham Calov, of Danzig, and John
       Hülsemann, of Wittenberg. That Calixt, a Lutheran, took
       the part of the Reformed, intensified the bitterness of
       the Lutherans at the outset. The result was to increase
       the split on all sides. The Reformed set forth their
       opinions in the “_Declaratio Thorunensis_,” which in
       Brandenburg obtained symbolical rank.

    3. J. B. =Bossuet=, who died in A.D. 1704, Bishop of Meaux,
       used all his eloquence to prepare a way for the return of
       Protestants to the church in which alone is salvation. In
       several treatises he gave an idealized exposition of the
       Catholic doctrine, glossed over what was most offensive
       to Protestants, and sought by subtlety and sophistry
       to represent the Protestant system as contradictory
       and untenable.[451] During the same period the Spaniard
       =Spinola=, Bishop of Neustadt, who had come into the
       country as father confessor of the empress, proposed
       a scheme of union at the imperial court. The controverted
       points were to be decided at a free council, but the
       primacy of the pope and the hierarchical system, as
       founded _jure humano_, were to be retained. In prosecuting
       his scheme, with the secret support of Leopold I., Spinola,
       between A.D. 1676 and 1691, travelled through all Protestant
       Germany. He found most success, out of respect for the
       emperor, in Hanover, where the Abbot of Loccum, Molanus,
       zealously advocated the proposed union, in which on the
       Catholic side Bossuet, on the Protestant side the great
       philosopher =Leibnitz=, took part. But the negotiations
       ended in no practical result. That Leibnitz had himself
       been already secretly inclined to Catholicism, some
       think to have proved by a manuscript, found after his
       death, entitled in another’s hand, “_Systema Theologicum
       Leibnitii_.” Favourably disposed as Leibnitz was to
       investigate and recognise what was profound and true
       even in Catholicism, so that he reached the conviction
       that neither of the two churches had given perfect and
       adequate expression to Christian truth, he has apparently
       sought in this work to make clear to himself what and how
       much of specifically Catholic doctrines were justifiable,
       and to sketch out a system of doctrine occupying a place
       superior to both confessions. In this treatise many
       doctrines are expressed in a manner quite divergent from
       that of the Tridentine creed, while several expressions
       show how clearly he perceived the contradiction between
       his own Protestant faith and the Romish system, amid all
       his attempts to effect a reconciliation.

  § 153.8. =The Lehnin Prophecy.=--The hope entertained, about
  the end of the seventeenth century, by Catholics throughout
  Germany of the speedy restoration of the mother church
  was expressed in the so called =Vaticinium Lehninense=.
  Professedly composed in the thirteenth century by a monk
  called Hermann, of the cloister of Lehnin in Brandenburg,
  it characterized with historical accuracy in 100 Leonine
  verses the Brandenburg princes down to Frederick III., of
  whose coronation in A.D. 1701 it is ignorant, and after this
  proceeds in a purely fanciful and arbitrary manner. From
  Joachim II., who openly joined the Reformation, it enumerates
  eleven members, so that the history is just brought down to
  Frederick William III. With the eleventh the Hohenzollern
  dynasty ends, Germany is united, the Catholic church restored,
  and Lehnin raised again to its ancient glory. Under Frederick
  William IV., the Catholics diligently sought to prove the
  genuineness of the prophecy, and by arbitrary methods to extend
  it so as to include this prince. Lately “the deadly sin of
  Israel” spoken of in it has been pointed to as a prophecy of
  the _Kultur-kampf_ of our own day (§ 197). The first certain
  trace of the poem is in A.D. 1693. Hilgenfeld thinks that its
  author was a fanatical pervert, Andr. Fromm, who was previously
  a Protestant pastor in Berlin, and died in A.D. 1685 as canon
  of Leitmeritz, in Bohemia.


                   § 154. LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM.

  The Reformed church made its way into the heart of Lutheran
Germany (§ 144) by the Calvinizing of Hesse-Cassel and Lippe, and by
the adherence of the electoral house of Brandenburg. Renewed attempts
to unite the two churches were equally fruitless with the endeavours
after a Catholic-Protestant union.

  § 154.1. =Calvinizing of Hesse-Cassel, A.D. 1605-1646.=--Philip
  the Magnanimous, died 1567, left to his eldest son, William IV.,
  one half of his territories, comprising Lower Hesse and
  Schmalcald, with residence at Cassel; to Louis IV. a fourth
  part, _viz._ Upper Hesse, with residence at Marburg; while
  his two youngest sons, Philip and George, were made counts,
  with their residence at Darmstadt. Philip died in 1583 and
  Louis in 1604, both childless; in consequence of which the
  greater part of Philip’s territory and the northern half
  of Upper Hesse with Marburg fell to Hesse-Cassel, and the
  southern half with Giessen to Hesse-Darmstadt.--Landgrave
  =William IV.= of Hesse-Cassel sympathised with his father’s
  union and levelling tendencies, and by means of general synods
  wrought eagerly to secure acceptance for them throughout Hesse
  by setting aside the _ubiquitous_ Christology (§ 141, 9) and
  the Formula of Concord, while firmly maintaining the _Corpus
  Doctrinæ Philippicum_ (§ 141, 10). The fourth and last of
  those general synods was held in 1582. Further procedure was
  meanwhile rendered impossible by the increase of opposition.
  For, on the one hand, Louis IV., under the influence of the
  acute and learned but contentious Ægidius Hunnius, professor of
  theology at Marburg, 1576-1592, became more and more decidedly
  a representative of exclusive Lutheranism; and, on the other
  hand, William’s Calvinizing schemes became from day to day more
  reckless. His son and successor =Maurice= went forward more
  energetically along the same lines as his father, especially
  after the death of his uncle Louis in 1604, who bequeathed to
  him the Marburg part of his territories. These had been given
  him on condition that he should hold by the confession and
  its apology as guaranteed by Charles V. in 1530. But in 1605
  he forbad the Marburg theologians to set forth the ubiquity
  theology; and when they protested, issued a formal prohibition
  of the dogma with its presuppositions and consequences, and
  insisted on the introduction of the Reformed numbering of the
  commandments of the decalogue, and the breaking of bread at
  the communion, and the removal of the remaining images from
  the churches (§ 144, 2). The theologians again protested, and
  were deprived of their offices. The result was the outbreak
  of a popular tumult at Marburg, which Maurice suppressed
  by calling in the military. When in several places in Upper
  and even in Lower Hesse opposition was persisted in, and the
  resisting clergy could not be won over either by persuasion
  and threatening or by persecution, Maurice in 1607 convened
  consultative diocesan synods at Cassel, Eschwege, Marburg,
  St. Goar, and soon after a general synod at Cassel, which,
  giving expression on all points to the will of the landgrave,
  drew up, besides a new hymnbook and catechism, a new “Christian
  and correct confession of faith,” by which they openly and
  decidedly declared their attachment to the Reformed church.
  Soon Hesse accepted these conclusions, but not the rest of
  the state, where the opposition of the nobles, clergy, and
  people, in spite of all attempts to enforce this acceptance
  by military power, imprisonment, and deposition, could not
  be altogether overcome.--Meanwhile George’s son and successor,
  =Louis V.=, 1596-1626, had been eagerly seeking to make capital
  of those troubles in his cousin’s domains in favour of the
  Darmstadt dynasty. He gave his protection to the professors
  expelled from Marburg in 1605, founded in 1607 a Lutheran
  university at Giessen, and made accusations against his cousin
  before the imperial supreme court, which in 1623, on the basis
  of the will of Louis IV. and the Religious Peace of Augsburg
  (§ 137, 5), declared the inheritance forfeited, and entrusted
  the electors of Cologne and Saxony with the execution of the
  sentence. These in conjunction with the troops of the league
  under Tilly attacked Upper and Lower Hesse; the Lutheran
  University of Giessen was transferred to Marburg, and Upper
  Hesse, after the banishment of the Reformed pastors, went
  over wholly to the Lutheran confession. Maurice, completely
  broken down, resigned in favour of his son =William V.=, who
  was obliged to make an agreement, according to which he made
  over Upper Hesse, Schmalcald, and Katzenelnbogen to =George II.=
  of Hesse-Darmstadt, the successor of Louis V. In consequence
  of his attachment to Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years’
  War the ban of the empire was pronounced upon William. He died
  in 1637. His widow, =Amalie Elizabeth=, undertook the government
  on behalf of her young son William VI., and in 1646, after
  repeated victories over George’s troops, made a new agreement
  with him, by which the territories taken away in 1627 were
  restored to Hesse-Cassel, under a guarantee, however, that
  the _status quo_ in matters of religion should be preserved,
  and that they should continue predominantly Lutheran. The
  university property was divided; Giessen obtained a Lutheran,
  Marburg a Reformed institution, and Lower Hesse received
  a moderately but yet essentially Reformed ecclesiastical
  constitution.

  § 154.2. =Calvinizing of Lippe, A.D. 1602.=--Count Simon VI.
  of Lippe, in his eventful life, was brought into close relations
  with the Reformed Netherlands and with Maurice of Hesse. His
  dominions were thoroughly Lutheran, but from A.D. 1602 Calvinism
  was gradually introduced under the patronage of the prince.
  The chief promoter of this innovation was Dreckmeyer, chosen
  general superintendent in A.D. 1599. At a visitation of churches
  in A.D. 1602, the festivals of Mary and the apostles, exorcism,
  the sign of the cross, the host, burning candles, and Luther’s
  catechism were rejected. Opposing pastors were deposed, and
  Calvinists put in their place. The city Lemgo stood out longest,
  and persevered in its adherence to the Lutheran confession
  during an eleven years’ struggle with its prince, from A.D. 1606
  to 1617. After the death of Simon VI., his successor, Simon VII.,
  allowed the city the free exercise of its Lutheran religion.

  § 154.3. =The Elector of Brandenburg becomes Calvinist,
  A.D. 1613.=--John Sigismund, A.D. 1608-1619, had promised his
  grandfather, John George, to maintain his connexion with the
  Lutheran church. But his own inclination, which was strengthened
  by his son’s marriage with a princess of the Palatinate, and
  his connexion with the Netherlands, made him forget his promise.
  Also his court preacher, the crypto-Calvinist Solomon Fink,
  contributed to the same result. On Christmas Day, A.D. 1613,
  he went over to the Reformed church. In order to share in the
  Augsburg Peace, he still retained the Augsburg Confession,
  naturally in the form known as the _Variata_. In A.D. 1624,
  he issued a Calvinist confession of his own, the _Confessio
  Sigismundi_ or _Marchica_, which sought to reconcile the
  universality of grace with the particularity of election
  (§ 168, 1). His people, however, did not follow the prince,
  not even his consort, Anne of Prussia. The court preacher,
  Gedicke, who would not retract his invectives against the
  prince and the Reformed confession, was obliged to flee from
  Berlin, as also another preacher, Mart. Willich. But when
  altars, images, and baptismal fonts were thrown out of the
  Berlin churches, a tumult arose, in A.D. 1615, which was
  not suppressed without bloodshed. In the following year the
  elector forbade the teaching of the _communicatio idiomatum_
  and the _ubiquitas corporis_ (§ 141, 9) at the University of
  Frankfort-on-the-Oder. In A.D. 1614, owing to the publication
  of a keen controversial treatise of Hutter (§ 159, 5) he
  forbade any of his subjects going to the University of
  Wittenberg, and soon afterwards struck out the Formula of
  Concord from the collection of the symbolical books of the
  Lutheran church of his realm.--Continuation, § 169, 1.

  § 154.4. =Union Attempts.=--Hoë von Hoënegg, of an old Austrian
  family, was from A.D. 1612 chief court preacher at Dresden,
  and as spiritual adviser of the elector, John George, on the
  outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, got Lutheran Saxony to
  take the side of the Catholic emperor against the Calvinist
  Frederick V. of the Palatinate, elected king of Bohemia.
  In A.D. 1621, he had proved that “on ninety-nine points the
  Calvinists were in accord with the Arians and the Turks.” At
  the Religious Conference of Leipzig of A.D. 1631 a compromise
  was accepted on both sides; but no practical result was secured.
  The Religious Conference of Cassel, in A.D. 1661, was a well
  meant endeavour by some Marburg Reformed theologians and
  Lutherans of the school of Calixt (§ 158, 2); but owing to
  the agitation caused by the Synergist controversy, no important
  advance toward union could be accomplished. The union efforts
  of Duke William of Brandenburg, A.D. 1640-1688, were opposed by
  Paul Gerhardt, preacher in the church of St. Nicholas in Berlin.
  On refusing to abstain from attacks on the Reformed doctrine
  he was deposed from his office. He was soon appointed pastor
  at Lübben in Lusatia, where he died in A.D. 1676.--The most
  zealous apostle of universal Protestant union, embracing even
  the Anglican church, was the Scottish Presbyterian John Durie.
  From A.D. 1628 when he officiated as pastor of an English colony
  at Elbing, till his death at Cassel in A.D. 1640, he devoted his
  energies unweariedly to this one task. He repeatedly travelled
  through Germany, Sweden, Denmark, England, and the Netherlands,
  formed acquaintance with clerical and civil authorities,
  had intercourse with them by word and letter, published
  a multitude of tracts on this subject; but at last could
  only look back with bitter complaints over the lost labours
  of a lifetime.[452]--Continuation, § 169, 1.


                § 155. ANGLICANISM AND PURITANISM.[453]

  On the outbreak of the English Revolution, occasioned by the
despotism of the first two Stuarts, crowds of Puritan exiles returned
from Holland and North America to their old home. They powerfully
strengthened their secret sympathisers in their successful struggle
against the episcopacy of the State church (§ 139, 6); but, breaking
up into rival parties, as Presbyterians and Independents (§ 143, 3, 4),
gave way to fanatical extravagances. The victorious party of
Independents also split into two divisions: the one, after the old
Dutch style, simple and strict believers in Scripture; the other,
first in Cromwell’s army, fanatical enthusiasts and visionary saints
(§ 161, 1). The Restoration, under the last two Stuarts, sought to
re-introduce Catholicism. It was William of Orange, by his Act of
Toleration of A.D. 1689, who first brought to a close the Reformation
struggles within the Anglican church. It guaranteed, indeed, all the
pre-eminent privileges of an establishment to the Anglican and Episcopal
church, but also granted toleration to dissenters, while refusing it to
Catholics.

  § 155.1. =The First Two Stuarts.=--=James I.=, dominated by
  the idea of the royal supremacy, and so estranged from the
  Presbyterianism in which he was brought up (§ 139, 11), as
  king of England, A.D. 1603-1625, attached himself to the
  national Episcopal church, persecuted the English Puritans,
  so that many of them again fled to Holland (§ 143, 4), and
  forced Episcopacy upon the Scotch. =Charles I.=, A.D. 1625-1649,
  went beyond his father in theory and practice, and thus incurred
  the hatred of his Protestant subjects. William Laud, from
  A.D. 1633 Archbishop of Canterbury, was the recklessly zealous
  promoter of his despotic ideas, representing the Episcopacy,
  by reason of its Divine institution and apostolic succession,
  as the foundation of the church and the pillar of an absolute
  monarchy. Laud used his position as primate to secure the
  introduction of his own theory into the public church services,
  among other things making the communion office an imitation
  as near as possible of the Romish mass. But when he attempted
  to force upon the Scotch such “Baal-worship” by the command of
  the king, they formed a league in A.D. 1638 for the defence of
  Presbyterianism, the so called Great Covenant, and emphasised
  their demand by sending an army into England. The king, who had
  ruled for eleven years without a Parliament, was obliged now
  to call together the representatives of the people. Scarcely
  had the Long Parliament, A.D. 1640-1653, in which the Puritan
  element was supreme, pacified the Scotch, than oil was anew
  poured on the flames by the Irish massacre of A.D. 1641
  (§ 153, 6). The Lower House, in spite of the persistent
  opposition of the court, resolved on excluding the bishops
  from the Upper House and formally abolishing Episcopacy;
  and in A.D. 1643, summoned the Westminster Assembly to
  remodel the organization of the English church, at which
  Scotch representatives were to have a seat. After long
  and violent debates with an Independent minority, till
  A.D. 1648, the Assembly drew up a Presbyterian constitution
  with a Puritan service, and in the Westminster Confession
  a strictly Calvinistic creed. But only in Scotland were these
  decisions heartily accepted. In England, notwithstanding their
  confirmation by the Parliament, they received only partial and
  occasional acceptance, owing to the prevalence of Independent
  opinions among the people.--Since A.D. 1642, the tension between
  court and Parliament had brought about the Civil War between
  Cavaliers and Roundheads. In A.D. 1645, the royal troops were
  cut to pieces at Naseby by the parliamentary army under Fairfax
  and Cromwell. The king fled to the Scotch, by whom he was
  surrendered to the English Parliament in A.D. 1647. But when
  now the fanatical Independents, who formed a majority in the
  army, began to terrorise the Parliament, it opened negotiations
  for peace with the king. He was now ready to make almost
  any sacrifice, only on religious and conscientious grounds he
  could not agree to the unconditional abandonment of Episcopacy.
  Even the Scotch, whose Presbyterianism was now threatened by
  the Independents, as before it had been by the Episcopalians,
  longed for the restoration of royalty, and to aid in this
  sent an army into England in A.D. 1648. But they were defeated
  by Cromwell, who then dismissed the Parliament and had all
  its Presbyterian members either imprisoned or driven into
  retirement. The Independent remnant, known as the Rump
  Parliament, A.D. 1648-1653, tried the king for high treason
  and sentenced him to death. On January 30th, A.D. 1649, he
  mounted the scaffold, on which Archbishop Laud had preceded
  him in A.D. 1645, and fell under the executioner’s axe.[454]

  § 155.2. =The Commonwealth and the Protector.=--Ireland had
  never yet atoned for its crime of A.D. 1641 (§ 153, 6), and
  as it refused to acknowledge the Commonwealth, Cromwell took
  terrible revenge in A.D. 1649. In A.D. 1650 at Dunbar, and in
  A.D. 1651 at Worcester, he completely destroyed the army of the
  Scots, who had crowned Charles II., son of the executed king,
  drove out, in April A.D. 1653, the Rump of the Long Parliament,
  which had come to regard itself as a permanent institution,
  and in July opened, with a powerful speech, two hours in length,
  on God’s ways and judgments, the Short or Barebones’ Parliament,
  composed of “pious and God-fearing men” selected by himself.
  In this new Parliament which, with prayer and psalm-singing,
  wrought hard at the re-organization of the executive, the
  bench, and the church, the two parties of Independents were
  represented, the fanatical enthusiasts indeed predominating,
  and so victorious in all matters of debate. To this party
  Cromwell himself belonged. His attachment to it, however,
  was considerably cooled in consequence of the excesses of
  the Levellers (§ 161, 2), and the fantastic policy of the
  parliamentarian Saints disgusted him more and more. When
  therefore, on December 12th, A.D. 1653, after five months’
  fruitless opposition to the radical demands of the extravagant
  majority, all the most moderate members of the Parliament
  had resigned their seats and returned their mandates into
  Cromwell’s hands, he burst in upon the psalm-singing remnant
  with his soldiers, and entered upon his life-long office of
  the Protector of the Commonwealth with a new constitution. He
  proclaimed toleration of all religious sects, Catholics only
  being excepted on political grounds (§ 153, 6), giving equal
  rights to Presbyterians, and offering no hindrance to the
  revival of Episcopacy. He yet remained firmly attached to
  his early convictions. He believed in a kingdom of the saints
  embracing the whole earth, and looked on England as destined
  for the protection and spread of Protestantism. Zürich greeted
  him as the great Protestant champion, and he showed himself
  in this _rôle_ in the valleys of Piedmont (§ 153, 5), in
  France, in Poland, and in Silesia. He joined with all Protestant
  governments into a league, offensive and defensive, against
  fanatical attempts of Papists to recover their lost ground. When
  Spain and France sued for his alliance, he made it a condition
  with the former that, besides allowing free trade with the West
  Indies, it should abolish the Inquisition; and of France he
  required an assurance that the rights of Huguenots should be
  respected. And when in Germany a new election of emperor was
  to take place, he urged the great electors that they should by
  no means allow the imperial throne to continue with the Catholic
  house of Austria. Meanwhile his path at home was a thorny one.
  He was obliged to suppress fifteen open rebellions during five
  years of his reign, countless secret plots threatened his life
  every day, and his bitterest foes were his former comrades in
  the camp of the the saints. After refusing the crown offered
  him in A.D. 1657, without being able thereby to quell the
  discontents of parties, he died on September 3rd, A.D. 1658,
  the anniversary of his glorious victories of Dunbar and
  Worcester.[455]

  § 155.3. =The Restoration and the Act of Toleration.=--The
  Restoration of royalty under =Charles II.=, A.D. 1660-1685,
  began with the reinstating of the Episcopal church in all the
  privileges granted to it under Elizabeth. The Corporation Act
  of December, A.D. 1661, was the first of a series of enactments
  for this purpose. It required of all magistrates and civil
  officers that they should take an oath acknowledging the royal
  supremacy and communicate in the Episcopal church. The Act
  of Uniformity of May, A.D. 1662, was still more oppressive.
  It prohibited any clergyman entering the English pulpit or
  discharging any ministerial function, unless he had been
  ordained by a bishop, had signed the Thirty-nine Articles,
  and undertook to conduct worship exactly in accordance with
  the newly revised Book of Common Prayer. More than 2,000 Puritan
  ministers, who could not conscientiously submit to those terms,
  were driven out of their churches. Then in June, A.D. 1664,
  the Conventicle Act was renewed, enforcing attendance at the
  Episcopal church, and threatening with imprisonment or exile
  all found in any private religious meeting of more than five
  persons. In the following year the Five Mile Act inflicted
  heavy fines on all nonconformist ministers who should approach
  within five miles of their former congregation or indeed of any
  city. All these laws, although primarily directed against all
  Protestant dissenters, told equally against the Catholics, whom
  the king’s Catholic sympathies would willingly have spared.
  When now his league with Catholic France against the Protestant
  Netherlands made it necessary for him to appease his Protestant
  subjects, he hoped to accomplish this and save the Catholics
  by his “Declaration of Indulgence” of A.D. 1672, issued with
  the consent of Parliament, which suspended all penal laws
  hitherto in force against dissenters. But the Protestant
  nonconformists saw through this scheme, and the Parliament
  of A.D. 1673 passed the anti-Catholic Test Act (§ 153, 6).
  Equally vain were all later attempts to secure greater liberties
  and privileges to the Catholics. They only served to develop
  the powers of Parliament and to bring the Episcopalians and
  nonconformists more closely together. After spending his
  whole life oscillating between frivolous unbelief and Catholic
  superstition, Charles II., on his death-bed, formally went over
  to the Romish church, and had the communion and extreme unction
  administered by a Catholic priest. His brother and successor
  =James II.=, A.D. 1685-1688, who was from A.D. 1672 an avowed
  Catholic, sent a declaration of obedience to Rome, received
  a papal nuncio in London, and in the exercise of despotic power
  issued, in A.D. 1687, a “Declaration of Freedom of Conscience,”
  which, under the fair colour of universal toleration and by the
  setting aside of the test oath, enabled him to fill all civil
  and military offices with Catholics. This act proved equally
  oppressive to the Episcopalians and to Protestant dissenters.
  This intrigue cost him his throne. He had, as he himself
  said, staked three kingdoms on a mass, and lost all the three.
  =William III.= of Orange, A.D. 1689-1702, grandson of Charles I.
  and son-in-law of James II., gave a final decision to the rights
  of the national Episcopal church and the position of dissenters
  in the =Act of Toleration= of A.D. 1689, which he passed with
  consent of the Parliament. All penal laws against the latter
  were abrogated, and religious liberty was extended to all with
  the exception of Catholics and Socinians. The retention of the
  Corporation and Test Acts, however, still excluded them from the
  exercise of all political rights. They were also still obliged
  to pay tithes and other church dues to the Episcopal clergy
  of their dioceses, and their marriages and baptisms had to be
  administered in the parish churches. Their ministers were also
  obliged to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, with reservation
  of those points opposed to their principles. The Act of Union
  of A.D. 1707, passed under Queen Anne, a daughter of James II.,
  which united England and Scotland into the one kingdom of Great
  Britain, gave legitimate sanction to a separate ecclesiastical
  establishment for each country. In Scotland the Presbyterian
  churches continued the established church, while the Episcopal
  was tolerated as a dissenting body. Congregationalism, however,
  has been practically limited to England and North
  America.[456]--Continuation, § 202, 5.




                     II. The Roman Catholic Church.


           § 156. THE PAPACY, MONKERY, AND FOREIGN MISSIONS.

  Notwithstanding the regeneration of papal Catholicism since the
middle of the sixteenth century, Hildebrand’s politico-theocratic
ideal was not realized. Even Catholic princes would not be dictated
to on political matters by the vicar of Christ. The most powerful of
them, France, Austria, and Spain, during the sixteenth century, and
subsequently also Portugal, had succeeded in the claim to the right of
excluding objectionable candidates in papal elections. Ban and interdict
had lost their power. The popes, however, still clung to the idea after
they had been obliged to surrender the reality, and issued from time
to time powerless protestations against disagreeable facts of history.
Several new monkish orders were instituted during this century, mostly
for teaching the young and tending the sick, but some also expressly
for the promoting of theological science. Of all the orders, new and
old, the Jesuits were by far the most powerful. They were regarded with
jealousy and suspicion by the other orders. In respect of doctrine the
Dominicans were as far removed from them as possible within the limits
of the Tridentine Creed. But notwithstanding any such mutual jealousies,
they were all animated by one yearning desire to oppose, restrict, and,
where that was possible, to uproot Protestantism. With similar zeal
they devoted themselves with wonderful success to the work of foreign
missions.

  § 156.1. =The Papacy.=--=Paul V.=, A.D. 1605-1621,
  equally energetic in his civil and in his ecclesiastical
  policy, in a struggle with Venice, was obliged to behold
  the powerlessness of the papal interdict. His successor,
  =Gregory XV.=, A.D. 1621-1623, founded the Propaganda,
  prescribed a secret scrutiny in papal elections, and canonized
  Loyola, Xavier, and Neri. He enriched the Vatican Library
  by the addition of the valuable treasures of the Heidelberg
  Library, which Maximilian I. of Bavaria sent him on his
  conquest of the Palatinate. =Urban VIII.=, A.D. 1623-1644,
  increased the Propaganda, improved the Roman “Breviary”
  (§ 56, 2), condemned Jansen’s _Augustinus_ (§ 156, 5), and
  compelled Galileo to recant. But on the other hand, through
  his onesided ecclesiastical policy he was led into sacrificing
  the interests of the imperial house of Austria. Not only did
  he fail to give support to the emperor, but quite openly hailed
  Gustavus Adolphus, the saviour of German Protestantism, as the
  God-sent saviour from the Spanish-Austrian tyranny. For this he
  was pronounced a heretic at the imperial court, and threatened
  with a second edition of the sack of Rome (§ 132, 2). At the
  same time his soul was so filled with fanatical hatred against
  Protestantism, that in a letter of 1631 he congratulated the
  Emperor Ferdinand II. on the destruction of Magdeburg as an
  act most pleasing to heaven and reflecting the highest credit
  upon Germany, and expressed the hope that the glory of so great
  a victory should not be restricted to the ruins of a single
  city. On receiving the news of the death of Gustavus Adolphus
  in 1632 he broke out into loud jubilation, saying that now “the
  serpent was slain which with its poison had sought to destroy
  the whole world.” His successor, =Innocent X.=, A.D. 1644-1655,
  though vigorously protesting against the Peace of Westphalia
  (§ 153, 2), was, owing to his abject subserviency to a woman,
  his own sister-in-law, reproached with the title of a new
  _Johanna Papissa_. =Alexander VII.=, A.D. 1655-1667, had the
  expensive guardianship of his godchild Christina of Sweden
  (§ 153, 1), and fanned into a flame the spark kindled by his
  predecessor in the Jansenist controversy (§ 156, 5), so that his
  successor, =Clement IX.=, A.D. 1667-1670, could only gradually
  extinguish it. =Clement X.=, A.D. 1670-1676, by his preference
  for Spain roused the French king Louis XIV., who avenged himself
  by various encroachments on the ecclesiastical administration
  in his dominions. =Innocent XI.=, A.D. 1676-1689, was a powerful
  pope, zealously promoting the weal of the church and the Papal
  States by introducing discipline among the clergy and attacking
  the immorality that prevailed among all classes of society.
  He unhesitatingly condemned sixty-five propositions from the
  lax Jesuit code of morals. Against the arrogant ambassador
  of Louis XIV. he energetically maintained his sovereign
  rights in his own domains, while he unreservedly refused
  the claims of the French clergy, urged by the king on the
  ground of the exceptional constitution of the Gallican church.
  =Alexander VIII.=, A.D. 1689-1691, continued the fight against
  Gallicanism, and condemned the Jesuit distinction between
  theological and philosophical sin (§ 149, 10). =Innocent XII.=,
  A.D. 1691-1700, could boast of having secured the complete
  subjugation of the Gallican clergy after a hard struggle. He
  too wrought earnestly for the reform of abuses in the curia.
  Specially creditable to him is the stringent bull “_Romanum
  decet pontificem_” against nepotism, which extirpated the
  evil disease, so that it was never again openly practised as
  an acknowledged right.--Continuation, § 165, 1.

  § 156.2. =The Jesuits and the Republic of Venice.=--Venice was
  one of the first of the Italian cities to receive the Jesuits
  with open arms, A.D. 1530. But the influence obtained by them
  over public affairs through school and confessional, and their
  vast wealth accumulated from bequests and donations, led the
  government, in A.D. 1605, to forbid their receiving legacies
  or erecting new cloisters. In vain did Paul V. remonstrate.
  He then put Venice under an interdict. The Jesuits sought to
  excite the people against the government, and for this were
  banished in A.D. 1606. The pious and learned historian of the
  Council of Trent and adviser of the State, Paul Sarpi, proved
  a vigorous supporter of civil rights against the assumptions
  of the curia and the Jesuits. When in A.D. 1607 he refused a
  citation of Inquisition, he was dangerously wounded by three
  dagger stabs, inflicted by hired bandits, in whose stilettos
  he recognised the _stilum curiæ_. He died in A.D. 1623.
  After a ten months’ vain endeavour to enforce the interdict,
  the pope at last, through French mediation, concluded a peace
  with the republic, without, however, being able to obtain either
  the abolition of the objectionable ecclesiastico-political laws
  or permission for the return of the Jesuits. Only after the
  republic had been weakened through the unfortunate Turkish war
  of A.D. 1645 was it found willing to submit. Even in A.D. 1653
  it refused the offer of 150,000 ducats from the Jesuit general
  for the Turkish campaign; but when Alexander VII. suppressed
  several rich cloisters, their revenues were thankfully accepted
  for this purpose. In A.D. 1657, on the pope’s promise of further
  pecuniary aid, the decree of banishment was withdrawn. The
  Jesuit fathers now returned in crowds, and soon regained much
  of their former influence and wealth. No pope has ever since
  issued an interdict against any country.[457]

  § 156.3. =The Gallican Liberties.=--Although =Louis XIV.=
  of France, A.D. 1643-1715, as a good Catholic king, powerfully
  supported the claims of papal dogmatics against the Jansenists
  (§§ 156, 5; 165, 7), he was by no means unfaithful to the
  traditional ecclesiastical polity of his house (§§ 96, 21;
  110, 1, 9, 13, 14), and was often irritated to the utmost
  pitch by the pope’s opposition to his political interests.
  He rigorously insisted upon the old customary right of
  the Crown to the income of certain vacant ecclesiastical
  offices, the _jus regaliæ_, and extended it to all bishoprics,
  burdened church revenues with military pensions, confiscated
  ecclesiastical property, etc. Innocent XI. energetically
  protested against such exactions. The king then had an assembly
  of the French called together in Paris on March 19th, A.D. 1682,
  which issued the famous =Four Propositions of the Gallican
  Clergy=, drawn up by Bishop Bossuet of Meaux. These set forth
  the fundamental rights of the French church:

    1. In secular affairs the pope has no jurisdiction over
       princes and kings, and cannot release their subjects
       from their allegiance;

    2. The spiritual power of the pope is subject to the higher
       authority of the general councils;

    3. For France it is further limited by the old French
       ecclesiastical laws; and,

    4. Even in matters of faith the judgment of the pope without
       the approval of a general assembly of the church is not
       unalterable.

  Innocent consequently refused to institute any of the newly
  appointed bishops. He was not even appeased by the Revocation
  of the Edict of Nantes in A.D. 1685. He was pleased indeed, and
  praised the deed, and celebrated it by a _Te Deum_, but objected
  to the violent measures for the conversion of Protestants as
  contrary to the teaching of Christ. Then also there arose a
  keen struggle against the mischievous extension of the right
  of asylum on the part of foreign embassies at Rome. On the
  pope’s representation all the powers but France agreed to
  a restriction of the custom. The pope tolerated the nuisance
  till the death of the French ambassador in A.D. 1687, but
  then insisted on its abolition under pain of the ban. In
  consequence of this Louis sent his new ambassador into Rome
  with two companies of cavaliers, threw the papal nuntio in
  France into prison, and laid siege to the papal state of
  Avignon (§ 110, 4). But Innocent was not thus to be terrorized,
  and the French ambassador was obliged, after eighteen months’
  vain demonstrations, to quit Rome. Alexander VIII. repeated the
  condemnation of the Four Propositions, and Innocent XIII. also
  stood firm. The French episcopate, on the pope’s persistent
  refusal to install bishops nominated by the king, was at last
  constrained to submit. “Lying at the feet of his holiness,”
  the bishops declared that everything concluded in that assembly
  was null and void; and even Louis XIV., under the influence of
  Madame de Maintenon (§ 157, 3), wrote to the pope in A.D. 1693,
  saying that he recalled the order that the Four Propositions
  should be taught in all the schools. There still, however,
  survived among the French clergy a firm conviction of the
  Gallican Liberties, and the _droit de régale_ continued to
  have the force of law.[458]--Continuation, § 197, 1.

  § 156.4. =Galileo and the Inquisition.=--Galileo Galilei,
  professor of mathematics at Pisa and Padua, who died in
  A.D. 1642, among his many distinguished services to the
  physical, mathematical, and astronomical sciences, has the
  honour of being the pioneer champion of the Copernican system.
  On this account he was charged by the monks with contradicting
  Scripture. In A.D. 1616 Paul V., through Cardinal Bellarmine,
  threatened him with the Inquisition and prison unless he agreed
  to cease from vindicating and lecturing upon his heretical
  doctrine. He gave the required promise. But in A.D. 1632
  he published a dialogue, in which three friends discussed
  the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, without any formal
  conclusion, but giving overwhelming reasons in favour of the
  latter. Urban VIII., in A.D. 1636, called upon the Inquisition
  to institute a process against him. He was forced to recant,
  was condemned to prison for an indefinite period, but was soon
  liberated through powerful influence. How far the old man of
  seventy-two years of age was compelled by torture to retract
  is still a matter of controversy. It is, however, quite evident
  that it was forced from him by threats. But that Galileo went
  out after his recantation, gnashing his teeth and stamping
  his feet, muttering, “Nevertheless it moves!” is a legend
  of a romancing age. This, however, is the fact, that the
  Congregation of the Index declared the Copernican theory to
  be false, irrational, and directly contrary to Scripture; and
  that even in A.D. 1660 Alexander VII., with apostolic authority,
  formally confirmed this decree and pronounced it _ex cathedrâ_
  (§ 149, 4) irrevocable. It was only in A.D. 1822 that the curia
  set it aside, and in a new edition of the Index (§ 149, 14)
  in A.D. 1835 omitted the works of Galileo as well as those
  of Copernicus.[459]

  § 156.5. =The Controversy on the Immaculate Conception=
  (§ 112, 4) received a new impulse from the nun =Mary of Jesus,
  died 1665, of Agreda=, in Old Castile, superior of the cloister
  there of the Immaculate Conception, writer of the “Mystical
  City of God.” This book professed to give an inspired account
  of the life of the Virgin, full of the strangest absurdities
  about the immaculate conception. The Sorbonne pronounced it
  offensive and silly; the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and
  Rome forbad the reading of it; but the Franciscans defended
  it as a divine revelation. A violent controversy ensued, which
  Alexander VII. silenced in A.D. 1661 by expressing approval
  of the doctrine of the immaculate conception set forth in the
  book.--Continuation, § 185, 2.

  § 156.6. =The Devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.=--The
  nun =Margaret Alacoque=, in the Burgundian cloister of _Paray
  le Monial_, born A.D. 1647, recovering from a painful illness
  when but three years old, vowed to the mother of God, who
  frequently appeared to her, perpetual chastity, and in gratitude
  for her recovery adopted the name of Mary, and when grown up
  resisted temptations by inflicting on herself the severest
  discipline, such as long fasts, sharp flagellations, lying
  on thorns, etc. Visions of the Virgin no longer satisfied her.
  She longed to lavish her affections on the Redeemer himself,
  which she expressed in the most extravagant terms. She took the
  Jesuit =La Colombière= as her spiritual adviser in A.D. 1675.
  In a new vision she beheld the side of her Beloved opened,
  and saw his heart glowing like a sun, into which her own was
  absorbed. Down to her death in A.D. 1690 she felt the most
  violent burning pains in her side. In a second vision she saw
  her Beloved’s heart burning like a furnace, into which were
  taken her own heart and that of her spiritual adviser. In a
  third vision he enjoined the observance of a special “Devotion
  of the Sacred Heart” by all Christendom on the Friday after the
  octave of the _Corpus Christi_ festival and on the first Friday
  of every month. La Colombière, being made director, put forth
  every effort to get this celebration introduced throughout the
  church, and on his death the idea was taken up by the whole
  Jesuit order. Their efforts, however, for fully a century proved
  unavailing. At this point, too, their most bitter opponents were
  the Dominicans. But even without papal authority the Jesuits
  so far succeeded in introducing the absurdities of this cult,
  and giving expression to it in word and by images, that by the
  beginning of the eighteenth century there were more than 300
  male and female societies engaged in this devotion, and at last,
  in A.D. 1765, =Clement XIII.=, the great friend of the Jesuits,
  gave formal sanction to this special celebration.--Continuation,
  § 188, 12.

  § 156.7. =New Congregations and Orders.=

    1. At the head of the new orders of this century stands
       the =Benedictine Congregation of St. Banne= at Verdun,
       founded by Didier de la Cour. Elected Abbot of St. Banne
       in A.D. 1596, he gave his whole strength to the reforming
       of this cloister, which had fallen into luxurious and
       immoral habits. By a papal bull of A.D. 1604 all cloisters
       combining with St. Banne into a congregation were endowed
       with rich privileges. Gradually all the Benedictine
       monasteries of Lorraine and Alsace joined the union.
       Didier’s reforms were mostly in the direction of moral
       discipline and asceticism; but in the new congregation
       scholarship was represented by Calmet, Ceillier, etc., and
       many gave themselves to work as teachers in the schools.

    2. Much more important for the promotion of theological
       science, especially for patristics and church history,
       was another Benedictine congregation founded in France
       in A.D. 1618 by Laurence Bernard, that of =St. Maur=,
       named after a disciple of St. Benedict. The members of
       this order devoted themselves exclusively to science and
       literary pursuits. To them belonged the distinguished
       names, Mabillon, Montfaucon, Reinart, Martène, D’Achery,
       Le Nourry, Durand, Surius, etc. They showed unwearied
       diligence in research and a noble liberality of judgment.
       The editions of the most celebrated Fathers issued by
       them are the best of the kind, and this may also be said
       of the great historical collections which we owe to their
       diligence.

    3. =The Fathers of the Oratory of Jesus= are an imitation
       of the Priests of the Oratory founded by Philip Neri
       (§ 149, 7). Peter of Barylla, son of a member of parliament,
       founded it in A.D. 1611 by building an oratory at Paris.
       He was more of a mystic than of a scholar, but his order
       sent out many distinguished and brilliant theologians;
       _e.g._ Malebranche, Morinus, Thomassinus, Rich, Simon,
       Houbigant.

    4. =The Piarists=, _Patres scholarum piarum_, were founded
       in Rome in A.D. 1607 by the Spaniard Joseph Calasanza. The
       order adopted as a fourth vow the obligation of gratuitous
       tuition. They were hated by the Obscurantist Jesuits for
       their successful labours for the improvement of Catholic
       education, especially in Poland and Austria, and also
       because they objected to all participation in political
       schemes.

    5. =The Order of the Visitation of Mary=, or _Salesian Nuns_,
       instituted in A.D. 1610 by the mystic Francis de Sales
       and Francisca Chantal (§ 157, 1). They visited the poor
       and sick in imitation of Elizabeth’s visit to the Virgin
       (Luke i. 39); but the papal rescript of A.D. 1618 gave
       prominence to the education of children.

  § 156.8.

    6. =The Priests of the Missions and Sisters of Charity= were
       both founded by Vincent de Paul. Born of poor parents,
       he was, after completing his education, captured by
       pirates, and as a slave converted his renegade master
       to Christianity. As domestic chaplain to the noble family
       of Gondy he was characterized in a remarkable degree
       for unassuming humility, and he wrought earnestly and
       successfully as a home missionary. In A.D. 1618 he founded
       the order of Sisters of Mercy, who became devoted nurses
       of the sick throughout all France, and in A.D. 1627 that
       of the Priests of the Missions, or Lazarists, who travelled
       the country attending to the spiritual and bodily wants
       of men. After the death of the Countess Gondy in A.D. 1625,
       he placed at the head of the Sisters of Mercy the widow
       Louise le Gras, distinguished equally for qualities of head
       and heart. Vincent died in A.D. 1660, and was subsequently
       canonized.[460]

    7. =The Trappists=, founded by De Rancé, a distinguished canon,
       who in A.D. 1664 passed from the extreme of worldliness
       to the extreme of fanatical asceticism. The order got its
       name from the Cistercian abbey La Trappe in Normandy, of
       which Rancé was commendatory abbot. Amid many difficulties
       he succeeded, in A.D. 1665, in thoroughly reforming the
       wild monks, who were called “the bandits of La Trappe.”
       His rule enjoined on the monks perpetual silence, only
       broken in public prayer and singing and in uttering
       the greeting as they met, _Memento mori_. Their bed
       was a hard board with some straw; their only food was
       bread and water, roots, herbs, some fruit and vegetables,
       without butter, fat, or oil. Study was forbidden, and they
       occupied themselves with hard field labour. Their clothing
       was a dark-brown cloak worn on the naked body, with wooden
       shoes. Very few cloisters besides La Trappe submitted to
       such severities (§ 185, 2).

    8. =The English Nuns=, founded at St. Omer, in France, by
       Mary Ward, the daughter of an English Catholic nobleman,
       for the education of girls. Originally composed of English
       maidens, it was afterwards enlarged by receiving those of
       other nationalities, with establishments in Germany, Italy,
       and the Netherlands. It did not obtain papal confirmation,
       and in A.D. 1630 Urban VIII., giving heed to the calumnies
       of enemies, formally dissolved it on account of arrogance,
       insubordination, and heresy. All its institutions and
       schools were then closed, while Mary herself was imprisoned
       and given over to the Inquisition in Rome. Urban was
       soon convinced of her innocence and set her free. Her
       scattered nuns were now collected again, but succeeded only
       in A.D. 1703 in obtaining confirmation from Clement XI.
       Their chief tasks were the education of youth and care
       of the sick. They were arranged in three classes, according
       to their rank in life, and were bound by their vows for
       a year or at the most three years, after which they might
       return to the world and marry. Their chief centre was
       Bavaria with the mother cloister in Munich.--Continuation,
       § 165, 2.

  § 156.9. =The Propaganda.=--Gregory XV. gave unity and strength
  to the efforts for conversion of heretics and heathens by
  instituting, in A.D. 1662, the _Congregatio de Propaganda
  Fide_. Urban VIII. in A.D. 1627 attached to it a missionary
  training school, recruited as far as possible from natives of
  the respective countries, like Loyola’s _Collegium Germanicum_
  founded in A.D. 1552 (§ 151, 1). He was thus able every Epiphany
  to astonish Romans and foreigners by what seemed a repetition of
  the pentecostal miracle of tongues. At this institute training
  in all languages was given, and breviaries, mass and devotional
  books, and handbooks were printed for the use of the missions.
  It was also the centre from which all missionary enterprises
  originated.--Continuation, § 204, 2.

  § 156.10. =Foreign Missions.=--Even during this century the
  Jesuits excelled all others in missionary zeal. In A.D. 1608
  they sent out from Madrid mission colonies among the wandering
  Indians of South America, and no Spaniard could settle there
  without their permission. The most thoroughly organized of
  these was that of =Paraguay=, in which, according to their
  own reports, over 100,000 converted savages lived happily
  and contented under the mild, patriarchal rule of the Jesuits
  for 140 years, A.D. 1610-1750; but according to another well
  informed, though perhaps not altogether impartial, account,
  that of Ibagnez, a member of the mission, expelled for advising
  submission to the decree depriving it of political independence,
  the paternal government was flavoured by a liberal dose of
  slave-driver despotism. It was at least an undoubted fact,
  notwithstanding the boasted patriarchal idyllic character of
  the Jesuit state, that the order amassed great wealth from the
  proceeds of the industry of their _protégés_.--Continuation,
  § 165, 3.

  § 156.11. =In the East Indies= (§ 150, 1) the Jesuits had
  uninterrupted success. In A.D. 1606, in order to make way
  among the Brahmans, the Jesuit Rob. Nobili assumed their
  dress, avoided all contact with even the converts of low
  caste, giving them the communion elements not directly, but
  by an instrument, or laying them down for them outside the
  door, and as a Christian Brahman made a considerable impression
  upon the most exclusive classes.--In =Japan= the mission
  prospects were dark (§ 150, 2). Mendicants and Jesuits opposed
  and mutually excommunicated one another. The Catholic Spaniards
  and Portuguese were at feud among themselves, and only agreed
  in intriguing against Dutch and English Protestants. When the
  land was opened to foreign trade, it became the gathering point
  of the moral scum of all European countries, and the traffic in
  Japanese slaves, especially by the Portuguese, brought discredit
  on the Christian cause. The idea gained ground that the efforts
  at Christianization were but a prelude to conquest by the
  Spaniards and Portuguese. In the new organization of the country
  by the _shiogun_ Ijejasu all governors were to vow hostility to
  Christians and foreigners. In A.D. 1606 he forbad the observance
  of the Christian religion anywhere in the land. When the
  conspiracy of a Christian daimio was discovered, he caused,
  in A.D. 1614, whole shiploads of Jesuits, mendicants, and
  native priests to be sent out of the country. But as many
  of the banished returned, death was threatened against all
  who might be found, and in A.D. 1624 all foreigners, with the
  exception of Chinese and Dutch, were rigorously driven out.
  And now a bloody persecution of native Christians began. Many
  thousands fled to China and the neighbouring islands; crowds
  of those remaining were buried alive or burnt on piles made up
  of the wood of Christian crosses. The victims displayed a martyr
  spirit like those of the early days. Those who escaped organized
  in A.D. 1637 an armed resistance, and held the fortress of Arima
  in face of the _shiogun’s_ army sent against them. After a three
  months’ siege the fortress was conquered by the help of Dutch
  cannon; 37,000 were massacred in the fort, and the rest were
  hurled down from high rocks. The most severe enactments were
  passed against Christians, and the edicts filled with fearful
  curses against “the wicked sect” and “the vile God” of the
  Christians were posted on all the bridges, street corners, and
  squares. Christianity now seemed to be completely stamped out.
  The recollection of this work, however, was still retained down
  to the nineteenth century. For when French missionaries went
  in A.D. 1860 to Nagasaki, they found to their surprise in the
  villages around thousands (?) who greeted them joyfully as the
  successors of the first Christian missionaries.

  § 156.12. =In China=, after Ricci’s death (§ 150, 1), the
  success of the mission continued uninterrupted. In A.D. 1628
  a German Jesuit, Adam Schell, went out from Cologne, who gained
  great fame at court for his mathematical skill. Louis XIV.
  founded at Paris a missionary college, which sent out Jesuits
  thoroughly trained in mathematics. But Dominicans and Franciscans
  over and over again complained to Rome of the Jesuits. They
  never allowed missionaries of other orders to come near their
  own establishments, and actually drove them away from places
  where they had begun to work. They even opposed priests,
  bishops, and vicars-apostolic sent by the Propaganda, declared
  their papal briefs forgeries, forbad their congregations to have
  any intercourse with those “heretics,” and under suspicion of
  Jansenism brought them before the Inquisition of Goa. Clement X.
  issued a firm-toned bull against such proceedings; but the
  Jesuits gave no heed to it, and attended only to their own
  general. The papal condemnation a century later of the Jesuits’
  accommodation scheme, and their permission of heathen rites
  and beliefs to the new converts, complained against by the
  Dominicans, was equally fruitless. In A.D. 1645 Innocent X.
  forbad this practice on pain of excommunication; but still
  they continued it till the decree was modified by Alexander VII.
  in A.D. 1656. After persistent complaints by the Dominicans,
  Innocent XII. appointed a new congregation in Rome to
  investigate the question, but their deliberations yielded no
  result for ten years. At last Clement XI. confirmed the first
  decree of Innocent X., condemned anew the so called Chinese
  rites, and sent the legate Thomas of Tournon in A.D. 1703 to
  enforce his decision. Tournon, received at first by the emperor
  at Pekin with great consideration, fell into disfavour through
  Jesuit intrigues, was banished from the capital, and returned
  to Nankin. But as he continued his efforts from this point,
  and an attempt to poison him failed in A.D. 1707, he went to
  Macao, where he was put in prison by the Portuguese, in which
  he died in A.D. 1710. Clement XI., in A.D. 1715, issued his
  decree against the Chinese rites in a yet severer form; but
  the Franciscan who proclaimed the papal bull was put in prison
  as an offender against the laws of the country, and, after
  being maltreated for seventeen months, was banished. So proudly
  confident had the Jesuits become, that in A.D. 1720 they treated
  with scorn and contempt the papal legate Mezzabarba, Patriarch
  of Alexandria, who tried by certain concessions to move them
  to submit. A more severe decree of Clement XII. of A.D. 1735
  was scoffed at by being proclaimed only in the Latin original.
  Benedict XIV. succeeded for the first time, in A.D. 1742, in
  breaking down their opposition, after the charges had been
  renewed by the Capuchin Norbert. All the Jesuit missionaries
  were now obliged by oath to exclude all pagan customs and rites;
  but with this all the glory and wonderful success of their
  Asiatic missions came to an end.--Continuation, § 165, 3.

  § 156.13. =Trade and Industry of the Jesuits.=--As Christian
  missions generally deserve credit, not only for introducing
  civilization and culture along with the preaching of the gospel
  into far distant heathen lands, but also for having greatly
  promoted the knowledge of countries, peoples, and languages
  among their fellow countrymen at home, opening up new fields
  for colonization and trade, these ends were also served by
  the world-wide missionary enterprises of the Jesuits, and
  were in perfect accordance with the character and intention of
  this order, which aimed at universal dominion. In carrying out
  these schemes the Jesuits abandoned the ascetical principles
  of their founder and their vow of poverty, amassing enormous
  wealth by securing in many parts a practical monopoly of
  trade. Their fifth general, Aquaviva (§ 149, 8), secured from
  Gregory XIII., avowedly in favour of the mission, exclusive
  right to trade with both Indies. They soon erected great
  factories in all parts of the world, and had ships laden
  with valuable merchandise on all seas. They had mines, farms,
  sugar plantations, apothecary shops, bakeries, etc., founded
  banks, sold relics, miracle-working amulets, rosaries, healing
  Ignatius- and Xavier-water (§ 149, 11), etc., and in successful
  legacy-hunting excelled all other orders. Urban VIII. and
  Clement XI. issued severe bulls against such abuses, but only
  succeeded in restricting them to some extent.--Continuation,
  § 165, 9.

  § 156.14. =An Apostate to Judaism.=--Gabriel, or as he was
  called after circumcision, =Uriel Acosta=, was sprung from
  a noble Portuguese family, originally Jewish. Doubting
  Christianity in consequence of the traffic in indulgences,
  he at last repudiated the New Testament in favour of the Old.
  He refused rich ecclesiastical appointments, fled to Amsterdam,
  and there formally went over to Judaism. Instead of the biblical
  Mosaism, however, he was disappointed to find only Pharisaic
  pride and Talmudic traditionalism, against which he wrote
  a treatise in A.D. 1623. The Jews now denounced him to the
  civil authorities as a denier of God and immortality. The whole
  issue of his book was burnt. Twice the synagogue thundered its
  ban against him. The first was withdrawn on his recantation,
  and the second, seven years after, upon his submitting to a
  severe flagellation. In spite of all he held to his Sadducean
  standpoint to his end in A.D. 1647, when he died by his own
  hand from a pistol shot, driven to despair by the unceasing
  persecution of the Jews.


                     § 157. QUIETISM AND JANSENISM.

  Down to the last quarter of the seventeenth century the Spanish
Mystics (§ 149, 16), and especially those attached to Francis de Sales,
were recognised as thoroughly orthodox. But now the Jesuits appeared as
the determined opponents of all mysticism that savoured of enthusiasm.
By means of vile intrigues they succeeded in getting Molinos, Guyon,
and Fénelon condemned, as “Quietist” heretics, although the founder
of their party had been canonized and his doctrine solemnly sanctioned
by the pope. Yet more objectionable to the Jesuits was that reaction
toward Augustinianism which, hitherto limited to the Dominicans
(§ 149, 13), and treated by them as a theological theory, was
now spreading among other orders in the form of French Jansenism,
accompanied by deep moral earnestness and a revival of the whole
Christian life.

  § 157.1. =Francis de Sales and Madame Chantal.=--Francis Count
  de Sales, from A.D. 1602 Bishop of Geneva, _i.e._ _in partibus_,
  with Annecy as his residence, had shown himself a good Catholic
  by his zeal in rooting out Protestantism in Chablais, on the
  south of the Genevan lake. In A.D. 1604 meeting the young
  widowed Baroness de Chantal, along with whom at a later period
  he founded the Order of the Visitation of Mary (§ 156, 7),
  he proved a good physician to her amid her sorrow, doubts,
  and temptations. He sought to qualify himself for this task
  by reading the writings of St. Theresa. Teacher and scholar
  so profited by their mystical studies, that in A.D. 1665
  Alexander VII. deemed the one worthy of canonization and the
  other of beatification. In A.D. 1877 Pius IX. raised Francis
  to the dignity of _doctor ecclesiæ_. His “Introduction to
  the Devout Life” affords a guide to laymen to the life of
  the soul, amid all the disturbances of the world resting in
  calm contemplation and unselfish love of God. In the Catholic
  Church, next to À Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” it is the
  most appreciated and most widely used book of devotion. In
  his “_Theotime_” he leads the reader deeper into the yearnings
  of the soul after fellowship with God, and describes the perfect
  peace which the soul reaches in God.[461]

  § 157.2. =Michael Molinos.=--After Francis de Sales a great
  multitude of male and female apostles of the new mystical
  gospel sprang up, and were favourably received by all the
  more moderate church leaders. The reactionaries, headed by the
  Jesuits, sought therefore all the more eagerly to deal severely
  with the Spaniard Michael Molinos. Having settled in Rome in
  A.D. 1669, he soon became the most popular of father confessors.
  His “Spiritual Guide” in A.D. 1675 received the approval of the
  Holy Office, and was introduced into Protestant Germany through
  a Latin translation by Francke in A.D. 1687, and a German
  translation in A.D. 1699 by Arnold. In it he taught those who
  came to the confessional that the way to the perfection of
  the Christian life, which consists in peaceful rest in the
  most intimate communion with God, is to be found in spiritual
  conference, secret prayer, active and passive contemplation,
  in rigorous destruction of all self-will, and in disinterested
  love of God, fortified, wherever that is possible, by daily
  communion. The success of the book was astonishing. It promptly
  influenced all ranks and classes, both men and women, lay and
  clerical, not only in Italy, but also by means of translations
  in France and Spain. But soon a reaction set in. As early
  as A.D. 1681 the famous Jesuit =Segneri= issued a treatise,
  in which he charged Molinos’ contemplative mysticism with
  onesidedness and exaggeration. He was answered by the pious
  and learned Oratorian =Petrucci=. A commission, appointed
  by the Inquisition to examine the writings of both parties,
  pronounced the views of Molinos and Petrucci to be in accordance
  with church doctrine and Segneri’s objections to be unfounded.
  All that Jesuitism reckoned as foundation, means, and end of
  piety was characterized as purely elementary. No hope could
  be entertained of winning over Innocent XI., the bitter enemy
  of the Jesuits. But Louis XIV. of France, at the instigation
  of his Jesuit father confessor, Lachaise, expressed through
  his ambassador his surprise that his holiness should, not only
  tolerate, but even encourage and support so dangerous a heretic,
  who taught all Christendom to undervalue the public services
  of the Church. In A.D. 1685 Innocent referred the matter to
  the tribunal of the Inquisition. Throughout the two years
  during which the investigation proceeded all arts were used to
  secure condemnation. Extreme statements of fanatical adherents
  of Molinos were not rarely met with, depreciating the public
  ordinances and ceremonies, confession, hearing of mass, church
  prayers, rosaries, etc. The pope, facile with age, amid groans
  and lamentations, allowed things to take their course, and at
  last confirmed the decree of the Inquisition of August 28th,
  A.D. 1687, by which Molinos was found guilty of spreading
  godless doctrine, and sixty-eight propositions, partly from
  his own writings, partly from the utterances of his adherents,
  were condemned as heretical and blasphemous. The heretic was
  to abjure his heresies publicly, clad in penitential garments,
  and was then consigned to lifelong solitary confinement in a
  Dominican cloister, where he died in A.D. 1697.[462]

  § 157.3. =Madame Guyon and Fénelon.=--After her husband’s
  death, =Madame Guyon=, in company with her father confessor,
  the Barnabite =Lacombe=, who had been initiated during a long
  residence at Rome into the mysteries of Molinist mysticism,
  spent five years travelling through France, Switzerland,
  Savoy, and Piedmont. Though already much suspected, she won
  the hearts of many men and women among the clergy and laity,
  and enkindled in them by personal conference, correspondence,
  and her literary work, the ardour of mystical love. Her
  brilliant writings are indeed disfigured by traces of foolish
  exaggeration, fanaticism and spiritual pride. She calls herself
  the woman of Revelation xii. 1, and the _mère de la grace_
  of her adherents. The following are the main distinguishing
  characteristics of her mysticism: The necessity of turning
  away from everything creaturely, rejecting all earthly pleasure
  and destroying every selfish interest, as well as of turning
  to God in passive contemplation, silent devotion, naked faith,
  which dispensed with all intellectual evidence, and pure
  disinterested love, which loves God for Himself alone, not
  for the eternal salvation obtained through Him. On her return
  to Paris with Lacombe in A.D. 1686 the proper martyrdom of
  her life began. Her chief persecutor was her step-brother,
  the Parisian superior of the Barnabites, La Mothe, who spread
  the most scandalous reports about his half-sister and Lacombe,
  and had them both imprisoned by a royal decree in A.D. 1688.
  Lacombe never regained his liberty. Taken from one prison to
  another, he lost his reason, and died in an asylum in A.D. 1699.
  Madame Guyon, however, by the influence of Madame de Maintenon,
  was released after ten months’ confinement. The favour of
  this royal dame was not of long continuance. Warned on all
  sides of the dangerous heretic, she broke off all intercourse
  with her in A.D. 1693, and persuaded the king to appoint a
  new commission, in A.D. 1694, with Bishop =Bossuet= of Meaux
  at its head, to examine her suspected writings. This commission
  meeting at Issy, had already, in February, A.D. 1695, drawn
  up thirty test articles, when =Fénelon=, tutor of the king’s
  grandson, and now nominated to the archbishopric of Cambray,
  was ordered by the king to take part in the proceedings. He
  signed the articles, though he objected to much in them, and
  had four articles of his own added. Madame Guyon also did so,
  and Bossuet at last testified for her that he had found her
  moral character stainless and her doctrine free from Molinist
  heresy. But the bigot Maintenon was not satisfied with this.
  Bossuet demanded the surrender of this certificate that he
  might draw up another; and when Madame Guyon refused, on
  the basis of a statement by the crazed Lacombe, she was sent
  to the Bastile [Bastille] in A.D. 1696. In A.D. 1697 Fénelon
  had written in her defence his “_Explication des Maximes des
  Saintes sur la Vie Intérieur_,” showing that the condemned
  doctrines of passive contemplation, secret prayer, naked
  faith, and disinterested love, had all been previously taught
  by St. Theresa, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, and other
  saints. He sent this treatise for an opinion to Rome. A violent
  controversy then arose between Bossuet and Fénelon. The pious,
  well-meaning pope, =Innocent XII.=, endeavoured vainly to
  bring about a good understanding. Bossuet and the all-powerful
  Maintenon wished no reconciliation, but condemnation, and gave
  the king and pope no rest till very reluctantly he prohibited
  the objectionable book by a brief in A.D. 1699, and condemned
  twenty-three propositions from it as heretical. Fénelon,
  strongly attached to the church, and a bitter persecutor
  of Protestants, made an unconditional surrender, as guilty
  of a defective exposition of the truth. But Madame Guyon
  continued in the Bastile [Bastille] till A.D. 1701, when she
  retired to Blois, where she died in A.D. 1717. Bossuet had
  died in A.D. 1704, and Fénelon in A.D. 1715. She published
  only two of her writings: “An Exposition of the Song,” and
  the “_Moyen Court et très Facile de faire Oraison_.” Many
  others, including her translation and expositions of the
  Bible, were during her lifetime edited in twenty volumes by
  her friend, the Reformed preacher of the Palatinate, Peter
  Poiret.[463]

  § 157.4. =Mysticism Tinged with Theosophy and
  Pantheism.=--=Antoinette Bourignon=, the daughter of a rich
  merchant of Lille, in France, while matron of a hospital in
  her native city, had in A.D. 1662 gathered around her a party
  of believers in her theosophic and fantastic revelations.
  She was obliged to flee to the Netherlands, and there, by
  the force of her eloquence in speech and writing, spread her
  views among the Protestants. Among them she attracted the
  great scientist Swammerdam. But when she introduced politics,
  she escaped imprisonment only by flight. Down to her death
  in A.D. 1680 she earnestly and successfully prosecuted
  her mission in north-west Germany. Peter Poiret collected
  her writings and published them in twenty-one volumes at
  Amsterdam, in A.D. 1679.--Quite of another sort was the
  pantheistic mysticism of =Angelus Silesius=. Originally
  a Protestant physician at Breslau, he went over to the
  Romish church in A.D. 1653, and in consequence received from
  Vienna the honorary title of physician to the emperor. He
  was made priest in A.D. 1661, and till his death in A.D. 1677
  maintained a keen polemic against the Protestant church
  with all a pervert’s zeal. Most of his hymns belong to his
  Protestant period. As a Catholic he wrote his “_Cherubinischer
  Wandersmann_,” a collection of rhymes in which, with childish
  _naïveté_ and hearty, gushing ardour, he merges self into the
  abyss of the universal Deity, and develops a system of the most
  pronounced pantheism.

  § 157.5. =Jansenism in its first Stage.=--Bishop Cornelius
  Jansen, of Ypres, who died in A.D. 1638, gave the fruits
  of his lifelong studies of Augustine in his learned work,
  “_Augustinus s. doctr. Aug. de humanæ Naturæ Sanitate,
  Ægritudine, et Medicina adv. Pelagianos et Massilienses_,”
  which was published after his death in three volumes, Louvain,
  1640. The Jesuits induced Urban VIII., in A.D. 1642, to prohibit
  it in his bull _In eminenti_. Augustine’s numerous followers
  in France felt themselves hit by this decree. Jansen’s pupil
  at Port Royal from A.D. 1635, Duvergier de Hauranne, usually
  called St. Cyran, from the Benedictine monastery of which he
  was abbot, was the bitter foe of the Jesuits and Richelieu,
  who had him cast into prison in A.D. 1638, from which he was
  liberated after the death of the cardinal in A.D. 1643, and
  shortly before his own. Another distinguished member of the
  party was Antoine Arnauld, doctor of the Sorbonne, who died in
  A.D. 1694, the youngest of twenty children of a parliamentary
  advocate, whose powerful defence of the University of Paris
  against the Jesuits called forth their hatred and lifelong
  persecution. His mantle, as a vigorous polemist, had fallen
  upon his youngest son. Very important too was the influence
  of his much older sister, Angelica Arnauld, Abbess of the
  Cistercian cloister of Port Royal des Champs, six miles from
  Paris, which under her became the centre of religious life and
  effort for all France. Around her gathered some of the noblest,
  most pious, and talented men of the time: the poet Racine, the
  mathematician and apologist Pascal, the Bible translator De Sacy,
  the church historian Tillemont, all ardent admirers of Augustine
  and determined opponents of the lax morality of the Jesuits.
  Arnauld’s book, “_De la fréquente Communion_,” was approved
  by the Sorbonne, the Parliament, and the most distinguished
  of the French clergy; but in A.D. 1653 Innocent X. condemned
  five Jansenist propositions in it as heretical. The Augustinians
  now maintained that these doctrines were not taught in the
  sense attributed to them by the pope. Arnauld distinguished
  the _question du fait_ from the _question du droit_, maintaining
  that the latter only were subject to the judgment of the
  Holy See. The Sorbonne, now greatly changed in composition
  and character, expelled him on account of this position from
  its corporation in A.D. 1656. About this time, at Arnauld’s
  instigation, Pascal, the profound and brilliant author of
  “_Pensées sur la Religion_,” began, under the name of Louis
  de Montalte to publish his famous “Provincial Letters,” which
  in an admirable style exposed and lashed with deep earnestness
  and biting wit the base moral principles of Jesuit casuistry.
  The truly annihilating effect of these letters upon the
  reputation of the powerful order could not be checked by
  their being burnt by order of Parliament by the hangman at
  Aix in A.D. 1657, and at Paris in A.D. 1660. But meanwhile
  the specifically Jansenist movement entered upon a new phase
  of its development. Alexander VII. had issued in A.D. 1656
  a bull which denounced the application of the distinction _du
  fait_ and _du droit_ to the papal decrees as derogatory to the
  holy see, and affirmed that Jansen taught the five propositions
  in the sense they had been condemned. In order to enforce the
  sentence, Annal, the Jesuit father confessor of Louis XIV.,
  obtained in 1661 a royal decree requiring all French clergy,
  monks, nuns, and teachers to sign a formula unconditionally
  accepting this bull. Those who refused were banished, and
  fled mostly to the Netherlands. The sorely oppressed nuns of
  Port Royal at last reluctantly agreed to sign it; but they were
  still persecuted, and in A.D. 1664 the new archbishop, Perefixe,
  inaugurated a more severe persecution, placed this cloister
  under the interdict, and removed some of the nuns to other
  convents. In A.D. 1669, Alexander’s successor, Clement IX.,
  secured the submission of Arnauld, De Sacy, Nicole, and many
  of the nuns by a policy of mild connivance. But the hatred
  of the Jesuits was still directed against their cloister. In
  A.D. 1705 Clement XI. again demanded full and unconditioned
  acceptance of the decree of Alexander VII., and when the nuns
  refused, the pope, in A.D. 1708, declared this convent an
  irredeemable nest of heresy, and ordered its suppression, which
  was carried out in A.D. 1709. In A.D. 1710 cloister and church
  were levelled to the ground, and the very corpses taken out of
  their graves.[464]--Continuation, § 165, 7.


             § 158. SCIENCE AND ART IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

  Catholic theology flourished during the seventeenth century as it
had never done since the twelfth and thirteenth. Especially in the
liberal Gallican church there was a vigorous scientific life. The
Parisian Sorbonne and the orders of the Jesuits, St. Maur, and the
Oratorians, excelled in theological, particularly in patristic and
historical, learning, and the contemporary brilliancy of Reformed
theology in France afforded a powerful stimulus. But the best days
of art, especially Italian painting, were now past. Sacred music was
diligently cultivated, though in a secularized style, and many gifted
hymn-writers made their appearance in Spain and Germany.

  § 158.1. =Theological Science= (§ 149, 14).--The parliamentary
  advocate, Mich. le Jay, published at his own expense the
  Parisian Polyglott in ten folio vols., A.D. 1629-1645, which,
  besides complete Syriac and Arabic translations, included also
  the Samaritan. The chief contributor was the Oratorian =Morinus=,
  who edited the LXX. and the Samaritan texts, which he regarded
  as incomparably superior to the Masoretic text corrupted by
  the Jews. The Jansenists produced a French translation of
  the Bible with practical notes, condemned by the pope, but
  much read by the people. It was mainly the work of the brothers
  =De Sacy=. The New Testament was issued in A.D. 1667 and the
  Old Testament somewhat later, called the Bible of Mons from
  the fictitious name of the place of publication. =Richard Simon=,
  the Oratorian, who died in A.D. 1712, treated Scripture with
  a boldness of criticism never before heard of within the church.
  While opposed by many on the Catholic side, the curia favoured
  his work as undermining the Protestant doctrine of Scripture.
  =Cornelius à Lapide=, who died A.D. 1637, expounded Scripture
  according to the fourfold sense.--In systematic theology
  the old scholastic method still held sway. Moral theology
  was wrought out in the form of casuistry with unexampled
  lasciviousness, especially by the Jesuits (§ 149, 10). The
  work of the Spaniard =Escobar=, who died in A.D. 1669, ran
  through fifty editions, and that of =Busembaum=, professor in
  Cologne and afterwards rector of Münster, who died A.D. 1668,
  went through seventy editions. On account of the attempted
  assassination of Louis XV. by Damiens in A.D. 1757, with
  which the Jesuits and their doctrine of tyrannicide were
  charged, the Parliament of Toulouse in A.D. 1757, and of Paris
  in A.D. 1761, had Busembaum’s book publicly burnt, and several
  popes, Alexander VII., VIII., and Innocent XI., condemned a
  number of propositions from the moral writings of these and
  other Jesuits. Among polemical writers the most distinguished
  were =Becanus=, who died in A.D. 1624, and =Bossuet= (§ 153, 7).
  Among the Jansenists the most prominent controversialists were
  =Nicole= and =Arnauld=, who, in order to escape the reproach of
  Calvinism, sought to prove the Catholic doctrine of the supper
  to be the same as that of the apostles, and were answered
  by the Reformed theologians Claude and Jurieu. In apologetics
  the leading place is occupied by =Pascal=, with his brilliant
  “_Pensées_.” =Huetius=, a French bishop and editor of Origen,
  who died in A.D. 1721, replied to Spinoza’s attacks on the
  Pentateuch, and applying to reason itself the Cartesian
  principle, that philosophy must begin with doubt, pointed
  the doubter to the supernatural revealed truths in the Catholic
  church as the only anchor of salvation. The learned Jesuit
  =Dionysius Petavius=, who died in A.D. 1652, edited Epiphanius
  and wrote gigantic chronological works and numerous violent
  polemics against Calvinists and Jansenists. His chief work
  is the unfinished patristic-dogmatic treatise in five vols.
  folio, A.D. 1680, “_De theologicis Dogmatibus_.” The Oratorian
  =Thomassinus= wrote an able archæological work: “_Vetus et Nova
  Eccl. Disciplina circa Beneficia et Beneficiarios_.”

  § 158.2. In church history, besides those named in § 5, 2, we
  may mention Pagi, the keen critic and corrector of Baronius.
  The study of sources was vigorously pursued. We have collections
  of mediæval writings and documents by Sirmond, D’Achery,
  Mabillon, Martène, Baluzius; of acts of councils by Labbé
  and Cossart, those of France by =Jac. Sirmond=, and of Spain
  by Aguirre; acts of the martyrs by =Ruinart=; monastic rules
  by =Holstenius=, a pervert, who became Vatican librarian,
  and died at Rome A.D. 1661. =Dufresne Ducange=, an advocate,
  who died in A.D. 1688, wrote glossaries of the mediæval and
  barbarous Latin and Greek, indispensable for the study of
  documents belonging to those times. The greatest prodigy of
  learning was =Mabillon=, who died in A.D. 1707, a Benedictine
  of St. Maur, and historian of his order. =Pet. de Marca=, who
  died Archbishop of Paris A.D. 1662, wrote the famous work on
  the Gallican liberties “_De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii_.”
  The Jansenist doctor of the Sorbonne, =Elias du Pin=, who died
  A.D. 1719, wrote “_Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Eccles._”
  in forty-seven vols. The Jesuit Maimbourg, died A.D. 1686,
  compiled several party histories of Wiclifism, Lutheranism,
  and Calvinism; but as a Gallican was deprived of office
  by the pope, and afterwards supported by a royal pension.
  The Antwerp Jesuits Bolland, Henschen, Papebroch started,
  in A.D. 1643, the gigantic work “_Acta Sanctorum_,” carried
  on by the learned members of their order in Belgium, known
  as =Bollandists=. It was stopped by the French invasion
  of A.D. 1794, when it had reached October 15th with the
  fifty-third folio vol. The Belgian Jesuits continued the
  work from A.D. 1845-1867, reaching in six vols. the end of
  October, but not displaying the ability and liberality of their
  predecessors. In Venice =Paul Sarpi= (§ 155, 2) wrote a history
  of the Tridentine Council, one of the most brilliant historical
  works of any period. =Leo Allatius=, a Greek convert at Rome,
  who died in A.D. 1669, wrote a work to show the agreement of
  the Eastern and Western churches. Cardinal =Bona= distinguished
  himself as a liturgical writer.--In France pulpit eloquence
  reached the highest pitch in such men as Flechier, Bossuet,
  Bourdaloue, Fénelon, Massillon, and Bridaine. In Vienna
  =Abraham à St. Clara= inveighed in a humorous, grotesque way
  against the corruption of manners, with an undercurrent of deep
  moral earnestness. Similar in style and spirit, but much more
  deeply sunk in Catholic superstition, was his contemporary
  the Capuchin =Martin of Cochem=, who missionarized the Rhine
  Provinces and western Germany for forty years, and issued
  a large number of popular religious tracts.--Continuation,
  § 165, 14.

  § 158.3. =Art and Poetry= (§ 149, 15).--The greatest master
  of the musical school founded by Palestrina was _Allêgri_,
  whose _Miserere_ is performed yearly on the Wednesday afternoon
  of Passion Week in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. The oratorio
  originated from the application of the lofty music of this
  school to dramatic scenes drawn from the Bible, for purely
  musical and not theatrical performance. Philip Neri patronized
  this music freely in his oratory, from which it took the name.
  This new church music became gradually more and more secularized
  and approximated to the ordinary opera style.--In =ecclesiastical
  architecture= the Renaissance style still prevailed, but debased
  with senseless, tasteless ornamentation.--In the Italian school
  of =painting= the decline, both in creative power and imitative
  skill, was very marked from the end of the sixteenth century.
  In Spain during the seventeenth century religious painting
  reached a high point of excellence in Murillo of Seville, who
  died in A.D. 1682, a master in representing calm meditation
  and entranced felicity.--The two greatest =poets= of Spain,
  the creators of the Spanish drama, =Lope de Vega= (died
  A.D. 1635) and =Pedro Calderon= (died A.D. 1681), both at
  first soldiers and afterwards priests, flourished during
  this century. The elder excelled the younger, not only in
  fruitfulness and versatility (1,500 comedies, 320 autos,
  § 115, 12, etc.), but also in poetic genius and patriotism.
  Calderon, with his 122 dramas, 73 festival plays, 200 preludes,
  etc., excelled De Vega in artistic expression and beauty of
  imagery. Both alike glorify the Inquisition, but occasionally
  subordinate Mary and the saints to the great redemption of
  the cross.--Specially deserving of notice is the noble German
  Jesuit =Friedr. von Spee=, died A.D. 1635. His spiritual songs
  show deep love to the Saviour and a profound feeling for nature,
  approaching in some respects the style of the evangelical
  hymn-writers. Spee was a keen but unsuccessful opponent of
  witch prosecution. Another eminent poetic genius of the age
  was the Jesuit =Jac. Balde= of Munich, who died in A.D. 1688.
  He is at his best in lyrical poetry. A deep religious vein
  runs through all his Latin odes, in which he enthusiastically
  appeals to the Virgin to raise him above all earthly passions.
  To Herder belongs the merit of rescuing him from oblivion.




                       III. The Lutheran Church.


                 § 159. ORTHODOXY AND ITS BATTLES.[465]

  The Formula of Concord commended itself to the hearts and
intelligences of Lutherans, and secured a hundred years’ supremacy of
orthodoxy, notwithstanding two Christological controversies. Gradually,
however, a new dogmatic scholasticism arose, which had the defects
as well as the excellences of the mediæval system. The orthodoxy of
this school deteriorated, on the one hand, into violent polemic on
confessional differences, and, on the other, into undue depreciation
of outward forms in favour of a spiritual life and personal piety.
These tendencies are represented by the Syncretist and Pietist
controversies.

  § 159.1. =Christological Controversies.=

    1. =The Cryptist and Kenotist Controversy= between the
       Giessen and Tübingen theologians, in A.D. 1619, about
       Christ’s state of humiliation, led to the publication of
       many violent treatises down to A.D. 1626. The Kenotists
       of Giessen, with Mentzer and Feuerborn at their head,
       assigned the humiliation only to the human nature, and
       explained it as an actual κένωσις, _i.e._ a complete but
       voluntary resigning of the omnipresence and omnipotence
       immanent in His divinity (κτῆσις, but not χρῆσις),
       yet so that He could have them at His command at any
       moment, _e.g._ in His miracles. The Cryptists of Tübingen,
       with Luc. Osiander and Thumm at their head, ascribed
       humiliation to both natures, and taught that all the
       while Christ, even _secundum carnem_, was omnipresent
       and ruled both in heaven and earth, but in a hidden
       way; the humiliation is no κένωσις, but only a κρύψις.
       After repeated unsuccessful attempts to bring about
       a reconciliation, John George, Elector of Saxony, in
       A.D. 1623, accepted the Kenotic doctrine. But the two
       parties still continued their strife.[466]

    2. =The Lütkemann Controversy= on the humanity of Christ in
       death was of far less importance. Lütkemann, a professor
       of philosophy at Rostock, affirmed that in death, because
       the unity of soul and body was broken, Christ was not true
       man, and that to deny this was to destroy the reality and
       the saving power of his death. He held that the incarnation
       of Christ lasted through death, because the divine nature
       was connected, not only with the soul, but also with the
       body. Lütkemann was obliged to quit Rostock, but got an
       honourable call to Brunswick as superintendent and court
       preacher, and there died in A.D. 1655. Later Lutherans
       treated the controversy as a useless logomachy.

  § 159.2. =The Syncretist Controversy.=--Since the Hofmann
  controversy (§ 141, 15) the University of Helmstadt had shown
  a decided humanistic tendency, and gave even greater freedom in
  the treatment of doctrines than the Formula of Concord, which
  it declined to adopt. To this school belonged =George Calixt=,
  and from A.D. 1614 for forty years he laboured in promoting
  its interests. He was a man of wide culture and experience,
  who had obtained a thorough knowledge of church history, and
  acquaintance with the most distinguished theologians of all
  churches, during his extensive foreign travels, and therewith
  a geniality and breadth of view not by any means common in
  those days. He did not indeed desire any formal union between
  the different churches, but rather a mutual recognition,
  love, and tolerance. For this purpose he set, as a secondary
  principle of Christian theology, besides Scripture, as the
  primary principle, the consensus of the first five centuries
  as the common basis of all churches, and sought to represent
  later ecclesiastical differences as unessential or of less
  consequence. This was denounced by strict Lutherans as
  Syncretism and Cryptocatholicism. In A.D. 1639 the Hanoverian
  preacher Buscher charged him with being a secret Papist. After
  the Thorn Conference of A.D. 1645, a violent controversy arose,
  which divided Lutherans into two camps. On the one side were
  the universities of Helmstadt and Königsberg; on the other
  hand, the theologians of the electorate of Saxony, Hülsemann
  of Leipzig, Waller of Dresden, and Abr. Calov, who died
  professor in Wittenberg in A.D. 1686. Calov wrote twenty-six
  controversial treatises on this subject. Jena vainly sought to
  mediate between the parties. In the _Theologorum Sax. Consensus
  repetitus Fidei vera Lutheranæ_ of A.D. 1655, for which the
  Wittenberg divines failed to secure symbolical authority, the
  following sentiments were branded as Syncretist errors: That
  in the Apostles’ Creed everything is taught that is necessary
  to salvation; that the Catholic and Reformed systems retain
  hold of fundamental truths; that original sin is of a merely
  privative nature; that God _indirecte, improprie, et per
  accidens_ is the cause of sin; that the doctrine of the Trinity
  was first clearly revealed in the New Testament, etc. Calixt
  died A.D. 1656 in the midst of most violent controversies. His
  son Ulrich continued these, but had neither the ability nor
  moderation of his father. Even the peaceably disposed Conference
  of Cassel of A.D. 1661 (§ 154, 4) only poured oil on the flames.
  The strife lost itself at last in actions for damages between
  the younger Calixt and his bitter opponent Strauch of Wittenberg.
  Wearied of these fruitless discussions, theologians now turned
  their attention to the rising movement of Pietism.[467]

  § 159.3. =The Pietist Controversy in its First
  Stage.=--=Philip Jacob Spener= born in Alsace in A.D. 1635,
  was in his thirty-first year, on account of his spirituality,
  distinguished gifts, and singularly wide scholarship, made
  president of a clerical seminary at Frankfort-on-Main. In
  A.D. 1686 he became chief court preacher at Dresden, and
  provost of Berlin in A.D. 1691, when, on account of his intense
  earnestness in pastoral work, he had been expelled from Dresden.
  He died in Berlin in A.D. 1705. His year’s attendance at Geneva
  after the completion of his curriculum at Strassburg had an
  important influence on his whole future career. He there learned
  to value discipline for securing purity of life as well as of
  doctrine, and was also powerfully impressed by the practical
  lectures of Labadie (§ 163, 7) and the reading of the “Practice
  of Piety” and other ascetical writings of the English Puritans
  (§ 162, 3). Though strongly attached to the Lutheran church,
  he believed that in the restoration of evangelical doctrine
  by the Wittenberg Reformation, “not by any means had all been
  accomplished that needed to be done,” and that Lutheranism in
  the form of the orthodoxy of the age had lost the living power
  of the reformers, and was in danger of burying its talent in
  dead and barren service of the letter. There was therefore a
  pressing need of a new and wider reformation. In the Lutheran
  church, as the depository of sound doctrine, he recognised
  the fittest field for the development of a genuinely Christian
  life; but he heartily appreciated any true spiritual movement
  in whatsoever church it arose. He went back from scholastic
  dogmatics to Holy Scripture as the living source of saving
  knowledge, substituted for the external orthodox theology the
  theology of the heart, demanded evidence of this in a pious
  Christian walk: these were the means by which he sought to
  promote his reformation. A whole series of Lutheran theologians
  of the seventeenth century (§ 159) had indeed contributed to
  this same end by their devotional works, hymns, and sermons.
  What was new in Spener was the conviction of the insufficiency
  of the hitherto used means and the undue prominence given to
  doctrine, and his consequent effort vigorously made to raise
  the tone of the Christian life. In his childlike, pious humility
  he regarded himself as by no means called to carry out this work,
  but felt it his duty to insist upon the necessity of it, and
  indicate the means that should be used to realize it. This he
  did in his work of A.D. 1675, “_Pia Desideria_.” As it was his
  aim to recommend biblical practical Christianity to the heart
  of the individual Christian, he revived the almost forgotten
  doctrine “Of Spiritual Priesthood” in a separate treatise.
  In A.D. 1670 he began to have meetings in his own house for
  encouraging Christian piety in the community, which soon
  were imitated in other places. Spener’s influence on the
  Lutheran church became greater and wider through his position
  at Dresden. Stirred up by his spirit, three young graduates of
  Leipzig. A. H. Francke, Paul Anton, and J. K. Schade, formed
  in A.D. 1686 a private _Collegia Philobiblica_ for practical
  exposition of Scripture and the delivery of public exegetical
  lectures at the university in the German language. But the
  Leipzig theological faculty, with J. B. Carpzov II. at its
  head, charged them with despising the public ordinances as
  well as theological science, and with favouring the views
  of separatists. The _Collegia Philobiblica_ was suppressed,
  and the three friends obliged to leave Leipzig in A.D. 1690.
  This marked the beginning of the Pietist controversies.
  Soon afterwards Spener was expelled from Dresden; but in
  his new position at Berlin he secured great influence in the
  appointments to the theological faculty of the new university
  founded at Halle by the peace-loving elector Frederick III.
  of Brandenburg, in opposition to the contentious universities
  of Wittenberg and Leipzig. Francke, Anton, and Breithaupt
  were made professors of theology. Halle now won the position
  which Wittenberg and Geneva had held during the Reformation
  period, and the Pietist controversy thus entered upon
  a second, more general, and more critical epoch of its
  history.[468]--Continuation, § 166, 1.

  § 159.4. =Theological Literature= (§ 142, 6).--The “_Philologia
  Sacra_” of =Sol. Glassius= of Jena, published in A.D. 1623,
  has ranked as a classical work for almost two centuries. From
  A.D. 1620 till the end of the century, a lively controversy was
  carried on about the Greek style of the New Testament, in which
  Lutherans, and especially the Reformed, took part. The purists
  maintained that the New Testament idiom was pure and classical,
  thinking that its inspiration would otherwise be endangered.
  The first historico-critical introduction to the Scriptures was
  the “_Officina Biblica_” of Walther in A.D. 1636. =Pfeiffer= of
  Leipzig gained distinction in biblical criticism and hermeneutics
  by his “_Critica Sacra_” of A.D. 1680 and “_Hermeneutica_”
  of A.D. 1684. Exegesis now made progress, notwithstanding its
  dependence on traditional interpretations of doctrinal proof
  passages and its mechanical theory of inspiration. The most
  distinguished exegetes were =Erasmus Schmidt= of Wittenberg,
  who died in A.D. 1637: he wrote a Latin translation of New
  Testament with admirable notes, and a very useful concordance
  of the Greek New Testament, under the title Ταμεῖον, which
  has been revised and improved by Bruder; =Seb. Schmidt= of
  Strassburg, who wrote commentaries on several Old Testament
  books and on the Pauline epistles; and =Abr. Calov= of
  Wittenberg, who died in A.D. 1686, in his 74th year, whose
  “_Biblia Illustrata_,” in four vols., is a work of amazing
  research and learning, but composed wholly in the interests
  of dogmatics.--Little was done in the department of church
  history. Calixt awakened a new enthusiasm for historical
  studies, and =Gottfried Arnold= (§ 159, 2), pietist, chiliast,
  and theosophist, bitterly opposed to every form of orthodoxy,
  and finding true Christianity only in sects, separatists,
  and heretics, set the whole theological world astir by his
  “_Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzer-historie_,” in A.D. 1699
  (§ 5, 3).

  § 159.5. The orthodox school applied itself most diligently to
  dogmatics in a strictly scholastic form. =Hutter= of Wittenberg,
  who died in A.D. 1616, wrote “_Loci communes theologici_” and
  “_Compendium Loc. Theol._” =John Gerhard= of Jena, who died
  in A.D. 1637, published in A.D. 1610 his “_Loc. Theologici_”
  in nine folio vols., the standard of Lutheran orthodoxy. =J.
  Andr. Quenstedt= of Wittenberg, who died A.D. 1688, exhibited
  the best and worst of Lutheran scholasticism in his “_Theol.
  didactico-polemica_.” The most important dogmatist of the
  Calixtine school was Conrad Horneius. Calixt himself is known
  as a dogmatist only by his lectures; but to him we owe the
  generally adopted distinction between morals and dogmatics
  as set forth in his “_Epitome theol. Moralis_.”--Polemics
  were carried on vigorously. =Hoë von Hoënegg= of Dresden
  (§ 154, 3, 4) and =Hutter= of Wittenberg were bitter opponents
  of Calvinism and Romanism. Hutter was styled by his friends
  _Malleus Calvinistorum_ and _Redonatus Lutherus_. The ablest
  and most dignified polemic against Romanism was that of =John
  Gerhard= in his “_Confessio Catholica_.” =Nich. Hunnius=, son
  of Ægid. Hunnius, and Hutter’s successor at Wittenberg, from
  A.D. 1623 superintendent at Lübeck, distinguished himself as an
  able controversialist against the papacy by his “_Demonstratio
  Ministerii Lutherani Divini atque Legitimi_.” Against the
  Socinians he wrote his “_Examen Errorum Photinianorum_,”
  and against the fanatics a “Chr. Examination of the new
  Paracelsist and Weigelian Theology.” His principal work is
  his “_Διάσκεψις de Fundamentali Dissensu Doctrinæ Luth. et
  Calvin_.” His “_Epitome Credendorum_” went through nineteen
  editions. The most incessant controversialist was =Abr. Calov=,
  who wrote against Syncretists, Papists, Socinians, Arminians,
  etc.--Continuation, § 167, 4.


                       § 160. THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.

  The attachment of the Lutheran church of this age to pure doctrine led
to a one-sided over-estimation of it, often ending in dead orthodoxy.
But a succession of able and learned theologians, who recognised the
importance of heart theology as well as sound doctrine, corrected this
evil tendency by Scripture study, preaching, and faithful pastoral work.
A noble and moderate mysticism, which was thoroughly orthodox in its
beliefs, and opposing orthodoxy only where that had become external and
mechanical, had many influential representatives throughout the whole
country, especially during the first half of it. But also separatists,
mystics, and theosophists made their appearance, who were decidedly
hostile to the church. Sacred song flourished afresh amid the troubles
of the Thirty Years’ War; but gradually lost its sublime objective
church character, which was poorly compensated by a more flowing
versification, polished language, and elegant form. A corresponding
advance was also made in church music.

  § 160.1. =Mysticism and Asceticism.=--At the head of the orthodox
  mystics stands =John Arndt=. His “True Christianity” and his
  “_Paradiesgärtlein_” are the most widely read Lutheran devotional
  books, but called forth the bitter hostility of those devoted
  to the maintenance of a barren orthodoxy. He died in A.D. 1621,
  as general superintendent at Celle. He had been expelled
  from Anhalt because he would not condemn exorcism as godless
  superstition, and was afterwards in Brunswick publicly charged
  by his colleague Denecke and other Lutheran zealots with
  Papacy, Calvinism, Osiandrianism, Flacianism, Schwenckfeldism,
  Paracelsism, Alchemism, etc. As men of a similar spirit,
  anticipators of the school of Spener, may be named =John Gerhard=
  of Jena, with his “_Meditationes Sacræ_” and “_Schola pietatis_,”
  and =Christian Scriver=, whose “Gotthold’s Emblems” is well known
  to English readers. =Rahtmann= of Danzig maintained that the
  word of God in Scripture has not in itself the power to enlighten
  and convert men except through the gracious influence of God’s
  Spirit. He was supported, after a long delay, in A.D. 1626 by
  the University of Rostock, but opposed by Königsberg, Jena,
  and Wittenberg. In A.D. 1628, the Elector of Saxony obtained
  the opinion of the most famous theologians of his realm against
  Rahtmann; but his death, which soon followed, brought the
  controversy to a close.--The Württemberg theologian, =John
  Valentine Andreä=, grandson of one of the authors of the
  Formula of Concord, was a man of striking originality, famous
  for his satires on the corruptions of the age. His “Order of
  Rosicrucians,” published at Cassel in A.D. 1614, ridiculed the
  absurdities of astrology and alchemy in the form of a satirical
  romance. His influence on the church of his times was great and
  wholesome, so that even Spener exclaimed: “Had I the power to
  call any one from the dead for the good of the church, it would
  be J. V. Andreä.” His later devotional work was almost completely
  forgotten until attention was called to it by Herder.[469]

  § 160.2. =Mysticism and Theosophy.=--A mystico-theosophical
  tendency, partly in outward connexion with the church, partly
  without and in open opposition to it, was fostered by the
  alchemist writings of Agrippa and Paracelsus, the theosophical
  works of Weigel (§ 146, 2) and by the profound revelations of
  the inspired shoemaker of Görlitz, =Jacob Boehme=, _philosophus
  teutonicus_, the most talented of all the theosophists. In a
  remarkable degree he combined a genius for speculation with the
  most unfeigned piety that held firmly by the old Lutheran faith.
  Even when an itinerant tradesman, he felt himself for a period
  of seven days in calm repose, surrounded by the divine light. But
  he dates his profound theosophical enlightenment from a moment in
  A.D. 1594, when as a young journeyman and married, thrown into an
  ecstasy, he obtained a knowledge of the divine mysteries down to
  the ultimate principles of all things and their inmost quality.
  His theosophy, too, like that of the ancient gnostics, springs
  out of the question about the origin of evil. He solves it by
  assuming an emanation of all things from God, in whom fire and
  light, bitter and sweet qualities, are thoroughly tempered and
  perfectly combined, while in the creature derived by emanation
  from him they are in disharmony, but are reconciled and reduced
  to godlike harmony through regeneration in Christ. Though opposed
  by Calov, he was befriended by the Dresden consistory. Boehme
  died in A.D. 1624, in retirement at Görlitz, in the arms of his
  family.[470]--In close connexion with Boehmists, separatists, and
  Pietists, yet differing from them all, =Gottfried Arnold= abused
  orthodoxy and canonized the heretics of all ages. In A.D. 1700 he
  wrote “The Mystery of the Divine Sophia.” When Adam, originally
  man and woman, fell, his female nature, the heavenly Sophia,
  was taken from him, and in his place a woman of flesh was made
  for him out of a rib; in order again to restore the paradisiacal
  perfection Christ brought again the male part into a virgin’s
  womb, so that the new creature, the regenerate, stands before God
  as a “male-virgin;” but carnal love destroys again the connexion
  thus secured with the heavenly Sophia. But the very next year he
  reached a turning-point in his life. He not only married, but in
  consequence accepted several appointments in the Lutheran church,
  without, however, signing the Formula of Concord, and applied his
  literary skill to the production of devotional tracts.

  § 160.3. =Sacred Song= (§ 142, 3).--The first epoch of the
  development of sacred song in this century corresponds to the
  period of the Thirty Years’ War, A.D. 1618-1648. The Psalms of
  David were the model and pattern of the sacred poets, and the
  profoundest songs of the cross and consolation bear the evident
  impress of the times, and so individual feeling comes more into
  prominence. The influence of Opitz was also felt in the church
  song, in the greater attention given to correctness and purity
  of language and to the careful construction of verse and rhyme.
  Instead of the rugged terseness and vigour of earlier days, we
  now find often diffuse and overflowing utterances of the heart.
  =John Hermann= of Glogau, who died in A.D. 1647, composed
  400 songs, embracing these: “Alas! dear Lord, what evil hast
  Thou done?” “O Christ, our true and only Light;” “Ere yet the
  dawn hath filled the skies;” “O God, thou faithful God.” =Paul
  Flemming=, a physician in Holstein, who died in A.D. 1640, wrote
  on his journey to Persia, “Where’er I go, whate’er my task.”
  =Matthew Meyffart=, professor and pastor at Erfurt, who died in
  A.D. 1642, wrote “Jerusalem, thou city fair and high.” =Martin
  Rinkart=, pastor at Eilenburg in Saxony, who died A.D. 1648,
  wrote, “Now thank we all our God.” =Appelles von Löwenstern=,
  who died A.D. 1648, composed, “When anguished and perplexed,
  with many a sigh and tear.” =Joshua Stegmann=, superintendent
  in Rinteln, who died A.D. 1632, wrote, “Abide among us with thy
  grace.” =Joshua Wegelin=, pastor in Augsburg and Pressburg, wrote,
  “Since Christ is gone to heaven, his home.” =Justus Gesenius=,
  superintendent in Hanover, who died in A.D. 1673, wrote, “When
  sorrow and remorse.” =Tob. Clausnitzer=, pastor in the Palatinate,
  who died A.D. 1648, wrote, “Blessed Jesus, at thy word.” The
  poets named mostly belong to the first Silesian school gathered
  round Opitz. A more independent position, though not uninfluenced
  by Opitz, is taken up by =John Rist=, who died in A.D. 1667. He
  composed 658 sacred songs, of which many are remarkable for their
  vigour, solemnity, and elevation; _e.g._ “Arise, the kingdom is
  at hand;” “Sink not yet, my soul, to slumber;” “O living Bread
  from heaven;” “Praise and thanks to Thee be sung.” At the head
  of the Königsberg school of the same age stood =Simon Dach=,
  professor of poetry at Königsberg, who died in A.D. 1659. He
  composed 150 spiritual songs, among which the best known are,
  “O how blessed, faithful souls, are ye!” “Wouldest thou inherit
  life with Christ on high?” The most distinguished members of this
  school are: =Henry Alberti=, organist at Königsberg, author of
  “God who madest earth and heaven;” and =George Weissel=, pastor
  in Königsberg, who died in A.D. 1655, author of “Lift up your
  heads, ye mighty gates.”

  § 160.4. From the middle of the seventeenth century sacred song
  became more subjective, and so tended to fall into a diversity
  of groups. No longer does the church sing through its poets, but
  the poets give direct expression to their individual feelings.
  Confessional songs are less frequent, and their place is taken
  by hymns of edification with reference to various conditions of
  life; songs of death, the cross and consolation, and hymns for
  the family become more numerous. With objectivity special features
  of the church song disappear in the hymns of the period; but some
  of its essential characteristics remain, especially the popular
  form and contents, the freshness, liveliness, and simplicity of
  diction, the truths of personal experience, the fulness of faith,
  etc. We distinguish three groups:

    1. =The Transition Group=, passing from objectivity to
       subjectivity. Its greatest masters, indeed after Luther
       the greatest sacred poet of the evangelical church, is
       undoubtedly =Paul Gerhardt=, who died A.D. 1676, the
       faith witness of the Lutheran faith under the wars and in
       persecution (§ 154, 4). In him we find the new subjective
       tendency in its noblest form; but there is also present
       the old objective style, giving immediate expression to
       the consciousness of the church, adhering tenaciously to
       the confession, and a grand popular ring that reminds us
       of the fulness and power of Luther. His 131 songs, if not
       all church songs in the narrower sense, are almost all
       genuine poems: _e.g._ “All my heart this night rejoices;”
       “Cometh sunshine after rain;” “Go forth, my heart, and
       seek delight;” “Be thou content: be still before;” “O world,
       behold upon the tree;” “Now all the woods are sleeping;” and
       “Ah, wounded head, must thou?” based on Bernard’s _Salve,
       caput cruentatum_. To this school also belongs =George
       Neumark=, librarian at Weimar, who died in A.D. 1681, author
       of “Leave God to order all thy ways.” Also =John Franck=,
       burgomaster at Guben in Lusatia, who died A.D. 1677, next
       to Gerhardt the greatest poet of his age. His 110 songs are
       less popular and hearty, but more melodious than Gerhardt’s;
       _e.g._ “Redeemer of the nations, come;” “Ye heavens, oh
       haste your dews to shed;” “Deck thyself, my soul, with
       gladness.” =George Albinus=, pastor at Naumburg, died
       A.D. 1679, wrote: “Not in anger smite us, Lord;” “World,
       farewell! Of thee I’m tired.”

    2. The =next stage= of the sacred song took the Canticles
       instead of the Psalter as its model. The spiritual marriage
       of the soul is its main theme. Feeling and fancy are
       predominant, and often degenerate into sentimentality and
       trifling. It obtained a new impulse from the addition of
       a mystical element. =Angelus Silesius= (§ 156, 4) was the
       most distinguished representative of this school, and while
       Protestant he composed several beautiful songs; _e.g._
       “O Love, who formedst me to wear;” “Thou holiest Love, whom
       most I love;” “Loving Shepherd, kind and true.” =Christian
       Knorr v. Rosenroth=, who died at Sulzbach A.D. 1689, wrote
       “Dayspring of eternity.” =Ludämilie Elizabeth=, Countess
       of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, who died in A.D. 1672, wrote
       215 “Songs of Jesus.” =Caspar Neumann=, professor and pastor
       at Breslau, died A.D. 1715, wrote, “Lord, on earth I dwell
       in pain.”

    3. =Those of Spener’s Time and Spirit=, men who longed for
       the regeneration of the church by practical Christianity.
       Their hymns are for the most part characterized by healthy
       piety and deep godliness. Spener’s own poems are of slight
       importance. =J. Jac. Schütz=, Spener’s friend, a lawyer in
       Frankfort, who died A.D. 1690, composed only one, but that
       a very beautiful hymn: “All praise and thanks to God most
       high.” =Samuel Rodigast=, rector in Berlin, died A.D. 1708,
       wrote, “Whate’er my God ordains is right.” =Laurentius
       Laurentii=, musical director at Bremen, died A.D. 1722,
       wrote, “Is my heart athirst to know?” “O thou essential
       Word.”--=Gottfried Arnold=, died A.D. 1714, wrote, “Thou
       who breakest every chain;” “How blest to all thy followers,
       Lord, the road!”-- In Denmark, where previously translations
       of German hymns were used, =Thomas Kingo=, from A.D. 1677
       Bishop of Fünen, died A.D. 1703, was the much-honoured
       founder of Danish national hymnology.[471]--Continuation,
       § 167, 6.

  § 160.5. =Sacred Music= (§ 142, 5).--The church music in the
  beginning of the seventeenth century was affected by the Italian
  school, just as church song was by the influence of Opitz. The
  greatest master during the transition stage was =John Crüger=,
  precentor in the church of St. Nicholas in Berlin, died A.D. 1662.
  He was to the chorale what Gerhardt was to the church song.
  We have seventy-one new melodies of his, admirably adapted to
  Gerhardt’s, Hunnius’s, Franck’s, Dach’s, and Rinkart’s songs, and
  used in the church till the present time. With the second half
  of the century we enter on a new period, in which expression and
  musical declamation perish. Choir singing now, to a great extent,
  supersedes congregational singing. =Henry Schütz=, organist
  to the Elector of Saxony, died A.D. 1672, is the great master
  of this Italian sacred concert style. He introduced musical
  compositions on passages selected from the Psalms, Canticles, and
  prophets, in his “_Symphoniæ Sacræ_” of A.D. 1629. After a short
  time a radical reform was made by =John Rosenmüller=, organist
  of Wolfenbüttel, died A.D. 1686. A reaction against the exclusive
  adoption of the Italian style was made by =Andr. Hammerschmidt=,
  organist at Zittau, died A.D. 1675, one of the noblest and most
  pious of German musicians. By working up the old church melodies
  in the modern style, he brought the old hymns again into favour,
  and set hymns of contemporary poets to bright airs suited to
  modern standards of taste. The accomplished musician =Rud.
  Ahle=, organist and burgomaster at Mühlhausen, died A.D. 1673,
  introduced his own beautiful airs into the church music for
  Sundays and festivals. His sacred airs are distinguished for
  youthful freshness and power, penetrated by a holy earnestness,
  and quite free from that secularity and frivolousness which soon
  became unpleasantly conspicuous in such music.--Continuation,
  § 167, 7.

  § 160.6. =The Christian Life of the People.=--The rich
  development of sacred poetry proves the wonderful fulness and
  spirituality of the religious life of this age, notwithstanding
  the many chilling separatistic controversies that prevailed
  during the terrible upheaval of the Thirty Years’ War. The
  abundance of devotional literature of permanent worth witnesses
  to the diligence and piety of the Lutheran pastors. Ernest the
  Pious of Saxe-Gotha, who died A.D. 1675, stands forth as the
  ideal of a Christian prince. For the Christian instruction of his
  people he issued, in the midst of the confusion and horrors of
  the war, the famous Weimar or Ernestine exposition of the Bible,
  upon which John Gerhard wrought diligently, along with other
  distinguished Jena theologians. It appeared first in A.D. 1641,
  and by A.D. 1768 had gone through fourteen large editions.
  A like service was done for South Germany by the “Württemberg
  Summaries,” composed by three Württemberg theologians at the
  request of Duke Eberhard III., a concise, practical exposition
  of all the books of Scripture, which for a century and a half
  formed the basis of the weekly services (_Bibelstunden_) at
  Württemberg.--Continuation, § 167, 8.

  § 160.7. =Missions.=--In the Lutheran church, missionary
  enterprise had rather fallen behind (§ 142, 8). Gustavus Adolphus
  of Sweden carried on the Lapp mission with new zeal, and Denmark,
  too, gave ready assistance. A Norwegian pastor, Thomas Westen,
  deserves special mention as the apostle of the mission. A German,
  Peter Heyling of Lübeck, went on his own account as a missionary
  to Abyssinia in A.D. 1635, while several of his friends at the
  same time went to other eastern lands. Of these others no trace
  whatever has been found. An Abyssinian abbot who came to Europe
  brought news of Heyling. At first he was hindered by the
  machinations of the Jesuits; but when these were expelled, he
  found favour at court, became minister to the king, and married
  one of the royal family. What finally came of him and his work
  is unknown. Toward the end of the century two great men, the
  philosopher Leibnitz and the founder of the Halle Orphanage,
  A. H. Francke, warmly espoused the cause of foreign missions.
  The ambitious and pretentious schemes of the philosopher ended in
  nothing, but Francke made his orphanages, training colleges and
  centres from which the German Lutheran missions to the heathens
  were vigorously organized and successfully wrought.--Continuation,
  § 167, 9.




                        IV. The Reformed Church.


                    § 161. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.

  The Reformed scholars of France vied with those of St. Maur
and the Oratory, and the Reformed theologians of the Netherlands,
England, and Switzerland were not a whit behind. But an attempt made
at a general synod at Dort to unite all the Reformed national churches
under one confession failed. Opposition to Calvin’s extreme theory of
predestination introduced a Pelagianizing current into the Reformed
church, which was by no means confined to professed Arminians. In the
Anglican church this tendency appeared in the forms of latitudinarianism
and deism (§ 164, 3); while in France it took a more moderate course,
and approximated rather to the Lutheran doctrine. It was a reaction of
latent Zwinglianism against the dominant Calvinism. The Voetian school
successfully opposed the introduction of the Cartesian philosophy, and
secured supremacy to a scholasticism which held its own alongside of
that of the Lutherans. In opposition to it, the Cocceian federal school
undertook to produce a purely biblical system of theology in all its
departments.

  § 161.1. =Preliminaries of the Arminian Controversy.=--In the
  _Confessio Belgica_ of A.D. 1562 the Protestant Netherlands
  had already a strictly Calvinistic symbol, but Calvinism had
  not thoroughly permeated the church doctrine and constitution.
  There were more opponents than supporters of the doctrine of
  predestination, and a Melanchthonian-synergistic (§ 141, 7),
  or even an Erasmian-semipelagian, (§ 125, 3) doctrine, of
  the freedom of the will and the efficacy of grace, was more
  frequently taught and preached than the Augustinian-Calvinistic
  doctrine. So also Zwingli’s view of the relation of church
  and state was in much greater favour than the Calvinistic
  Presbyterial church government with its terrorist discipline.
  But the return of the exiles in A.D. 1572, who had adopted
  strict Calvinistic views in East Friesland and on the Lower
  German Rhine, led to the adoption of a purely Calvinistic creed
  and constitution. The keenest opponent of this movement was
  Coornhert, notary and secretary for the city of Haarlem, who
  combated Calvinism in numerous writings, and depreciated doctrine
  generally in the interests of practical living Christianity.
  Political as well as religious sympathies were enlisted in
  favour of this freer ecclesiastical tendency. The Dutch War
  of Independence was a struggle for religious freedom against
  Spanish Catholic fanaticism. The young republic therefore
  became the first home of religious toleration, which was scarcely
  reconcilable with a strict and exclusive Calvinism.--Meanwhile
  within the Calvinistic church a controversy arose, which divided
  its adherents in the Netherlands into two parties. In opposition
  to the strict Calvinists, who as supralapsarians held that the
  fall itself was included in the eternal counsels of God, there
  arose the milder infralapsarians, who made predestination come
  in after the fall, which was not predestinated but only foreseen
  by God.

  § 161.2. =The Arminian Controversy.=--In A.D. 1588, James
  Arminius (born A.D. 1560), a pupil of Beza, but a declared
  adherent of the Ramist philosophy (§ 143, 6), was appointed
  pastor in Amsterdam, and ordered by the magistrates to controvert
  Coornhert’s universalism and the infralapsarianism of the
  ministers of Delft. He therefore studied Coornhert’s writings,
  and by them was shaken in his earlier beliefs. This was shown
  first in certain sermons on passages from Romans, which made him
  suspected of Pelagianism. In A.D. 1603 he was made theological
  professor of Leyden, where he found a bitter opponent in his
  supralapsarian colleague, Francis Gomarus. From the class-rooms
  the controversy spread to the pulpits, and even into domestic
  circles. A public disputation in A.D. 1608, led to no pacific
  result, and Arminius continued involved in controversies
  till his death in A.D. 1609. Although decidedly inclined
  toward universalism, he had directed his polemic mainly against
  supralapsarianism, as making God himself the author of sin.
  But his followers went beyond these limits. When denounced by
  the Gomarists as Pelagians, they addressed to the provincial
  parliament of Holland and West Friesland, in A.D. 1610, a
  remonstrance, which in five articles repudiates supralapsarianism
  and infralapsarianism, and the doctrines of the irresistibility
  of grace, and of the impossibility of the elect finally
  falling away from it, and boldly asserts the universality of
  grace. They were hence called Remonstrants and their opponents
  Contraremonstrants. Parliament, favourably inclined toward
  the Arminians, pronounced the difference non-fundamental,
  and enjoined peace. When Vorstius, who was practically a
  Socinian, was appointed successor to Arminius, Gomarus charged
  the Remonstrants with Socinianism. Their ablest theological
  representative was Simon Episcopius, who succeeded Gomarus at
  Leyden in A.D. 1612, supported by the distinguished statesman,
  Oldenbarneveldt, and the great jurist, humanist, and theologian,
  Hugo Grotius of Rotterdam. Maurice of Orange, too, for a long
  time sided with them, but in A.D. 1617 formally went over to
  the other party, whose well-knit unity, strict discipline, and
  rigorous energy commended them to him as the fittest associates
  in his struggle for absolute monarchy. The republican-Arminian
  party was conquered, Oldenbarneveldt being executed in 1619,
  Grotius escaping by his wife’s strategem. =The Synod of Dort=
  was convened for the purpose of settling doctrinal disputes.
  It held 154 sessions, from Nov. 13th, 1618, to May 9th, 1619.
  Invitations were accepted by twenty-eight theologians from
  England, Scotland, Germany, and Switzerland. Brandenburg took
  no part in it (§ 154, 3), and French theologians were refused
  permission to go. Episcopius presented a clear and comprehensive
  apology for the Remonstrants, and bravely defended their cause
  before the synod. Refusing to submit to the decisions of the
  synod, they were at the fifty-seventh session expelled, and then
  excommunicated and deprived of all ecclesiastical offices. The
  Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession were unanimously
  adopted as the creed and manual of orthodox teaching. In the
  discussion of the five controverted points, the opposition
  of the Anglican and German delegates prevented any open and
  manifest insertion of supralapsarian theses, so that the synodal
  canons set forth only an essentially infralapsarian theory of
  predestination.--Remonstrant teachers were now expelled from
  most of the states of the union. Only after Maurice’s death
  in A.D. 1625 did they venture to return, and in A.D. 1630 they
  were allowed by statute to erect churches and schools in all the
  states. A theological seminary at Amsterdam, presided over by
  Episcopius till his death, in A.D. 1643, rose to be a famous
  seat of learning and nursery of liberal studies. The number of
  congregations, however, remained small, and their importance
  in church history consists rather in the development of an
  independent church life than in the revival of a semipelagian
  and rationalistic type of doctrine.[472]

  § 161.3. =Consequences of the Arminian Controversy.=--The Dort
  decrees were not accepted in Brandenburg, Hesse, and Bremen,
  where a moderate Calvinism continued to prevail. In England
  and Scotland the Presbyterians enthusiastically approved of the
  decrees, whereas the Episcopalians repudiated them, and, rushing
  to the other extreme of latitudinarianism, often showed lukewarm
  indifferentism in the way in which they distinguished articles
  of faith as essential and non-essential. The worthiest of the
  latitudinarians of this age was Chillingworth, who sought an
  escape from the contentions of theologians in the Catholic church,
  but soon returned to Protestantism, seeking and finding peace in
  God’s word alone. Archbishop Tillotson was a famous pulpit orator,
  and Gilbert Burnet, who died A.D. 1715, was author of a “History
  of the English Reformation.” In the French Reformed church, where
  generally strict Calvinism prevailed, =Amyrault= of Saumur, who
  died A.D. 1664, taught a _universalismus hypotheticus_, according
  to which God by a _decretum universale et hypotheticum_ destined
  all men to salvation through Jesus Christ, even the heathen, on
  the ground of a _fides implicita_. The only condition is that
  they believe, and for this all the means are afforded in _gratia
  resistibilis_, while by a _decretum absolutum et speciale_
  only to elect persons is granted the _gratia irresistibilis_.
  The synods of Alençon, A.D. 1637, and Charenton, A.D. 1644,
  supported by Blondel, Daillé, and Claude, declared these doctrines
  allowable; but Du Moulin of Sedan, Rivetus and Spanheim of Leyden,
  Maresius of Groningen [Gröningen], and others, offered violent
  opposition. Amyrault’s colleague, =De la Place=, or _Placæus_,
  who died A.D. 1655, went still further, repudiating the
  unconditional imputation of Adam’s sin, and representing original
  sin simply as an evil which becomes guilt only as our own actual
  transgression. The synods just named condemned this doctrine.
  Somewhat later Claude =Pajon= of Saumur, who died A.D. 1685,
  roused a bitter discussion about the universality of grace,
  by maintaining that in conversion divine providence wrought
  only through the circumstances of the life, and the Holy
  Spirit through the word of God. Several French synods condemned
  this doctrine, and affirmed an immediate as well as a mediate
  operation of the Spirit and providence.--Genuine Calvinism was
  best represented in Switzerland, as finally expressed in the
  =Formula Consensus= _Helvetica_ of Heidegger of Zürich, adopted
  in A.D. 1675 by most of the cantons. It was, like the _Formula
  Concordiæ_, a manual of doctrine rather than a confession. In
  opposition to Amyrault and De la Place, it set forth a strict
  theory of predestination and original sin, and maintained with
  the Buxtorfs, against Cappellus of Saumur, the inspiration of
  the Hebrew vowel points.

  § 161.4. =The Cocceian and Cartesian Controversies.=--If not
  the founder, certainly the most distinguished representative in
  the Netherlands of that scholasticism which sought to expound
  and defend orthodoxy, was =Voetius=, who died A.D. 1676,
  from A.D. 1607 pastor in various places, and from A.D. 1634
  professor at Utrecht. A completely different course was pursued
  by =Cocceius= of Bremen, who died A.D. 1669, professor at
  Franeker in A.D. 1636, and at Leyden in A.D. 1650. The famous
  Zürich theologian, Bullinger (§ 138, 7), had in his “_Compend.
  Rel. Chr._” of A.D. 1556, viewed the whole doctrine of saving
  truth from the point of view of a covenant of grace between God
  and man; and this idea was afterwards carried out by Olevianus
  of Heidelberg (§ 144, 1) in his “_De Substantia Fœderis_,” of
  A.D. 1585. This became the favourite method of distribution
  of doctrine in the whole German Reformed church. In the Dutch
  church it was regarded as quite unobjectionable. In England it
  was adopted in the Westminster Confession of A.D. 1648 (§ 155, 1),
  and in Switzerland in A.D. 1675, in the _Formula Consensus_.
  Cocceius is therefore not the founder of the federal theology.
  He simply gave it a new and independent development, and freed
  it from the trammels of scholastic dogmatics. He distinguished
  a twofold covenant of God with man: the _fœdus operum s. naturæ_
  before, and the _fœdus gratiæ_ after the fall. He then subdivided
  the covenant of grace into three economies: before the law
  until Moses; under the law until Christ; and after the law in
  the Christian church. The history of the kingdom of God in the
  Christian era was arranged in seven periods, corresponding to the
  seven apocalyptic epistles, trumpets, and seals. In his treatment
  of his theme, he repudiated philosophy, scholasticism, and
  tradition, and held simply by Scripture. He is thus the founder
  of a purely biblical theology. He attached himself as closely as
  possible to the prevailing predestinationist orthodoxy, but only
  externally. In his view the sacred history in its various epochs
  adjusted itself to the needs of human personality, and to the
  growing capacity for appropriating it. Hence it was not the idea
  of election, but that of grace, that prevailed in his system.
  Christ is the centre of all history, spiritual, ecclesiastical,
  and civil; and so everything in Scripture, history, doctrine, and
  prophecy, necessarily and immediately stands related to him. The
  O.T. prophecies and types point to the Christ that was to come
  in the flesh, and all history after Christ points to his second
  coming; and O. and N.T. give an outline of ecclesiastical and
  civil history down to the end of time. Thus typology formed the
  basis of the Cocceian theology. In exegesis, however, Cocceius
  avoided all arbitrary allegorizing. It was with him an axiom in
  hermeneutics, _Id significan verba, quod significare possunt in
  integra oratione, sic ut omnino inter se conveniant_. Yet his
  typology led him, and still more many of his adherents, into
  fantastic exegetical errors in the prophetic treatment of the
  seven apocalyptic periods.

  § 161.5. A controversy, occasioned by Cocceius’ statement, in his
  commentary on Hebrews in A.D. 1658, that the Sabbath, as enjoined
  by the O.T. ceremonial law, was no longer binding, was stopped
  in A.D. 1659 by a State prohibition. Voetius had not taken
  part in it. But when Cocceius, in A.D. 1665, taught from Romans
  iii. 25, that believers under the law had not full “ἄφεσις,”
  only a “πάρεσις,” he felt obliged to enter the lists against this
  “Socinian” heresy. The controversy soon spread to other doctrines
  of Cocceius and his followers, and soon the whole populace seemed
  divided into Voetians and Cocceians (§ 162, 5). The one hurled
  offensive epithets at the other. The Orange political party
  sought and obtained the favour of the Voetians, as before they
  had that of the Gomarists; while the liberal republican party
  coalesced with the Cocceians. Philosophical questions next
  came to be mixed up in the discussion. The philosophy of the
  French Catholic =Descartes= (§ 164, 1), settled in A.D. 1629 in
  Amsterdam, had gained ground in the Netherlands. It had indeed
  no connexion with Christianity or church, and its theological
  friends wished only to have it recognised as a formal branch of
  study. But its fundamental principle, that all true knowledge
  starts from doubt, appeared to the representatives of orthodoxy
  as threatening the church with serious danger. Even in A.D. 1643
  Voetius opposed it, and mainly in consequence of his polemic,
  the States General, in A.D. 1656, forbad it being taught in the
  universities. Their common opposition to scholasticism, however,
  brought Cocceians and Cartesians more closely to one another.
  Theology now became influenced by Cartesianism. Roëll, professor
  at Franeker and Utrecht, who died A.D. 1718, taught that the
  divinity of the Scriptures must be proved to the reason, since
  the _testimonium Spir. s. internum_ is limited to those who
  already believe, rejected the doctrine of the imputation
  of original sin, the doctrine that death is for believers
  the punishment of sin, and the application of the idea of
  eternal “generation” to the Logos, to whom the predicate of
  sonship belongs only in regard to the decree of redemption
  and incarnation. Another zealous Cartesian, Balth. Bekker, not
  only repudiated the superstitions of the age about witchcraft
  (§ 117, 4), but also denied the existence of the devil and demons.
  The Cocceians were in no way responsible for such extravagances,
  but their opponents sought to make them chargeable for these. The
  stadtholder, William III., at last issued an order, in A.D. 1694,
  which checked for a time the violence of the strife.

  § 161.6. =Theological Literature.=--Biblical oriental philology
  flourished in the Reformed church of this age. =Drusius= of
  Franeker, who died A.D. 1616, was the greatest Old Testament
  exegete of his day. The two =Buxtorfs= of Basel, the father
  died A.D. 1629, the son A.D. 1664, the greatest Christian
  rabbinical scholars, wrote Hebrew and Chaldee grammars,
  lexicons, and concordances, and maintained the antiquity and
  even inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points against Cappellus
  of Saumur. =Hottinger= of Zürich, who died A.D. 1667, vied with
  both in his knowledge of oriental literature and languages, and
  wrote extensively on biblical philology, and besides found time
  to write a comprehensive and learned church history. =Cocceius=,
  too, occupies a respectable place among Hebrew lexicographers.
  In England, both before and after the Restoration, scholarship
  was found, not among the controversial Puritans, but among the
  Episcopal clergy. =Brian Walton=, who died A.D. 1661, aided by
  the English scholars, issued an edition of the “London Polyglott”
  in six vols., in A.D. 1657, which, in completeness of material
  and apparatus, as well as in careful textual criticism, leaves
  earlier editions far behind. =Edm. Castellus= of Cambridge in
  A.D. 1669 published his celebrated “_Lexicon Heptaglottum_.” The
  Elzevir printing-house at Amsterdam and Leyden, boldly assuming
  the prerogatives of the whole body of theological scholars,
  issued a _textus receptus_ of the N.T. in A.D. 1624. The best
  established exegetical results of earlier times were collected
  by Pearson in his great compendium, the “_Critici Sacri_,” nine
  vols. fol., London, 1660; and Matthew Pool in his “_Synopsis
  Criticorum_,” five vols. fol., London, 1669. Among the exegetes
  of this time the brothers, J. Cappellus of Sedan, who died
  A.D. 1624, and Louis Cappellus II. of Saumur, who died A.D. 1658,
  were distinguished for their linguistic knowledge and liberal
  criticism. =Pococke= of Oxford and =Lightfoot= of Cambridge were
  specially eminent orientalists. =Cocceius= wrote commentaries
  on almost all the books of Scripture, and his scholar =Vitringa=
  of Franeker, who died A.D. 1716, gained great reputation by his
  expositions of Isaiah and the Apocalypse. Among the Arminians the
  famous statesman =Grotius=, who died A.D. 1645, was the greatest
  master of grammatico-historical exposition in the century, and
  illustrated Scripture from classical literature and philology.
  The Reformed church too gave brilliant contributions to biblical
  archæology and history. =John Selden= wrote “_De Syndriis Vett.
  Heb._,” “_De diis Syris_,” etc. =Goodwin= wrote “Moses and Aaron.”
  =Ussher= wrote “_Annales V. et N.T._” =Spencer= wrote “_De
  Legibus Heb._” The Frenchman =Bochart=, in his “_Hierozoicon_”
  and “_Phaleg_,” made admirable contributions to the natural
  history and geography of the Bible.

  § 161.7. Dogmatic theology was cultivated mainly in the
  Netherlands. =Maccovius=, a Pole, who died A.D. 1644, a
  professor at Franeker, introduced the scholastic method into
  Reformed dogmatics. The Synod of Dort cleared him of the charge
  of heresy made against him by Amesius, but condemned his method.
  Yet it soon came into very general use. Its chief representatives
  were Maresius of Groningen [Gröningen], Voetius and Mastricht
  of Utrecht, Hoornbeck [Hoornbeeck] of Leyden, and the German
  Wendelin, rector of Zerbst. Among the Cocceians the most
  distinguished were Heidanus of Leyden, Alting of Groningen
  [Gröningen], and, above all, Hermann Witsius of Franeker, whose
  “Economy of the Covenants” is written in a conciliatory spirit.
  The most distinguished Arminian dogmatist after Episcopius
  was =Phil. Limborch= of Amsterdam, who died A.D. 1712, in
  high repute also as an apologist, exegete, and historian. The
  greatest dogmatist of the Anglican church was =Pearson=, who died
  A.D. 1686, author of “An Exposition of the Creed.” The Frenchman
  =Peyrerius= obtained great notoriety from his statement, founded
  on Romans v. 12, that Adam was merely the ancestor of the Jews
  (Gen. ii. 7), while the Gentiles were of pre-Adamite origin
  (Gen. i. 26), and also by maintaining that the flood had been only
  partial. He gained release from prison by joining the Catholic
  church and recanted, but still held by his earlier views.--Ethics,
  consisting hitherto of little more than an exposition of the
  decalogue, was raised by =Amyrault= into an independent science.
  Amesius dealt with cases of conscience. =Grotius=, in his “_De
  Veritate Relig. Chr._” and =Abbadie=, French pastor at Berlin,
  and afterwards in London, who died A.D. 1727, in his “_Vérité de
  la Rel. Chrét._,” distinguished themselves as apologists. =Claude=
  and =Jurieu= gained high reputation as controversialists against
  Catholicism and its persecution of the Huguenots.--The Reformed
  church also in the interests of polemics pursued historical
  studies. Hottinger of Zürich, Spanheim of Leyden, Sam. Basnage
  of Zütpfen, and Jac. Basnage of the Hague, produced general
  church histories. Among the numerous historical monographs the
  most important are =Hospinian’s= “_De Templis_,” “_De Monachis_,”
  “_De Festis_,” “_Hist. Sacramentaria_,” “_Historia Jesuitica_;”
  =Blondel’s= “_Ps.-Isidorus_,” “_De la Primauté de l’Egl._,”
  “_Question si une Femme a été Assisse au Siège Papal_” (§ 82, 6),
  “_Apologia sent. Hieron. de Presbyt._” Also =Daillé= of Saumur
  on the non-genuineness of the “Apostolic Constitutions” and the
  Ps.-Dionysian writings, and his “_De Usu Patrum_” in opposition
  to Cave’s Catholicizing over-estimation of the Fathers. We have
  also the English scholar =Ussher=, who died A.D. 1656, “_Brit.
  Ecclesiarum Antiquitates_;” H. Dodwell, who died A.D. 1711,
  “_Diss. Cyprianicæ_,” etc.; Wm. Cave, who died A.D. 1713, “Hist.
  of App. and Fathers,” “_Scriptorum Ecclst. Hist. Literaria_,”
  etc.--Special mention should be made of =Eisenmenger=, professor
  of oriental languages at Heidelberg. In his “_Entdecktes
  Judenthum_,” two vols. quarto, moved by the over-bearing
  arrogance of the Jews of his day, he made an immense collection
  of absurdities and blasphemies of rabbinical theology from Jewish
  writings. At his own expense he printed 2,000 copies; for these
  the Jews offered him 12,000 florins, but he demanded 30,000.
  They now persuaded the court at Venice to confiscate them before
  a single copy was sold. Eisenmenger died in A.D. 1704, and his
  heirs vainly sought to have the copies of his work given up to
  them. Even the appeal of Frederick I. of Prussia was refused.
  Only when the king had resolved, in A.D. 1711, at his own expense
  to publish an edition from one copy that had escaped confiscation,
  was the Frankfort edition at last given back.

  § 161.8. =The Apocrypha Controversy= (§ 136, 4).--In A.D. 1520
  Carlstadt raised the question of the books found only in the
  LXX., and answered it in the style of Jerome (§ 59, 1). Luther
  gave them in his translation as an appendix to the O.T. with the
  title “Apocrypha, _i.e._ Books, not indeed of Holy Scripture,
  but useful and worthy to be read.” Reformed confessions took
  up the same position. The Belgic Confession agreed indeed that
  these books should be read in church, and proof passages taken
  from them, in so far as they were in accord with the canonical
  Scriptures. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer gives readings
  from these books. On the other hand, although at the Synod of
  Dort the proposal to remove at least the apocryphal books of Ezra
  or Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, was indeed rejected,
  it was ordered that in future all apocryphal books should be
  printed in smaller type than the canonical books, should be
  separately paged, with a special title, and with a preface and
  marginal notes where necessary. Their exclusion from all editions
  of the Bible was first insisted on by English and Scotch Puritans.
  This example was followed by the French, but not by the German,
  Swiss, and Dutch Reformed churches.--Continuation, § 182, 4.


                    § 162. THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.[473]

  The religious life in the Reformed church is characterized generally
by harsh legalism, rigorous renunciation of the world, and a thorough
earnestness, coupled with decision and energy of will, which nothing in
the world can break or bend. It is the spirit of Calvin which impresses
on it this character, and determines its doctrine. Only where Calvin’s
influence was less potent, _e.g._ in the Lutheranized German Reformed,
the catholicized Anglican Episcopal Church, and among the Cocceians,
is this tendency less apparent or altogether wanting. On the other
hand, often carried to the utmost extreme, it appears among the English
Puritans (§§ 143, 3; 155, 1) and the French Huguenots (§ 153, 4), where
it was fostered by persecution and oppression.

  § 162.1. =England and Scotland.=--During the period of the
  English Revolution (§ 155, 1, 2), after the overthrow of
  Episcopacy, Puritanism became dominant; and the incongruous
  and contradictory elements already existing within it assumed
  exaggerated proportions (§ 143, 3, 4), until at last the opposing
  parties broke out into violent contentions with one another.
  The ideal of Scottish and English =Presbyterianism= was the
  setting up of the kingdom of Christ as a theocracy, in which
  church and state were blended after the O.T. pattern. Hence
  all the institutions of church and state were to be founded on
  Scripture models, while all later developments were set aside
  as deteriorations from that standard. The ecclesiastical side of
  this ideal was to be realized by the establishment of a spiritual
  aristocracy represented in presbyteries and synods, which,
  ruling the presbyteries through the synods, and the congregations
  through the presbyteries, regarded itself as called and under
  obligation to inspect and supervise all the details of the
  private as well as public life of church members, and all this
  too by Divine right. Regarding their system as alone having
  divine institution, Presbyterians could not recognise any other
  religious or ecclesiastical party, and must demand uniformity,
  not only in regard to doctrine and creed, but also in regard to
  constitution, discipline, and worship.[474]--On the other hand,
  =Independent Congregationalism=, inasmuch as it made prominent
  the N.T. ideas of the priesthood of all believers and spiritual
  freedom, demanded unlimited liberty to each separate congregation,
  and unconditional equality for all individual church members.
  It thus rejected the theocratic ideal of Presbyterianism, strove
  after a purely democratic constitution, and recognised toleration
  of all religious views as a fundamental principle of Christianity.
  Every attempt to secure uniformity and stability of forms
  of worship was regarded as a repressing of the Spirit of God
  operating in the church, and so alongside of the public services
  private conventicles abounded, in which believers sought to
  promote mutual edification. But soon amid the upheavals of this
  agitated period a fanatical spirit spread among the various sects
  of the Independents. The persecutions under Elizabeth and the
  Stuarts had awakened a longing for the return of the Lord, and
  the irresistible advance of Cromwell’s army, composed mostly
  of Independents, made it appear as if the millennium was close
  at hand. Thus chiliasm came to be a fundamental principle of
  Independency, and soon too prophecy made its appearance to
  interpret and prepare the way for that which was coming. From the
  _Believers_ of the old Dutch times we now come to the =Saints= of
  the early Cromwell period. These regarded themselves as called,
  in consequence of their being inspired by God’s Spirit, to form
  the “kingdom of the saints” on earth promised in the last days,
  and hence also, from Daniel ii. and vii., they were called Fifth
  Monarchy Men. The so called Short Parliament of A.D. 1653, in
  which these Saints were in a majority, had already laid the
  first stones of this structure by introducing civil marriage,
  with the strict enforcement, however, of Matthew v. 32, as well
  as by the abolition of all rights of patronage and all sorts
  of ecclesiastical taxes, when Cromwell dissolved it. The Saints
  had not and would not have any fixed, formulated theological
  system. They had, however, a most lively interest in doctrine,
  and produced a great diversity of Scripture expositions and
  dogmatic views, so that their deadly foes, the Presbyterians,
  could hurl against them old and new heretical designations
  by the hundred. The fundamental doctrine of predestination,
  common to all Puritans, was, even with them, for the most part,
  a presupposition of all theological speculation.

  § 162.2. At the same time with the _Saints_ there appeared
  among the Independents the =Levellers=, political and social
  revolutionists, rather than an ecclesiastical and religious sect.
  They were unjustly charged with claiming an equal distribution of
  goods. Over against the absolutist theories of the Stuarts, all
  the Independents maintained that the king, like all other civil
  magistrates, is answerable at all times and in all circumstances
  to the people, to whom all sovereignty originally and inalienably
  belongs. This principle was taken by the Levellers as the
  starting-point of their reforms. As their first regulative
  principle in reconstructing the commonwealth and determining the
  position of the church therein they did not take the theocratic
  constitution of the O.T., as the Presbyterians did, nor the
  biblical revelation of the N.T., as the moderate Independents
  did, nor even the modern professed prophecy of the “Saints,” but
  the law of nature as the basis of all revelation, and already
  grounded in creation, with the sovereignty of the people as
  its ultimate foundation. While the rest of the Independents
  held by the idea of a Christian state, and only claimed that
  all Christian denominations, with the exception of the Catholics
  (§ 153, 6), should enjoy all political rights, the Levellers
  demanded complete separation of church and state. This therefore
  implied, on the one hand, the non-religiousness of the state,
  and, on the other, again with the exception of Catholics, the
  absolute freedom, independence, and equality of all religious
  parties, even non-Christian sects and atheists. Yet all the
  while the Levellers themselves were earnestly and warmly attached
  to Christian truth as held by the other Independents.--Roger
  Williams (§ 163, 3), a Baptist minister, in A.D. 1631
  transplanted the first seeds of Levellerism from England to North
  America, and by his writings helped again to spread those views
  in England. When he returned home in A.D. 1651 he found the sect
  already flourishing. The ablest leader of the English Levellers
  was John Lilburn. In A.D. 1638, when scarcely twenty years old,
  he was flogged and sentenced to imprisonment for life, because he
  had printed Puritan writings in Holland and had them circulated
  in England. Released on the outbreak of the Revolution, he joined
  the Parliamentary army, was taken prisoner by the Royalists
  and sentenced to death, but escaped by flight. He was again
  imprisoned for writing libels on the House of Lords. Set free
  by the Rump Parliament, he became colonel in Cromwell’s army,
  but was banished the country when it was found that the spread
  of radicalism endangered discipline. Till the dissolution of the
  Short Parliament his followers were in thorough sympathy with
  the Saints. Afterwards their ways went more and more apart; the
  Saints drifted into Quakerism (§ 163, 4), while the Levellers
  degenerated into deism (§ 164, 3).

  § 162.3. Out of the religious commotion prevailing in England
  before, during, and after the Revolution there sprang up a
  voluminous =devotional literature=, intended to give guidance
  and directions for holy living. Its influence was felt in foreign
  lands, especially in the Reformed churches of the continent, and
  even German Lutheran Pietism was not unaffected by it (§ 159, 3).
  That this movement was not confined to the Puritans, among
  whom it had its origin, is seen from the fact that during the
  seventeenth century many such treatises were issued from the
  University Press of Cambridge. =Lewis Bayly=, Bishop of Bangor
  A.D. 1616-1632, wrote one of the most popular books of this
  kind, “The Practice of Piety,” which was in A.D. 1635 in its
  thirty-second and in A.D. 1741 in its fifty-first edition, and
  was also widely circulated in Dutch, French, German, Hungarian,
  and Polish translations.--Out of the vast number of important
  personages of the Revolution period we name the following three:

    1. In =John Milton=, the highly gifted poet as well as eloquent
       and powerful politician, born A.D. 1608, died A.D. 1674, we
       find, on the basis of a liberal classical training received
       in youth, all the motive powers of Independency, from the
       original Puritan zeal for the faith and Reformation to
       the politico-social radicalism of the Levellers, combined
       in full and vigorous operation. From Italy, the beloved
       land of classical science and artistic culture, he was
       called back to England in A.D. 1640 at the first outburst
       of freedom-loving enthusiasm (§ 155, 1), and made the
       thunder of his controversial treatises ring over the
       battlefield of parties. He fought against the narrowness
       of Presbyterian control of conscience not less energetically
       than against the hierarchism of the Episcopal church;
       vindicates the permissibility of divorce (in view, no
       doubt, of his own first unhappy marriage); advanced in his
       “_Areopagitica_” of A.D. 1644 a plea for the unrestricted
       liberty of the press; pulverized in his “_Iconoclastes_”
       of A.D. 1649 the Εἰκὼν βασιλική, ascribed to Charles I.;
       in several tracts, “_Defensio pro Populo Anglicano_,” etc.,
       justified the execution of the king against Salmasius’s
       “_Defensio Regia pro Carolo I._;” and, even after he
       had in A.D. 1652 become incurably blind, he continued
       unweariedly his polemics till silenced by the Restoration.
       The “_Iconoclastes_” and “_Defensio_” were burned by the
       hangman, but he himself was left unmolested. He now devoted
       himself to poetry. “Paradise Lost” appeared in A.D. 1665,
       and “Paradise Regained” in A.D. 1671. To this period,
       when he had probably turned his back on all existing
       religious parties, belongs the composition of his “_De
       doctrina Christiana_,” a first attempt at a purely biblical
       theology, Arian in its Christology and Arminian in its
       soteriology.[475]

    2. =Richard Baxter=, born A.D. 1615, died A.D. 1691, was quite
       a different sort of man, and showed throughout a decidedly
       ironical tendency. At once attracted and repelled by the
       Independent movement in Cromwell’s army, he joined the force
       in A.D. 1645 as military chaplain, hoping to moderate, if
       not to check, their extravagances. A severe illness obliged
       him to withdraw in A.D. 1647. After his recovery he returned
       to his former post as assistant-minister at Kidderminster
       in Worcestershire, and there remained till driven out by the
       Act of Uniformity of A.D. 1662 (§ 155, 3). Those fourteen
       years formed the period of his most successful labours. He
       then composed most of his numerous devotional works, three
       of which, “The Saint’s Everlasting Rest,” “The Reformed
       Pastor,” “A Call to the Unconverted,” are still widely read
       in the original and in translations. At first he hoped much
       from the Restoration; but when, on conscientious grounds,
       he refused a bishopric, he met only with persecution,
       ill treatment, and imprisonment. Through William’s Act
       of Toleration of A.D. 1689, he was allowed to pass the
       last year of his life in London. On the doctrine of
       predestination he took the moderate position of Amyrault
       (§ 161, 3). His ideal church constitution was a blending
       of Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, by restoring the original
       episcopal constitution of the second century, when even the
       smaller churches had each its own bishop with a presbytery
       by his side.[476]

    3. =John Bunyan=, born A.D. 1628, died A.D. 1688, was in his
       youth a tinker or brazier, and as such seems to have led
       a rough, wild life. On the outbreak of the Civil War in
       A.D. 1642, he was drafted into the Parliamentary army.[477]
       At the close of the war he married a poor girl from a
       Puritan family, whose only marriage portion consisted in
       two Puritan books of devotion. It was now that the birthday
       of a new spiritual life began to dawn in him. He joined
       the Baptist Independents, the most zealous of the Saints of
       that time, was baptized by them in A.D. 1655, and travelled
       the country as a preacher, attracting thousands around
       him everywhere by his glorious eloquence. In A.D. 1660
       he was thrown into prison, from which he was released by
       the Indulgence of A.D. 1672 (§ 155, 3). He now settled in
       Bedford, and from this time till his death, amid persecution
       and oppression, continued his itinerant preaching with
       ever-increasing zeal and success. “The Pilgrim’s Progress”
       was written by him in prison. It is an allegory of the
       freshest and most lively form, worthy to rank alongside
       the “Imitation of Christ” (§ 114, 7). In it the fanatical
       endeavour of the Saints to rear a millennial kingdom
       on earth is transfigured into a struggle overcoming all
       hindrances to secure an entrance into the heavenly Zion
       above. It has passed through numberless editions, and has
       been translated into almost all known languages.[478]

  § 162.4. =The Netherlands.=--From England the Reformed Pietism
  was transplanted to the Netherlands, where =William Teellinck=
  may be regarded as its founder. After finishing his legal studies
  he resided for a while in England, where he made the acquaintance
  of the Puritans and their writings, and was deeply impressed with
  their earnest and pious family life. He then went to Leyden to
  study theology, and in A.D. 1606 began a ministry that soon bore
  fruit. He was specially blessed at Middelburg in Zealand, where
  he died A.D. 1629. His writings, larger and smaller, more than a
  hundred in number, in which a peculiar sweetness of mystical love
  for the Redeemer is combined with stern Calvinistic views, after
  the style of St. Bernard, were circulated widely in numerous
  editions, eagerly read in many lands, and for fully a century
  exerted a powerful influence throughout the whole Reformed church.
  Teellinck in no particular departed from the prevailing orthodoxy,
  but unwittingly toned down its harshness in his tracts, and
  with the gentleness characteristic of him counselled brotherly
  forbearance amid the bitterness of the Arminian controversy. In
  spite of much hostility, which his best efforts could not prevent,
  many university theologians stood by his side as warm admirers
  of his writings. It will not be wondered at that among these was
  the pious Amesius of Franeker (§ 161, 7), the scholar of the able
  Perkins (§ 143, 5); but it is more surprising to find here the
  powerful champion of scholastic orthodoxy, Voetius of Utrecht,
  and his vigorous partisan, Hoornbeeck of Leyden. =Voetius=
  especially, who even in his preacademic career as a pastor had
  pursued a peculiarly exemplary and godly life, styled Teellinck
  the Reformed Thomas à Kempis, and owned his deep indebtedness to
  his devout writings. He opened his academic course in A.D. 1634
  with an introductory discourse, “_De Pietate cum Scientia
  conjungenda_,” and year after year gave lectures on ascetical
  theology, out of which grew his treatise published in A.D. 1664,
  “_Τὰ Ἀσκητικὰ s. Exercita Pietatis in usum Juventutis Acad._,”
  which is a complete exposition of evangelical practical divinity
  in a thoroughly scholastic form.

  § 162.5. During the controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church
  between =Voetians and Cocceians=, beginning in A.D. 1658, the
  former favoured the pietistic movement. In the German Pietist
  controversy the Cocceians were with the Pietists in their
  biblical orthodoxy joined with confessional indifferentism, but
  with the orthodox in their liberality and breadth on matters of
  life and conduct. The earnest, practical piety of the Voetians,
  again, made them sympathise with the Lutheran Pietists, and their
  zeal for pure doctrine and the Church confession brought them
  into relation with the orthodox Lutherans. As discord between
  the theologians arose over the obligation of the Sabbath law,
  so the difference among the people arose out of the question of
  Sabbath observance. The Voetians maintained that the decalogue
  prohibition of any form of work on Sabbath was still fully
  binding, while the Cocceians, on the ground of Mark ii. 27,
  Galatians iv. 9, Colossians ii. 16, etc., denied its continued
  obligation, their wives often, to the annoyance of the Voetians,
  sitting in the windows after Divine service with their knitting
  or sewing. But the opposition did not stop there; it spread
  into all departments of life. The Voetians set great value upon
  fasting and private meditation, avoided all public games and
  plays, dressed plainly, and observed a simple, pious mode of
  life; their pastors wore a clerical costume, etc. The Cocceians,
  again, fell in with the customs of the time, mingled freely in
  the mirth and pastimes of the people, went to public festivals
  and entertainments, their women dressed in elegant, stylish
  attire, their pastors were not bound by hard and fast symbols,
  but had full Scripture freedom, etc.--Continuation, § 169, 2.

  § 162.6. =France, Germany, and Switzerland.=--The Reformed church
  of =France= has gained imperishable renown as a martyr-church.
  Fanatical excesses, however, appeared among the prophets of the
  Cevennes (§ 153, 4), the fruits of which continued down into
  the eighteenth century, and appeared now and again in England,
  Holland, and Germany (§ 160, 2, 7).--In =Germany= the Reformed
  church, standing side by side with the numerically far larger
  Lutheran church, had much of the sternness and severity that
  characterized the Romanic-Calvinistic party in doctrine, worship,
  and life greatly modified; but where the Reformed element was
  predominant, as in the Lower Rhine, it was correspondingly
  affected by a contrary influence. The Reformed church in
  Germany in its service of praise kept to the psalms of Marot and
  Lobwasser (§ 143, 2). Maurice of Hesse published Lobwasser’s in
  A.D. 1612, accompanied by some new bright melodies, for the use
  of the churches in the land. Lutheran hymns, however, gradually
  found their way into the Reformed church, which also produced two
  gifted poets of its own. =Louisa Henrietta=, Princess of Orange,
  wife of the great elector, and Paul Gerhardt’s sovereign, wrote
  “Jesus my Redeemer lives;” and =Joachim Neander=, pastor in
  Bremen, wrote, “Thou most Highest! Guardian of mankind,” “To
  heaven and earth and sea and air,” “Here behold me, as I cast
  me.”--In German =Switzerland= the noble =Breitinger= of Zürich,
  who died A.D. 1645, the greatest successor of Zwingli and
  Bullinger, wrought successfully during a forty years’ ministry,
  and did much to revive and quicken the church life. That the
  spirit of Calvin and Beza still breathed in the church of Geneva
  is proved by the reception given there to such men as Andreä
  (§ 160, 1), Labadie (§ 163, 7), and Spener (§ 159, 3).

  § 162.7. =Foreign Missions.=--From two sides the Reformed
  church had outlets for its Christian love in the work of foreign
  missions; on the one side by the cession of the Portuguese
  East Indian colonies to the Netherlands in the beginning of the
  seventeenth century, and on the other side by the continuous
  formation of English colonies in North America throughout
  the whole century. In regard to missionary effort, the
  Dutch government followed in the footsteps of her Portuguese
  predecessors. She insisted that all natives, before getting
  a situation, should be baptized and have signed the Belgic
  Confession, and many who fulfilled these conditions remained as
  they had been before. But the English Puritans settled in America
  showed a zeal for the conversion of the Indians more worthy
  of the Protestant name. John Eliot, who is rightly styled the
  apostle of the Indians, devoted himself with unwearied and
  self-denying love for half a century to this task. He translated
  the Bible into their language, and founded seventeen Indian
  stations, of which during his lifetime ten were destroyed in
  a bloody war. Eliot’s work was taken up by the Mayhew family,
  who for five generations wrought among the Indians. The last
  of the noble band, Zacharias Mayhew, died on the mission field
  in A.D. 1803, in his 87th year.[479]--Continuation, § 172, 5.




               V. Anti- and Extra-Ecclesiastical Parties.


                       § 163. SECTS AND FANATICS.

  Socinianism during the first decades of the century made extraordinary
progress in Poland, but then collapsed under the persecution of
the Jesuits. Related to the continental Anabaptists were the English
Baptists, who rejected infant baptism; while the Quakers, who adopted
the old fanatical theory of an inner light, set baptism and the Lord’s
supper entirely aside. In the sect of the Labadists we find a blending
of Catholic quietist mysticism and Calvinistic Augustinianism. Besides
those regular sects, there were various individual enthusiasts and
separatists. These were most rife in the Netherlands, where the free
civil constitution afforded a place of refuge for all exiles on account
of their faith. Here only was the press free enough to serve as a
thoroughgoing propaganda of mysticism and theosophy. Finally the Russian
sects, hitherto little studied, call for special attention.

  § 163.1. =The Socinians= (§ 148, 4).--The most important of the
  Socinian congregations in =Poland=, for the most part small and
  composed almost exclusively of the nobility, was that at Racau in
  the Sendomir Palatinate. Founded in 1569, this city, since 1600
  under James Sieninski, son of the founder, recognised Socinianism
  as the established religion; and an academy was formed there
  which soon occupied a distinguished position, and gave such
  reputation to the place that it could be spoken of as “the
  Sarmatian Athens.” But the congregation at Lublin, next in
  importance to that of Racau, was destroyed as early as 1627 by
  the mob under fanatical excitement caused by the Jesuits. The
  same disaster befell Racau itself eleven years later. A couple of
  idle schoolboys had thrown stones at a wooden crucifix standing
  before the city gate, and had been for this severely punished by
  their parents, and turned out of school. The Catholics, however,
  made a complaint before the senate, where the Jesuits secured a
  sentence that the school should be destroyed, the church taken
  from “the Arians,” the printing press closed, but the ministers
  and teachers outlawed and branded with infamy. And the Jesuits
  did not rest until the Reichstag at Warsaw in 1658 issued decrees
  of banishment against “all Arians,” and forbad the profession of
  “Arianism” under pain of death.--The Davidist non-adoration party
  of =Transylvanian= Unitarians (§ 148, 3) was finally overcome,
  and the endeavours after conformity with the Polish Socinians
  prevailed at the Diet of Deesch in 1638, where all Unitarian
  communities engaged to offer worship to Christ, and to accept
  the baptismal formula of Matthew xxviii. 19. And under the
  standard of this so called _Complanatio Deesiana_ 106 Unitarian
  congregations, with a membership of 60,000 souls, exist in
  Transylvania to this day.--In =Germany= Socinianism had, even in
  the beginning of the century, a secret nursery in the University
  of Altdorf, belonging to the territory of the imperial city of
  Nuremberg. Soner, professor of medicine, had been won over to
  this creed by Socinians residing at Leyden, where he had studied
  in 1597, 1598, and now used his official position at Altdorf
  for, not only instilling his Unitarian doctrines by means
  of private philosophical conversations into the minds of his
  numerous students, who flocked to him from Poland, Transylvania,
  and Hungary, but also for securing the adhesion of several German
  students. Only after his death in 1612 did the Nuremberg council
  come to know about this propaganda. A strict investigation was
  then made, all Poles were expelled, and all the Socinian writings
  that could be discovered were burned.--The later Polish Exultants
  sought and found refuge in Germany, especially in Silesia,
  Prussia, and Brandenburg, as well as in the Reformed Palatinate,
  and also founded some small Unitarian congregations, which,
  however, after maintaining for a while a miserable existence,
  gradually passed out of view. They had greater success and spread
  more widely in the =Netherlands=, till the states-general of 1653,
  in consequence of repeated synodal protests, and on the ground
  of an opinion given by the University of Leyden, issued a strict
  edict against the Unitarians, who now gradually passed over to
  the ranks of the Remonstrants (§ 161, 2) and the Collegiants.
  Also in =England=, since the time of Henry VIII., antitrinitarian
  confessors and martyrs were to be found. Even in 1611, under
  James I., three of them had been consigned to the flames. The
  Polish Socinians took occasion from this to send the king a
  Racovian Catechism; but in 1614 it was, by order of parliament,
  burned by the hands of the hangman. The Socinians were also
  excluded from the benefit of the Act of Toleration of 1689, which
  was granted to all other dissenters (§ 155, 3). The progress
  of deism, however, among the upper classes (§§ 164, 3; 171, 1)
  did much to prevent the extreme penal laws being carried into
  execution.--The following are the most distinguished among the
  numerous learned theologians of the Augustan age of Socinian
  scholarship, who contributed to the extending, establishing, and
  vindicating of the system of their church by exegetical, dogmatic,
  and polemical writings: John Crell, died 1631; Jonas Schlichting,
  died 1661; Von Wolzogen, died 1661; and Andr. Wissowatius,
  a grandson of Faustus Socinus, died 1678; and with these must
  also be ranked the historian of Polish Socinianism, Stanislaus
  Lubienicki, died 1675, whose “_Hist. Reformat. Polonicæ_,” etc.,
  was published at Amsterdam in 1685.

  § 163.2. =The Baptists of the Continent.=

    1. =The Dutch Baptists= (§ 147, 2). Even during Menno’s
       lifetime the Mennonites had split into the _Coarse_ and
       the _Fine_. The _Coarse_, who had abandoned much of the
       primitive severity of the sect, and were by far the most
       numerous, were again divided during the Arminian controversy
       into Remonstrants and Predestinationists. The former, from
       their leader, were called Galenists, and from having a lamb
       as the symbol of their Church, Lambists. The latter were
       called Apostoolers from their leader, and Sunists because
       their churches had the figure of the sun as a symbol. The
       Lambists, who acknowledged no confession of faith, were most
       numerous. In A.D. 1800, however, a union of the two parties
       was effected, the Sunists adopting the doctrinal position
       of the Lambists.--During the time when Arminian pastors
       were banished from the Netherlands, three brothers Van der
       Kodde founded a sect of =Collegiants=, which repudiated
       the clerical office, assigned preaching and dispensation of
       sacraments to laymen, and baptized only adults by immersion.
       Their place of baptism was Rhynsburg on the Rhine, and hence
       they were called Rhynsburgers. Their other name was given
       them from their assemblies, which they styled _collegia_.

    2. =The Moravian Baptists= (§ 147, 3). The Thirty Years’ War
       ruined the flourishing Baptist congregations in Moravia,
       and the reaction against all non-Catholics that followed
       the battle of the White Mountain near Prague, in A.D. 1620,
       told sorely against them. In A.D. 1622 a decree for their
       banishment was issued, and these quiet, inoffensive men
       were again homeless fugitives. Remnants of them fled into
       Hungary and Transylvania, only to meet new persecutions
       there. A letter of protection from Leopold I., A.D. 1659,
       secured them the right of settling in three counties around
       Pressburg. But soon these rigorous persecutions broke out
       afresh; they were beset by Jesuits seeking to convert them,
       and when this failed they were driven out or annihilated.
       At last, by A.D. 1757-1762, they were completely broken up,
       and most of them had joined the Roman Catholic church. A few
       families preserved their faith by flight into South Russia,
       where they settled in Wirschenka. When the Toleration Edict
       of Joseph II., of A.D. 1781, secured religious freedom to
       Protestants in Austria, several returned again to the faith
       of their fathers, in the hope that the toleration would be
       extended to them; but they were bitterly disappointed. They
       now betook themselves to Russia, and together with their
       brethren already there, settled in the Crimea, where they
       still constitute the colony of Hutersthal.

  § 163.3. =The English Baptists.=--The notion that infant
  baptism is objectionable also found favour among the English
  Independents. Owing to the slight importance attached to the
  sacraments generally, and more particularly to baptism, in
  the Reformed church, especially among the Independents, the
  supporters of the practice of the church in regard to baptism
  to a large extent occupied common ground with its opponents.
  The separation took place only after the rise of the fanatical
  prophetic sects (§ 161, 1). We must, however, distinguish
  from the continental Anabaptists the English Baptists, who
  enjoyed the benefit of the Toleration Act of William III.,
  of A.D. 1689, along with the other dissenters, by maintaining
  their Independent-Congregationalist constitution (§ 155, 3).
  In A.D. 1691, over the Arminian question, they split up into
  Particular and General, or Regular and Free Will, Baptists.
  The former, by far the more numerous, held by the Calvinistic
  doctrine of _gratia particularis_, while the latter rejected
  it. The Seventh-Day Baptists, who observed the seventh instead
  of the first day of the week, were founded by Bampfield in
  A.D. 1665.[480]--From England the Baptists spread to North
  America, in A.D. 1630, where Roger Williams (§ 162, 2), one
  of their first leaders, founded the little state of Rhode
  Island, and organized it on thoroughly Baptist-Independent
  principles.[481]--Continuation, § 170, 6.

  § 163.4. =The Quakers.=--=George Fox=, born A.D. 1624, died
  A.D. 1691, was son of a poor Presbyterian weaver in Drayton,
  Leicestershire. After scant schooling he went to learn shoemaking
  at Nottingham, but in A.D. 1643 abandoned the trade. Harassed by
  spiritual conflicts, he wandered about seeking peace for his soul.
  Upon hearing an Independent preach on 2 Peter i. 19, he was moved
  loudly to contradict the preacher. “What we have to do with,” he
  said, “is not the word, but the Spirit by which those men of God
  spake and wrote.” He was seized as a disturber of public worship,
  but was soon after released. In A.D. 1649 he travelled the
  country preaching and teaching, addressing every man as “thou,”
  raising his hat to none, greeting none, attracting thousands by
  his preaching, often imprisoned, flogged, tortured, hunted like a
  wild beast. The core of his preaching was, not Scripture, but the
  Spirit, not Christ without but Christ within, not outward worship,
  not churches, “steeple-houses,” and bells, not doctrines and
  sacraments, but only the inner light, which is kindled by God in
  the conscience of every man, renewed and quickened by the Spirit
  of Christ, which suddenly lays hold upon it. The number of his
  followers increased from day to day. In A.D. 1652 he found, along
  with his friends, a kindly shelter in the house of Thomas Fell,
  of Smarthmore near Preston, and in his wife Margaret a motherly
  counsellor, who devoted her whole life to the cause. They called
  themselves “The Society of Friends.” The name Quaker was given as
  a term of reproach by a violent judge, whom Fox bad “quake before
  the word of God.” After the overthrow of the hopes of the Saints
  through the dissolution of the Short Parliament and Cromwell’s
  apostasy (§ 155, 2), many of them joined the Quakers, and
  led them into revolutionary and fanatical excesses. Confined
  hitherto to the northern counties, they now spread in London
  and Bristol, and over all the south of England. In January,
  A.D. 1655, they held a fortnight’s general meeting at Swannington,
  in Leicestershire. Crowds of apostles went over into Ireland, to
  North America and the West Indies, to Holland, Germany, France,
  and Italy, and even to Constantinople. They did not meet with
  great success. In Italy they encountered the Inquisition, and in
  North America the severest penal laws were passed against them.
  In A.D. 1656 James Naylor, one of their most famous leaders,
  celebrated at Bristol the second coming of Christ “in the
  Spirit,” by enacting the scene of Christ’s triumphal entry into
  Jerusalem. But the king of the new Israel was scourged, branded
  on the forehead with the letter B as a blasphemer, had his tongue
  pierced with a redhot iron, and was then cast into prison. Many
  absurd extravagances of this kind, which drew down upon them
  frequent persecutions, as well as the failure of their foreign
  missionary enterprises, brought most of the Quakers to adopt more
  sober views. The great mother Quakeress, Margaret Fell, exercised
  a powerful influence in this direction. George Fox, too, out
  of whose hands the movement had for a long time gone, now lent
  his aid. Naylor himself, in A.D. 1659, issued a recantation,
  addressed “to all the people of the Lord,” in which he made the
  confession, “My judgment was turned away, and I was a captive
  under the power of darkness.”

  § 163.5. The movement of Quakerism in the direction of sobriety
  and common sense was carried out to its fullest extent during
  the Stuart Restoration, A.D. 1660-1688. Abandoning their
  revolutionary tendencies through dislike to Cromwell’s violence,
  and giving up most of their fanatical extravagances, the Quakers
  became models of quiet, orderly living. Robert Barclay, by his
  “_Catechesis et Fidei Confessio_,” of A.D. 1673, gave a sort of
  symbolic expression to their belief, and vindicated his doctrinal
  positions in his “_Theologiæ vere Christianæ Apologia_” of
  A.D. 1676. During this period many of them laid down their lives
  for their faith. On the other side of the sea they formed powerful
  settlements, distinguished for religious toleration and brotherly
  love. The chief promoter of this new departure was =William Penn=,
  A.D. 1644-1718, son of an English admiral, who, while a student
  at Oxford, was impressed by a Quaker’s preaching, and led to
  attend the prayer and fellowship meetings of the Friends. In
  order to break his connexion with this party, his father sent him,
  in A.D. 1661, to travel in France and Italy. The frivolity of the
  French court failed to attract him, but for a long time he was
  spellbound by Amyrault’s theological lectures at Saumur. On his
  return home, in A.D. 1664, he seemed to have completely come back
  to a worldly life, when once again he was arrested by a Quaker’s
  preaching. In A.D. 1668 he formally joined the society. For a
  controversial tract, _The Sandy Foundation Shaken_, he was sent
  for six months to the Tower, where he composed the famous tract,
  _No Cross, no Crown_, and a treatise in his own vindication,
  “Innocency with her Open Face.” His father, who, shortly before
  his death in A.D. 1670, was reconciled to his son, left him a
  yearly income of £1,500, with a claim on Government for £16,000.
  In spite of continued persecution and oppression he continued
  unweariedly to promote the cause of Quakerism by speech and pen.
  In A.D. 1677, in company with Fox and Barclay, he made a tour
  through Holland and Germany. In both countries he formed many
  friendships, but did not succeed in establishing any societies.
  His hopes now turned to North America, where Fox had already
  wrought with success during the times of sorest persecution,
  A.D. 1671, 1672, In lieu of his father’s claim, he obtained from
  Government a large tract of land on the Delaware, with the right
  of colonizing and organizing it under English suzerainty. Twice
  he went out for this purpose himself, in A.D. 1682 and 1699, and
  formed the Quaker state of Pennsylvania, with Philadelphia as its
  capital. The first principle of its constitution was universal
  religious toleration, even to Catholics.[482]

  § 163.6. =The Quaker Constitution=, as fixed in Penn’s time,
  was strictly democratic and congregationalist, with complete
  exclusion of a clerical order. At their services any man or
  woman, if moved by the Spirit, might pray, teach, or exhort,
  or if no one felt so impelled they would sit on in silence.
  Their meeting-houses had not the form or fittings of churches,
  their devotional services had neither singing nor music. They
  repudiated water baptism, alike of infants and adults, and
  recognised only baptism of the Spirit. The Lord’s supper,
  as a symbolical memorial, is no more needed by those who are
  born again. Monthly gatherings of all independent members,
  quarterly meetings of deputies of a circuit, and a yearly synod
  of representatives of all the circuits, administered or drew up
  the regulations for the several societies. =The Doctrinal Belief
  of the Quakers= is completely dominated by its central dogma of
  the “inner light,” which is identified with reason and conscience
  as the common heritage of mankind. Darkened and weakened by the
  fall, it is requickened in us by the Spirit of the glorified
  Christ, and possesses us as an inner spiritual Christ, an inner
  Word of God. The Bible is recognised as the outer word of God,
  but is useful only as a means of arousing the inner word. The
  Calvinistic doctrine of election is decidedly rejected, and also
  that of vicarious satisfaction. But also the doctrines of the
  fall, original sin, justification by faith, as well as that of
  the Trinity, are very much set aside in favour of an indefinite
  subjective theology of feeling. The operation of the Holy Spirit
  in man’s redemption and salvation outside of Christendom is
  frankly admitted. On the other hand, the ethical-practical
  element, as shown in works of benevolence, in the battle for
  religious freedom, for the abolition of slavery, etc., is brought
  to the front. In regard to =life and manners=, the Quakers have
  distinguished themselves in all domestic, civil, industrial,
  and mercantile movements by quiet, peaceful industry, strict
  integrity, and simple habits, so that not only did they amass
  great wealth, but gained the confidence and respect of those
  around. They refused to take oaths or to serve as soldiers, or to
  engage in sports, or to indulge in any kind of luxury. In social
  intercourse they declined to acknowledge any titles of rank,
  would not bow or raise the hat to any, but addressed all by the
  simple “thou.” Their men wore broad-brimmed hats, a plain, simple
  coat, without collar or buttons, fastened by hooks. Their women
  wore a simple gray silk dress, with like coloured bonnet, without
  ribbon, flower, or feathers, and a plain shawl. Wearing mourning
  dress was regarded as a heathenish custom.[483]--Continuation,
  § 211, 3.

  § 163.7. =Labadie and the Labadists.=--Jean de Labadie, the
  scion of an ancient noble family, born A.D. 1610, was educated
  in the Jesuit school at Bordeaux, entered the order, and became a
  priest, but was released from office at his own wish in A.D. 1639,
  on account of delicate health. Even in the Jesuit college the
  principles that manifested themselves in his later life began to
  take root in him. By Scripture study he was led to adopt almost
  Augustinian views of sin and grace, as well as the conviction of
  the need of a revival of the church after the apostolic pattern.
  This tendency was confirmed and deepened by the influence of
  Spanish Quietism, which even the Jesuits had favoured to some
  extent. In the interest of these views he wrought laboriously
  for eleven years as Catholic priest in Amiens, Paris, and other
  places, amid the increasing hostility of the Jesuits. Their
  persecution, together with a growing clearness in his Augustinian
  convictions, led him formally to go over to the Reformed church
  in A.D. 1650. He now laboured for seven years as Reformed pastor
  at Montauban. In A.D. 1657, owing to political suspicions against
  him spread by the Jesuits, he withdrew from Montauban, and,
  after two years’ labour at Orange, settled at Geneva, where
  his preaching and household visitations bore abundant fruit. In
  A.D. 1666 he accepted a call to Middelburg, in Zealand. There he
  was almost as successful as he had been in Geneva; but there too
  it began to appear that in him there burned a fire strange to
  the Reformed church. The French Reformed synod took great offence
  at his refusal to sign the Belgic Confession. It was found that
  at many points he was not in sympathy with the church standards,
  that he had written in favour of chiliasm and the Apokatastasis,
  that in regard to the nature and idea of the church and its
  need of a reformation he was not in accord with the views of the
  Reformed church. The synod in 1668 suspended him from office, and,
  as he did not confess his errors, in the following year deposed
  him. Labadie then saw that what he regarded as his lifework, the
  restoration of the apostolic church, was as little attainable
  within the Reformed as within the Catholic church. He therefore
  organized his followers into a separate denomination, and was,
  together with them, banished by the magistrate. The neighbouring
  town of Veere received them gladly, but Middelburg now persuaded
  the Zealand council to issue a decree banishing them from that
  town also. The people of Veere were ready to defy this order,
  but Labadie thought it better to avoid the risk of a civil war
  by voluntary withdrawal; and so he went, in August, A.D. 1669,
  with about forty followers, to Amsterdam, where he laid the
  foundations of an apostolic church. This new society consisted of
  a sort of monastic household consisting only of the regenerate.
  They hired a commodious house, and from thence sent out spiritual
  workers as missionaries, to spread the principles of the “new
  church” throughout the land. Within a year they numbered 60,000
  souls. They dispensed the sacrament according to the Reformed
  rite, and preached the gospel in conventicles. The most important
  gain to the party was the adhesion of Anna Maria von Schürman,
  born at Cologne A.D. 1607 of a Reformed family, but settled
  from A.D. 1623 with her mother in Utrecht, celebrated for her
  unexampled attainment in languages, science, and art. When in
  A.D. 1670, the government, urged by the synod, forbad attendance
  on the Labadists’ preaching, the accomplished and pious
  Countess-palatine Elizabeth, sister of the elector-palatine,
  and abbess of the rich cloister of Herford, whose intimate friend
  Schürman had been for forty years, gave them an asylum in the
  capital of her little state.

  § 163.8. In Herford “the Hollanders” met with bitter opposition
  from the Lutheran clergy, the magistracy, and populace, and
  were treated by the mob with insult and scorn. They themselves
  also gave only too good occasion for ridicule. At a sacramental
  celebration, the aged Labadie and still older Schürman embraced
  and kissed each other and began to dance for joy. In his sermons
  and writings Labadie set forth the Quietist doctrines of the
  limitation of Christ’s life and sufferings in the mortification
  of the flesh, the duty of silent prayer, the sinking of the
  soul into the depths of the Godhead, the community of goods, etc.
  Special offence was given by the private marriage of the three
  leaders, Labadie, Yvon, and Dulignon with young wealthy ladies of
  society, and their views of marriage among the regenerate as an
  institution for raising up a pure seed free from original sin and
  brought forth without pain. The Elector of Brandenburg, hitherto
  favourable, as guardian of the seminary was obliged, in answer to
  the complaints of the Herford magistracy, to appoint a commission
  of inquiry. Labadie wrote a defence, which was published in
  Latin, Dutch, and German, in which he endeavoured to harmonize
  his mystical views with the doctrines of the Reformed church. But
  in A.D. 1671 the magistrates obtained a mandate from the imperial
  court at Spires, which threatened the abbess with the ban if she
  continued to harbour the sectaries. In A.D. 1672 Labadie settled
  in Altona, where he died in A.D. 1674. His followers, numbering
  160, remained here undisturbed till the war between Denmark and
  Sweden broke out in A.D. 1675. They then retired to the castle of
  Waltha in West Friesland, the property of three sisters belonging
  to the party. Schürman died in A.D. 1678, Dulignon in A.D. 1679,
  and Yvon, who now had sole charge, was obliged in A.D. 1688 to
  abolish the institution of the community of goods, after a trial
  of eighteen years, being able to pay back much less than he had
  received. After his death in A.D. 1707 the community gradually
  fell off, and after the property had gone into other hands on
  the death of the last of the sisters in A.D. 1725, the society
  finally broke up.

  § 163.9. During this age various =fanatical sects= sprang up. In
  Thuringia, =Stiefel= and his nephew =Meth= caused much trouble
  to the Lutheran clergy in the beginning of the century by their
  fanatical enthusiasm, till convinced, after twenty years, of
  the errors of their ways. =Drabicius=, who had left the Bohemian
  Brethren owing to differences of belief, and then lived in
  Hungary as a weaver in poor circumstances, boasted in A.D. 1638
  of having Divine revelations, prophesied the overthrow of the
  Austrian dynasty in A.D. 1657, the election of the French king as
  emperor, the speedy fall of the Papacy, and the final conversion
  of all heathens; but was put to death at Pressburg in A.D. 1671
  as a traitor with cruel tortures. Even Comenius, the noble
  bishop of the Moravians, took the side of the prophets, and
  published his own and others’ prophecies under the title “_Lux in
  Tenebris_.”--=Jane Leade= of Norfolk, influenced by the writings
  of Böhme, had visions, in which the Divine Wisdom appeared to
  her as a virgin. She spread her Gnostic revelations in numerous
  tracts, founded in A.D. 1670 the Philadelphian Society in
  London, and died in A.D. 1704, at the age of eighty-one. The
  most important of her followers was =John Pordage=, preacher and
  physician, whose theological speculation closely resembles that
  of Jac. Böhme. To the Reformed church belonged also =Peter Poiret=
  of Metz, pastor from A.D. 1664 in Heidelburg [Heidelberg], and
  afterwards of a French congregation in the Palatine-Zweibrücken.
  Influenced by the writings of Bourignon and Guyon, he resigned
  his pastorate, and accompanied the former in his wanderings
  in north-west Germany till his death in 1680. At Amsterdam in
  A.D. 1687 he wrote his mystical work, “_L’Économie Divine_”
  in seven vols., which sets forth in the Cocceian method the
  mysticism and theosophy of Bourignon. He died at Rhynsburg
  in A.D. 1719.--From the Lutheran church proceeded Giftheil of
  Württemburg [Württemberg], Breckling of Holstein, and Kuhlmann,
  who went about denouncing the clergy, proclaiming fanatical views,
  and calling for impracticable reforms. Of much greater importance
  was =John George Gichtel=, an eccentric disciple of Jac. Böhme,
  who in A.D. 1665 lost his situation as law agent in his native
  town of Regensburg, his property, and civil rights, and suffered
  imprisonment and exile from the city for his fanatical ideas.
  He died in needy circumstances in Amsterdam in A.D. 1710. He
  had revelations and visions, fought against the doctrine of
  justification, and denounced marriage as fornication which
  nullifies the spiritual marriage with the heavenly Sophia
  consummated in the new birth, etc. His followers called
  themselves Angelic Brethren, from Matthew xxii. 20, strove
  after angelic sinlessness by emancipation from all earthly lusts,
  toils, and care, regarded themselves as a priesthood after the
  order of Melchizedec [Melchisedec] for propitiating the Divine
  wrath.--Continuation, § 170.

  § 163.10. =Russian Sects.=--A vast number of sects sprang up
  within the Russian church, which are all included under the
  general name =Raskolniks= or apostates. They fall into two great
  classes in their distinctive character, diametrically opposed the
  one to the other.

    1. The =Starowerzi=, or Old Believers. They originated in
       A.D. 1652, in consequence of the liturgical reform of the
       learned and powerful patriarch Nikon, which called forth
       the violent opposition of a large body of the peasantry, who
       loved the old forms. Besides stubborn adhesion to the old
       liturgy, they rejected all modern customs and luxuries, held
       it sinful to cut the beard, to smoke tobacco, to drink tea
       and coffee, etc. The Starowerzi, numbering some ten millions,
       are to this day distinguished by their pure and simple lives,
       and are split up into three parties:

          i. _Jedinowerzi_, who are nearest to the orthodox church,
             recognise its priesthood, and are different only in
             their religious ceremonies and the habits of their
             social life;

         ii. The _Starovbradzi_, who do not recognise the
             priesthood of the orthodox church; and

        iii. the _Bespopowtschini_, who have no priests, but only
             elders, and are split up into various smaller sects.

       Under the peasant Philip Pustosiwät, a party of Starowerzi,
       called from their leader Philippins, fled during the
       persecution of A.D. 1700 from the government of Olonez, and
       settled in Polish Lithuania and East Prussia, where to the
       number of 1,200 souls they live to this day in villages in
       the district of Gumbinnen, engaged in agricultural pursuits,
       and observing the rites of the old Russian church.

    2. At the very opposite pole from the Starowerzi stand the
       =Heretical Sects=, which repudiate and condemn everything
       in the shape of external church organization, and manifest
       a tendency in some cases toward fanatical excess, and in
       other cases toward rationalistic spiritualism. As the sects
       showing the latter tendency did not make their appearance
       till the eighteenth century (§ 166, 2), we have here to
       do only with those of the former class. The most important
       of these sects is that of the =Men of God=, or Spiritual
       Christians, who trace their origin from a peasant, Danila
       Filipow, of the province of Wladimir. In 1645, say they,
       the divine Father, seated on a cloud of flame, surrounded
       by angels, descended from heaven on Mount Gorodin in a
       chariot of fire, in order to restore true Christianity in
       its original purity and spirituality. For this purpose he
       incarnated himself in Filipow’s pure body. He commanded
       his followers, who in large numbers, mainly drawn from the
       peasant class, gathered around him, not to marry, and if
       already married to put away their wives, to abstain from all
       intoxicating drinks, to be present neither at marriages nor
       baptisms, but above all things to believe that there is no
       other god besides him. After some years he adopted as his
       son another peasant, Ivan Suslow, who was said to have been
       born of a woman a hundred years old, by communicating to him
       in his thirtieth year his own divine nature. Ivan, as a new
       Christ, sent out twelve apostles to spread his doctrine. The
       Czar Alexis put him and forty of his adherents into prison;
       but neither the knout nor the rack could wring from them the
       mysteries of their faith and worship. At last, on a Friday,
       the czar caused the new Christ to be crucified; but on
       the following Sunday he appeared risen again among his
       disciples. After some years the imprisoning, crucifying, and
       resurrection were repeated. Imprisoned a third time in 1672,
       he owed his liberation to an edict of grace on the occasion
       of the birth of the Prince Peter the Great. He now lived
       at Moscow along with the divine father Filipow, who had
       hitherto consulted his own safety by living in concealment
       in the enjoyment of the adoration of his followers
       unmolested for thirty years, supported by certain wealthy
       merchants. Filipow is said to have ascended up in the
       presence of many witnesses, in 1700, into the seventh and
       highest heaven, where he immediately seated himself on
       the throne as the “Lord of Hosts,” and the Christ, Suslow,
       also returned thither in 1716, after both had reached the
       hundredth year of the human existence. As Suslow’s successor
       appeared a new Christ in Prokopi Lupkin, and after his
       death, in 1732, arose Andr. Petrow. The last Christ
       manifestation was revealed in the person of the unfortunate
       Czar Peter III., dethroned by his wife Catharine II. in 1762,
       who, living meanwhile in secret, shall soon return, to
       the terrible confusion of all unbelievers. With this the
       historical tradition of the earlier sect of the Men of God
       is brought to a close, and in the Skopsen, or Eunuchs, who
       also venerate the Czar Peter III. as the Christ that is
       to come again, a new development of the sect has arisen,
       carrying out its principles more and more fully (§ 210, 4).
       Other branches of the same party, among which, as also among
       the Skopsen, the fanatical endeavour to mortify the flesh is
       carried to the most extravagant length, are the Morelschiki
       or Self-Flagellators, the Dumbies, who will not, even
       under the severest tortures, utter a sound, etc. The
       ever-increasing development of this sect-forming craze,
       which found its way into several monasteries and nunneries,
       led to repeated judicial investigations, the penitent
       being sentenced for their fault to confinement in remote
       convents, and the obdurate being visited with severe
       corporal punishments and even with death. The chief sources
       of information regarding the history, doctrine, and customs
       of the “Men of God” and the Skopsen are their own numerous
       spiritual songs, collected by Prof. Ivan Dobrotworski of
       Kasan, which were sung in their assemblies for worship with
       musical accompaniment and solemn dances. On these occasions
       their prophets and prophetesses were wont to prophesy, and
       a kind of sacramental supper was celebrated with bread and
       water. The sacraments of the Lord’s supper and baptism,
       as administered by the orthodox church, are repudiated
       and scorned, the latter as displaced by the only effectual
       baptism of the Spirit. They have, indeed, in order to avoid
       persecution, been obliged to take part in the services of
       the orthodox national church, and to confess to its priests,
       avoiding, however, all reference to the sect.[484]


               § 164. PHILOSOPHERS AND FREETHINKERS.[485]

  The mediæval scholastic philosophy had outlived itself, even in the
pre-Reformation age; yet it maintained a lingering existence side by
side with those new forms which the modern spirit in philosophy was
preparing for itself. We hear an echo of the philosophical ferment
of the sixteenth century in the Italian Dominican Campanella, and in
the Englishman Bacon of Verulam we meet the pioneer of that modern
philosophy which had its proper founder in Descartes. Spinoza, Locke,
and Leibnitz were in succession the leaders of this philosophical
development. Alongside of this philosophy, and deriving its weapons from
it for attack upon theology and the church, a number of freethinkers
also make their appearance. These, like their more radical disciples in
the following century, regarded Scripture as delusive, and nature and
reason as alone trustworthy sources of religious knowledge.

  § 164.1. =Philosophy.=--=Campanella= of Stilo in Calabria
  entered the Dominican order, but soon lost taste for Aristotelian
  philosophy and scholastic theology, and gave himself to the
  study of Plato, the Cabbala, astrology, magic, etc. Suspected
  of republican tendencies, the Spanish government put him in
  prison in A.D. 1599. Seven times was he put upon the rack for
  twenty-four hours, and then confined for twenty-seven years in
  close confinement. Finally, in A.D. 1626, Urban VIII. had him
  transferred to the prison of the papal Inquisition. He was set
  free in A.D. 1629, and received a papal pension; but further
  persecutions by the Spaniards obliged him to fly to his protector
  Richelieu in France, where in A.D. 1639 he died. He composed
  eighty-two treatises, mostly in prison, the most complete being
  “_Philosophia Rationalis_,” in five vols. In his “_Atheismus
  Triumphatus_” he appears as an apologist of the Romish system,
  but so insufficiently, that many said _Atheismus Triumphans_ was
  the more fitting title. His “_Monarchia Messiæ_” too appeared,
  even to the Catholics, an abortive apology for the Papacy. In
  his “_Civitas Solis_,” an imitation of the “Republic” of Plato,
  he proceeded upon communistic principles.--=Francis Bacon of
  Verulam=, long chancellor of England, died A.D. 1626, the great
  spiritual heir of his mediæval namesake (§ 103, 8), was the
  first successful reformer of the plan of study followed by the
  schoolmen. With a prophet’s marvellous grasp of mind he organized
  the whole range of science, and gave a forecast of its future
  development in his “_De Augmentis_” and “_Novum Organon_.”
  He rigidly separated the domain of _knowledge_, as that of
  philosophy and nature, grasped only by experience, from the
  domain of _faith_, as that of theology and the church, reached
  only through revelation. Yet he maintained the position:
  _Philosophia obiter libata a Deo abducit, plene hausta ad Deum
  reducit_. He is the real author of empiricism in philosophy and
  the realistic methods of modern times. His public life, however,
  is clouded by thanklessness, want of character, and the taking of
  bribes. In A.D. 1621 he was convicted by his peers, deprived of
  his office, sentenced to imprisonment for life in the Tower, and
  to pay a fine of £40,000; but was pardoned by the king.[486]--The
  French Catholic =Descartes= started not from experience, but from
  self-consciousness, with his “_Cogito, ergo sum_” as the only
  absolutely certain proposition. Beginning with doubt, he rose
  by pure thinking to the knowledge of the true and certain in
  things. The imperfection of the soul thus discovered suggests
  an absolutely perfect Being, to whose perfection the attribute
  of being belongs. This is the ontological proof for the being of
  God.--His philosophy was zealously taken up by French Jansenists
  and Oratorians and the Reformed theologians of Holland, while
  it was bitterly opposed by such Catholics as Huetius and such
  Reformed theologians as Voetius.[487]--=Spinoza=, an apostate
  Jew in Holland, died A.D. 1677, gained little influence over his
  own generation by his profound pantheistic philosophy, which has
  powerfully affected later ages. A violent controversy, however,
  was occasioned by his “_Tractatus Theologico-politicus_,” in
  which he attacked the Christian doctrine of revelation and the
  authenticity of the O.T. books, especially the Pentateuch, and
  advocated absolute freedom of thought.[488]

  § 164.2. =John Locke=, died A.D. 1704, with his sensationalism
  took up a position midway between Bacon’s empiricism and
  Descartes’ rationalism, on the one hand, and English deism and
  French materialism, on the other. His “Essay concerning Human
  Understanding” denies the existence of innate ideas, and seeks
  to show that all our notions are only products of outer or
  inner experience, of sensation or reflection. In this treatise,
  and still more distinctly in his tract, “The Reasonableness of
  Christianity,” intended as an apology for Christianity, and even
  for biblical visions and miracles, as well as for the messianic
  character of Christ, he openly advocated pure Pelagianism
  that knows nothing of sin and atonement.[489]--=Leibnitz=,
  a Hanoverian statesman, who died A.D. 1716, introduced the new
  German philosophy in its first stage. The philosophy of Leibnitz
  is opposed at once to the theosophy of Paracelsus and Böhme and
  to the empiricism of Bacon and Locke, the pantheism of Spinoza,
  and the scepticism and manichæism of Bayle. It is indeed a
  Christian philosophy not fully developed. But inasmuch as at
  the same time it adopted, improved upon, and carried out the
  rationalism of Descartes, it also paved the way for the later
  theological rationalism. The foundation of his philosophy is the
  theory of monads wrought out in his “_Theodicée_” against Bayle
  and in his “_Nouveaux Essais_,” against Locke. In opposition to
  the atomic theory of the materialists, he regarded all phenomena
  in the world as eccentricities of so called monads, _i.e._
  primary simple and indivisible substances, each of which is
  a miniature of the whole universe. Out of these monads that
  radiate out from God, the primary monad, the world is formed
  into a harmony once for all admired of God: the theory of
  pre-established harmony. This must be the best of worlds,
  otherwise it would not have been. In opposition to Bayle, who
  had argued in a manichæan fashion against God’s goodness and
  wisdom from the existence of evil, Leibnitz seeks to show that
  this does not contradict the idea of the best of worlds, nor that
  of the Divine goodness and wisdom, since finity and imperfection
  belong to the very notion of creature, a metaphysical evil from
  which moral evil inevitably follows, yet not so as to destroy the
  pre-established harmony. Against Locke he maintains the doctrine
  of innate ideas, contests Clarke’s theory of indeterminism,
  maintains the agreement of philosophy with revelation, which
  indeed is above but not contrary to reason, and hopes to prove
  his system by mathematical demonstration.[490]--Continuation,
  § 171, 10.

  § 164.3. =Freethinkers.=--The tendency of the age to throw off
  all positive Christianity first showed itself openly in England
  as the final outcome of Levellerism (§ 162, 2). This movement
  has been styled naturalism, because it puts natural in place of
  revealed religion, and deism, because in place of the redeeming
  work of the triune God it admits only a general providence of the
  one God. On philosophic grounds the English deists affirmed the
  impossibility of revelation, inspiration, prophecy, and miracle,
  and on critical grounds rejected them from the Bible and history.
  The simple religious system of deism embraced God, providence,
  freedom of the will, virtue, and the immortality of the soul. The
  Christian doctrines of the Trinity, original sin, satisfaction,
  justification, resurrection, etc., were regarded as absurd and
  irrational. Deism in England spread almost exclusively among
  upper-class laymen; the people and clergy stood firmly to their
  positive beliefs. Theological controversial tracts were numerous,
  but their polemical force was in great measure lost by the
  latitudinarianism of their authors.--The principal English deists
  of the century were

    1. =Edward Herbert of Cherbury=, A.D. 1581-1648, a nobleman
       and statesman. He reduced all religion to five points: Faith
       in God, the duty of reverencing Him, especially by leading
       an upright life, atoning for sin by genuine repentance,
       recompense in the life eternal.

    2. =Thomas Hobbes=, A.D. 1588-1679, an acute philosophical
       and political writer, looked on Christianity as an oriental
       phantom, and of value only as a support of absolute monarchy
       and an antidote to revolution. The state of nature is a
       _bellum omnium contra omnes_; religion is the means of
       establishing order and civilization. The state should decide
       what religion is to prevail. Every one may indeed believe
       what he will, but in regard to churches and worship he must
       submit to the state as represented by the king. His chief
       work is “Leviathan; or, The Matter, Form, and Power of a
       Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil.”

    3. =Charles Blount=, who died a suicide in A.D. 1693, a rabid
       opponent of all miracles as mere tricks of priests, wrote
       “Oracles of Reason,” “_Religio Laici_,” “Great is Diana
       of the Ephesians,” and translated Philostratus’ “Life of
       Apollonius of Tyana.”

    4. =Thomas Browne=, A.D. 1635-1682, a physician, who in his
       “_Religio Medici_” sets forth a mystical supernaturalism,
       took up a purely deistic ground in his “Vulgar Errors,”
       published three years later.

  Among the opponents of deism in this age the most notable are
  Richard Baxter (§ 162, 3) and Ralph Cudworth, A.D. 1617-1688,
  a latitudinarian and Platonist, who sought to prove the leading
  Christian doctrines by the theory of innate ideas. He wrote
  “Intellectual System of the Universe” in A.D. 1678. The pious
  Irish scientist, Robert Boyle, founded in London, in A.D. 1691,
  a lectureship of £40 a year for eight discourses against deistic
  and atheistic unbelief.[491]--Continuation, § 171, 1.

  § 164.4. A tendency similar to that of the English deists was
  represented in Germany by =Matthias Knutzen=, who sought to found
  a freethinking sect. The Christian “Coran” contains only lies;
  reason and conscience are the true Bible; there is no God, nor
  hell nor heaven; priests and magistrates should be driven out of
  the world, etc. The senate of Jena University on investigation
  found that his pretension to 700 followers was a vain boast.--In
  France the brilliant and learned sceptic =Peter Bayle=,
  A.D. 1647-1706, was the apostle of a light-hearted unbelief.
  Though son of a Reformed pastor, the Jesuits got him over to the
  Romish church, but in a year and a half he apostatised again. He
  now studied the Cartesian philosophy, as Reformed professor at
  Sedan, vindicated Protestantism in several controversial tracts,
  and as refugee in Holland composed his famous “_Dictionnaire
  Historique et Critique_,” in which he avoided indeed open
  rejection of the facts of revelation, but did much to unsettle
  by his easy treatment of them.--Continuation, § 171, 3.




                             THIRD SECTION.

             CHURCH HISTORY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.[492]




                I. The Catholic Church in East and West.


                   § 165. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

  During the first half of the century the Roman hierarchy suffered
severely at the hand of Catholic courts, while in the second half storms
gathered from all sides, threatening its very existence. Portugal,
France, Spain, and Italy rested not till they got the pope himself to
strike the deathblow to the Jesuits, who had been his chief supporters
indeed, but who had now become his masters. Soon after the German
bishops threatened to free themselves and their people from Rome,
and what reforms they could not effect by ecclesiastical measures the
emperor undertook to effect by civil measures. Scarcely had this danger
been overcome when the horrors of the French Revolution broke out, which
sought, along with the Papacy, to overthrow Christianity as well. But,
on the other hand, during the early decades of the century Catholicism
had gained many victories in another way by the counter-reformation and
conversions. Its foreign missions, however, begun with such promise of
success, came to a sad end, and even the home missions faded away, in
spite of the founding of various new orders. The Jansenist controversy
in the beginning of the century entered on a new stage, the Catholic
church being driven into open semi-Pelagianism, and Jansenism into
fanatical excesses. The church theology sank very low, and the Catholic
supporters of “_Illumination_” far exceeded in number those who had
fallen away to it from Protestantism.

  § 165.1. =The Popes.=--=Clement XI.=, 1700-1721, protested in
  vain against the Elector Frederick III. of Brandenburg assuming
  the crown as King Frederick I. of Prussia, on Jan. 18th,
  A.D. 1701. In the Spanish wars of succession he sought to remain
  neutral, but force of circumstances led him to take up a position
  adverse to German interests. The new German emperor, Joseph I.,
  A.D. 1705-1711, scorned to seek confirmation from the pope, and
  Clement consequently had the usual prayer for the emperor omitted
  in the church services. The relations became yet more strained,
  owing to a dispute about the _jus primarum precum_, Joseph
  claiming the right to revenues of vacancies as the patron. In
  A.D. 1707, the pope had the joy of seeing the German army driven
  out, not only of northern Italy, but also of Naples by the French.
  Again they came into direct conflict over Parma and Piacenza,
  Clement claiming them as a papal, the emperor claiming them as
  an imperial, fief. No pope since the time of Louis the Bavarian
  had issued the ban against a German emperor, and Clement ventured
  not to do so now. Refusing the invitation of Louis XIV. to go
  to Avignon, he was obliged either unconditionally to grant the
  German claims or to try the fortune of war. He chose the latter
  alternative. The miserable papal troops, however, were easily
  routed, and Clement was obliged, in A.D. 1708, to acknowledge
  the emperor’s brother, the Grand-duke Charles, as king of Spain,
  and generally to yield to Joseph’s very moderate demands. Clement
  was the author of the constitution _Unigenitus_, which introduced
  the second stage in the history of Jansenism. After the short
  and peaceful pontificate of =Innocent XIII.= A.D. 1721-1724,
  came =Benedict XIII.=, A.D. 1724-1730, a pious, well-meaning,
  narrow-minded man, ruled by a worthless favourite, Cardinal
  Coscia. He wished to canonize Gregory VII., in the fond hope
  of thereby securing new favour to his hierarchical views,
  but this was protested against by almost all the courts. All
  the greater was the number of monkish saints with which he
  enriched the heavenly firmament. He promised to all who on their
  death-bed should say, “Blessed be Jesus Christ,” a 2,000 years’
  shortening of purgatorial pains. His successor =Clement XII.=,
  A.D. 1730-1740, deprived the wretched Coscia of his offices, made
  him disgorge his robberies, imposed on him a severe fine and ten
  years’ imprisonment, but afterwards resigned the management of
  everything to a greedy, grasping nephew. He was the first pope to
  condemn freemasonry, A.D. 1736. =Benedict XIV.=, A.D. 1740-1758,
  one of the noblest, most pious, learned, and liberal of the popes,
  zealous for the faith of his church, and yet patient with those
  who differed, moderate and wise in his political procedure, mild
  and just in his government, blameless in life. He had a special
  dislike of the Jesuits (§ 156, 12), and jestingly he declared, if,
  as the curialists assert, “all law and all truth” lie concealed
  in the shrine of his breast, he had not been able to find the key.
  He wrote largely on theology and canon law, founded seminaries
  for the training of the clergy, had many French and English
  works translated into Italian, and was a liberal patron of
  art. To check popular excesses he tried to reduce the number
  of festivals, but without success.--Continuation, in Paragraphs
  § 165, 9, 10, 13.

  § 165.2. =Old and New Orders.=--Among the old orders that of
  =Clugny= had amassed enormous wealth, and attempts made by its
  abbots at reformation led only to endless quarrels and divisions.
  The abbots now squandered the revenues of their cloisters at
  court, and these institutions were allowed to fall into disorder
  and decay. When, in A.D. 1790, all cloisters in France were
  suppressed, the city of Clugny bought the cloister and church
  for £4,000, and had them both pulled down.--The most important
  new orders were:

    1. =The Mechitarist Congregation=, originated by Mechitar the
       Armenian, who, at Constantinople in A.D. 1701, founded a
       society for the religious and intellectual education of his
       countrymen; but when opposed by the Armenian patriarch, fled
       to the Morea and joined the United Armenians (§ 72, 2). In
       A.D. 1712 the pope confirmed the congregation, which, during
       the war with the Turks was transferred to Venice, and in
       A.D. 1717 settled on the island St. Lazaro [Lazzaro]. Its
       members spread Roman Catholic literature in Armenia and
       Armenian literature in the West. At a later time there was
       a famous Mechitarist college in Vienna, which did much by
       writing and publishing for the education of the Catholic
       youth.

    2. =Frères Ignorantins=, or Christian Brothers, founded
       in A.D. 1725 by De la Salle, canon of Rheims, for the
       instruction of children, wrought in the spirit of the
       Jesuits through France, Belgium, and North America. After
       the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in A.D. 1724, they
       took their place there till themselves driven out by the
       Revolution in A.D. 1790.[493]

    3. The =Liguorians or Redemptorists=, founded in A.D. 1732
       by Liguori, an advocate, who became Bishop of Naples in
       A.D. 1762. He died in A.D. 1787 in his ninety-first year,
       was beatified by Pius VII. in A.D. 1816, and canonized by
       Gregory XVI. in A.D. 1839, and proclaimed _doctor ecclesiæ_
       by Pius IX. in A.D. 1871 as a zealous defender of the
       immaculate conception and papal infallibility. His devotional
       writings, which exalt Mary by superstitious tales of
       miracles, were extremely popular in all Catholic countries.
       His new order was to minister to the poor. He declared
       the pope’s will to be God’s, and called for unquestioning
       obedience. Only after the founder’s death did it spread
       beyond Italy.--Continuation, § 186, 1.

  § 165.3. =Foreign Missions.=--In the accommodation controversy
  (§ 156, 12), the Dominicans prevailed in A.D. 1742; but the
  abolishing of native customs led to a sore persecution in
  China, from which only a few remnants of the church were
  saved. The Italian Jesuit Beschi, with linguistic talents of
  the highest order, sought in India to make use of the native
  literature for mission purposes and to place alongside of it
  a Christian literature. Here the Capuchins opposed the Jesuits
  as successfully as the Dominicans had in China. These strifes
  and persecutions destroyed the missions.--The Jesuit state of
  Paraguay (§ 156, 10) was put an end to in A.D. 1750 by a compact
  between Portugal and Spain. The revolt of the Indians that
  followed, inspired and directed by the Jesuits, which kept the
  combined powers at bay for a whole year, was at last quelled,
  and the Jesuits expelled the country in A.D. 1758.--Continuation
  § 186, 7.

  § 165.4. =The Counter-Reformation= (§ 153, 2).--Charles XII. of
  Sweden, in A.D. 1707, forced the Emperor Joseph I. to give the
  Protestants of =Silesia= the benefits of the Westphalian Peace
  and to restore their churches. But in =Poland= in A.D. 1717,
  the Protestants lost the right of building new churches, and in
  A.D. 1733 were declared disqualified for civil offices and places
  in the diet. In the Protestant city of Thorn the insolence of
  the Jesuits roused a rebellion which led to a fearful massacre
  in A.D. 1724. The Dissenters sought and obtained protection
  in Russia from A.D. 1767, and the partition of Poland between
  Russia, Austria, and Prussia in A.D. 1772 secured for them
  religious toleration. In =Salzburg= the archbishop, Count Firmian,
  attempted in A.D. 1729 a conversion of the evangelicals by force,
  who had, with intervals of persecution in the seventeenth century,
  been tolerated for forty years as quiet and inoffensive citizens.
  But in A.D. 1731 their elders swore on the host and consecrated
  salt (2 Chron. xiii. 5) to be true to their faith. This “covenant
  of salt” was interpreted as rebellion, and in spite of the
  intervention of the Protestant princes, all the evangelicals,
  in the severe winter of A.D. 1731, 1732, were driven, with
  inhuman cruelty, from hearth and home. About 20,000 of them
  found shelter in Prussian Lithuania; others emigrated to America.
  The pope praised highly “the noble” archbishop, who otherwise
  distinguished himself only as a huntsman and a drinker, and by
  maintaining a mistress in princely splendour.

  § 165.5. In =France= the persecution of the Huguenots continued
  (§ 153, 4). The “pastors of the desert” performed their duties at
  the risk of their lives, and though many fell as martyrs, their
  places were quickly filled by others equally heroic. The first
  rank belongs to Anton Court, pastor at Nismes from A.D. 1715; he
  died at Lausanne A.D. 1760, where he had founded a theological
  seminary. He laboured unweariedly and successfully in gathering
  and organizing the scattered members of the Reformed church,
  and in overcoming fanaticism by imparting sound instruction.
  Paul Rabaut, his successor at Nismes, was from A.D. 1730 to
  1785 the faithful and capable leader of the martyr church. The
  judicial murder of =Jean Calas= at Toulouse in A.D. 1762 presents
  a hideous example of the fanaticism of Catholic France. One of
  his sons had hanged himself in a fit of passion. When the report
  spread that it was the act of his father, in order to prevent
  the contemplated conversion of his son, the Dominicans canonized
  the suicide as a martyr to the Catholic faith, roused the mob,
  and got the Toulouse parliament to put the unhappy father to the
  torture of the wheel. The other sons were forced to abjure their
  faith, and the daughters were shut up in cloisters. Two years
  later Voltaire called attention to the atrocity, and so wrought
  on public opinion that on the revision of the proceedings by the
  Parisian parliament, the innocence of the ill-used family was
  clearly proved. Louis XV. paid them a sum of 30,000 livres; but
  the fanatical accusers, the false witnesses, and the corrupt
  judges were left unpunished. This incident improved the position
  of the Protestants, and in A.D. 1787 Louis XVI. issued the Edict
  of Versailles, by which not only complete religious freedom
  but even a legal civil existence was secured them, which was
  confirmed by a law of Napoleon in A.D. 1802.

  § 165.6. =Conversions.=--Pecuniary interests and prospect of
  marriage with a rich heiress led to the conversion, in A.D. 1712,
  of Charles Alexander while in the Austrian service; but when he
  became Duke of Württemburg [Württemberg] he solemnly undertook
  to keep things as they were, and to set up no Catholic services
  in the country save in his own court chapel. Of other converts
  Winckelmann and Stolberg are the most famous. While Winckelmann,
  the greatest of art critics, not a religious but an artistic
  ultramontane, was led in A.D. 1754 through religious indifference
  into the Romish church, the warm heart of Von Stolberg was
  induced, mainly by the Catholic Princess Gallitzin (§ 172, 2)
  and a French emigrant, Madame Montague, to escape the
  chill of rationalism amid the incense fumes of the Catholic
  services.--Continuation, § 175, 7.

  § 165.7. =The Second Stage of Jansenism= (§ 157, 5).--=Pasquier
  Quesnel=, priest of the Oratory at Paris, suspected in 1675 of
  Gallicanism, because of notes in his edition of the works of
  Leo the Great, fled into the Netherlands, where he continued his
  notes on the N.T. Used and recommended by Noailles, Archbishop
  of Paris, and other French bishops, this “Jansenist” book was
  hated by the Jesuits and condemned by a brief of Clement XI.
  in A.D. 1708. The Jesuit confessor of Louis XIV., Le Tellier,
  selected 101 propositions from the book, and induced the king to
  urge their express condemnation by the pope. In the =Constitution
  Unigenitus= of A.D. 1713, Clement pronounced these heretical,
  and the king required the expulsion from parliament and church
  of all who refused to adopt this bull, which caused a division
  of the French church into _Acceptants_ and _Appellants_. As many
  of the condemned propositions were quoted literally by Quesnel
  from Augustine and other Fathers, or were in exact agreement
  with biblical passages, Noailles and his party called for an
  explanation. Instead of this the pope threatened them with
  excommunication. In A.D. 1715 the king died, and under the Duke
  of Orleans’ regency in A.D. 1717, four bishops, with solemn
  appeal to a general council, renounced the papal constitution
  as irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. They were soon
  joined by the Sorbonne and the universities of Rheims and Nantes,
  Archbishop Noailles, and more than twenty bishops, all the
  congregations of St. Maur and the Oratorians with large numbers
  of the secular clergy and the monks, especially of the Lazarists,
  Dominicans, Cistercians, and Camaldulensians. The pope, after
  vainly calling them to obey, thundered the ban against the
  Appellants in A.D. 1718. But the parliament took the matter
  up, and soon the aspect of affairs was completely changed. The
  regent’s favourite, Dubois, hoping to obtain a cardinal’s hat,
  took the side of the Acceptants and carried the duke with him,
  who got the parliament in 1720 to acknowledge the bull, with
  express reservation, however, of the Gallican liberties, and
  began a persecution of the Appellants. Under Louis XV. the
  persecution became more severe, although in many ways moderated
  by the influence of his former tutor, Cardinal Fleury. Noailles,
  who died in 1729, was obliged in 1728 to submit unconditionally,
  and in A.D. 1730 the parliament formally ratified the bull. Amid
  daily increasing oppression, many of the more faithful Jansenists,
  mostly of the orders of St. Maur and the Oratory, fled to the
  Netherlands, where they gave way more and more to fanaticism. In
  1727 a young Jansenist priest, Francis of Paris, died with the
  original text of the appeal in his hands. His adherents honoured
  him as a saint, and numerous reports of miracles, which had been
  wrought at his grave in Medardus churchyard at Paris, made this a
  daily place of pilgrimage to thousands of fanatics. The excited
  enthusiasts, who fell into convulsions, and uttered prophecies
  about the overthrow of church and state, grew in numbers and,
  with that mesmeric power which fanaticism has been found in all
  ages to possess powerfully influenced many who had been before
  careless and profane. One of these was the member of parliament
  De Montgeron, who, from being a frivolous scoffer, suddenly, in
  1732, fell into violent convulsions, and in a three-volumed work,
  “_La Vérité des Miracles Opérés par l’Intercession de François
  de Paris_,” 1737, came forward as a zealous apologist of the
  party. The government, indeed, in 1732 ordered the churchyard
  to be closed, but portions of earth from the grave of the saint
  continued to effect convulsions and miracles. Thousands of
  convulsionists throughout France were thrown into prison, and
  in 1752, Archbishop Beaumont of Paris, with many other bishops,
  refused the last sacrament to those who could not prove that
  they had accepted the constitution. The grave of “St. Francis,”
  however, was the grave of Jansenism, for fanatical excess
  contains the seeds of dissolution and every manifestation of it
  hastens the catastrophe. Yet remnants of the party lingered on
  in France till the outbreak of the Revolution, of which they had
  prophesied.

  § 165.8. =The Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands.=--The
  first Jesuits appeared in Holland in A.D. 1592. The form of piety
  fostered by superior and inferior clergy in the Catholic church
  there, a heritage from the times of the Brethren of the Common
  Life (§ 112, 9), was directed to the deepening of Christian
  thought and feeling; and this, as well as the liberal attitude
  of the Archbishop of Utrecht, awakened the bitter opposition of
  the Jesuits. At the head of the local clergy was Sasbold Vosmeer,
  vicar-general of the vacant archiepiscopal see of Utrecht. Most
  energetically he set himself to thwart the Jesuit machinations,
  which aimed at abolishing the Utrecht see and putting the church
  of Holland under the jurisdiction of the papal nuncio at Cologne.
  On the ground of suspicions of secret conspiracy Vosmeer was
  banished. But his successors refused to be overruled or set
  aside by the Jesuits. Meanwhile in France the first stage of
  the Jansenist controversy had been passed through. The Dutch
  authorities had heartily welcomed the condemned book of their
  pious and learned countryman; but when the five propositions
  were denounced, they agreed in repudiating them, without, however,
  admitting that they had been taught in the sense objected to by
  Jansen. The Jesuits, therefore, charged them with the Jansenist
  heresy, and issued in A.D. 1697 an anonymous pamphlet full of
  lying insinuations about the origin and progress of Jansenism
  in Holland. Its beginning was traced back to a visit of Arnauld
  to Holland in A.D. 1681, and its effects were seen in the
  circulation of prayer-books, tracts, and sermons, urging diligent
  reading of Scripture, in the depreciation of the worship of Mary,
  of indulgences, of images of saints and relics, rosaries and
  scapularies (§ 186, 2), processions and fraternities, in the
  rigoristic strictness of the confessional, the use of the
  common language of the country in baptism, marriage, and extreme
  unction, etc. The archbishop of that time, Peter Codde, in order
  to isolate him, was decoyed to Rome, and there flattered with
  hypocritical pretensions of goodwill, while behind his back his
  deposition was carried out, and an apostolic vicar nominated for
  Utrecht in the person of his deadly foe Theodore de Cock. But
  the chapter refused him obedience, and the States of Holland
  forbad him to exercise any official function, and under threat
  of banishment of all Jesuits demanded the immediate return of
  the archbishop. Codde was now sent down with the papal blessing,
  but a formal decree of deposition followed him. Meanwhile the
  government pronounced on his rival De Cock, who avoided a trial
  for high treason by flight, a sentence of perpetual exile. But
  Codde, though persistently recognised by his chapter as the
  rightful archbishop, withheld on conscientious grounds from
  discharging official duties down to his death in A.D. 1710. Amid
  these disputes the Utrecht see remained vacant for thirteen years.
  The flock were without a chief shepherd, the inferior clergy
  without direction and support, the people were wrought upon
  by Jesuit emissaries, and the vacant pastorates were filled by
  the nuncio of Cologne. Thus it came about that of the 300,000
  Catholics remaining after the Reformation, only a few thousands
  continued faithful to the national party, while the rest became
  bitter and extreme ultramontanes, as the Catholic church of
  Holland still is. Finally, in A.D. 1723, the Utrecht chapter
  took courage and chose a new archbishop in the person of
  Cornelius Steenowen. Receiving no answer to their request for
  papal confirmation, the chapter, after waiting a year and a
  half, had him and also his three successors consecrated by a
  French missionary bishop, Varlet, who had been driven away by
  the Jesuits. But in order to prevent the threatened loss of
  legitimate consecration for future bishops after Varlet’s death
  in A.D. 1742, a bishop elected at Utrecht was in that same year
  ordained to the chapter of Haarlem, and in A.D. 1758 the newly
  founded bishopric of Deventer was so supplied. All these, like
  all subsequent elections, were duly reported to Rome, and a
  strictly Catholic confession from electors and elected sent
  up; but each time, instead of confirmation, a frightful ban
  was thundered forth. This, however, did not deter the Dutch
  government from formally recognising the elections.--Meanwhile
  the second and last act of the Jansenist tragedy had been played
  in France. Many of the persecuted Appellants sought refuge in
  Holland, and the welcome accorded them seemed to justify the
  long cherished suspicion of Jansenism against the people of
  Utrecht. They repelled these charges, however, by condemning the
  five propositions and the heresies of Quesnel’s book; but they
  expressly refused the bull of Alexander VII. and its doctrine
  of papal infallibility. This put a stop to all attempts at
  reconciliation. The church of Utrecht meanwhile prospered. At
  a council held at Utrecht in A.D. 1765 it styled itself “The
  Old Roman Catholic Church of the Netherlands,” acknowledged the
  pope, although under his anathema, as the visible head of the
  Christian church, accepted the Tridentine decrees as their creed,
  and sent this with all the acts of council to Rome as proof of
  their orthodoxy. The Jesuits did all in their power to overturn
  the formidable impression which this at first made there;
  and they were successful. Clement XIII. declared the council
  null, and those who took part in it hardened sons of Belial.
  But their church at this day contains, under one archbishop
  and two bishops, twenty-six congregations, numbering 6,000
  souls.[494]--Continuation, § 200, 3.

  § 165.9. =Suppression of the Order of Jesuits, A.D. 1773.=--The
  Jesuits had striven with growing eagerness and success after
  worldly power, and instead of absolute devotion to the interests
  of the papacy, their chief aim was now the erection of an
  independent political and hierarchical dominion. Their love
  of rule had sustained its first check in the overthrow of the
  Jesuit state of Paraguay; but they had secured a great part of
  the world’s trade (§ 156, 13), and strove successfully to control
  European politics. The Jansenist controversy, however, had called
  forth against them much popular odium; Pascal had made them
  ridiculous to all men of culture, the other monkish orders were
  hostile to them, their success in trade roused the jealousy of
  other traders, and their interference in politics made enemies
  on every hand. The Portuguese government took the first decided
  step. A revolt in Paraguay and an attempt on the king’s life were
  attributed to them, and the minister Pombal, whose reforms they
  had opposed, had them banished from Portugal in A.D. 1759, and
  their goods confiscated. =Clement XIII.=, A.D. 1758-1769, chosen
  by the Jesuits and under their influence, protected them by a
  bull; but Portugal refused to let the bull be proclaimed, led the
  papal nuncio over the frontier, broke off all relations with Rome,
  and sent whole shiploads of Jesuits to the pope. France followed
  Portugal’s example when the general Ricci had answered the king’s
  demand for a reform of his orders: _Sint ut sunt, aut non sint_.
  For the enormous financial failure of the Jesuit La Valette,
  the whole order was made responsible, and at last, in A.D. 1764,
  banished from France as dangerous to the state. Spain, Naples,
  and Parma, too, soon seized all the Jesuits and transported them
  beyond the frontiers. The new papal election on the death of
  Clement XIII. was a life and death question with the Jesuits,
  but courtly influences and fears of a schism prevailed. The
  pious and liberal Minorite Ganganelli mounted the papal throne
  as =Clement XIV.=, A.D. 1769-1774. He began with sweeping
  administrative reforms, forbad the reading of the bull _In cœna
  Domini_ (§ 117, 3), and, pressed by the Bourbon court, issued in
  A.D. 1773 the bull _Dominus ac Redemtor Noster_ suppressing the
  Jesuit order. The order numbered 22,600 members and the pope felt,
  in granting the bull, that he endangered his own life. Next year
  he died, not without suspicion of poisoning. All the Catholic
  courts, even Austria, put the decree in force. But the heretic
  Frederick II. tolerated the order for a long time in Silesia, and
  Catherine II. and Paul I. in their Polish provinces.--=Pius VI.=,
  A.D. 1775-1799, in many respects the antithesis of his
  predecessor, was the secret friend of the exiled and imprisoned
  ex-Jesuits. After the outbreak of the French Revolution, a
  proposal was made at Rome, in A.D. 1792, for the formal
  restoration of the order, as a means of saving the seriously
  imperilled church, but it did not find sufficient encouragement.

  § 165.10. =Anti-hierarchical Movements in Germany and
  Italy.=--Even before Joseph II. could carry out his reforms in
  ecclesiastical polity, the noble elector =Maximilian Joseph III.=,
  A.D. 1745-1777, with greater moderation but complete success,
  effected a similar reform in the Jesuit-overrun Bavaria. Himself
  a strict Catholic, he asserted the supremacy of the state over a
  foreign hierarchy, and by reforming the churches, cloisters, and
  schools of his country he sought to improve their position. But
  under his successor, Charles Theodore, A.D. 1777-1799, everything
  was restored to its old condition.--Meanwhile a powerful voice
  was raised from the midst of the German prelates that aimed a
  direct blow at the hierarchical papal system. =Nicholas von
  Hontheim=, the suffragan Bishop of Treves, had under the name
  _Justinus Febronius_ published, in A.D. 1763, a treatise _De
  Statu Ecclesiæ_, in which he maintained the supreme authority of
  general councils and the independence of bishops in opposition to
  the hierarchical pretensions of the popes. It was soon translated
  into German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. The book
  made a great impression, and Clement XIII. could do nothing
  against the bold defender of the liberties of the church. In
  A.D. 1778, indeed, Pius VI. had the poor satisfaction of extorting
  a recantation from the old man of seventy-seven years, but he
  lived to see yet more deadly storms burst upon the church. Urged
  by Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, the pope, in A.D. 1785,
  had made Munich the residence of a nuncio. The episcopal electors
  of Mainz, Cologne, and Treves, and the Archbishop of Salzburg,
  seeing their archiepiscopal rights in danger, met in congress
  at Ems in A.D. 1786, and there, on the basis of the Febronian
  proofs, claimed, in the so called =Punctation of Ems=, practical
  independence of the pope and the restoration of an independent
  German national Catholic church. But the German bishops found
  it easier to obey the distant pope than the near archbishops.
  So they united their opposition with that of the pope, and the
  undertaking of the archbishops came to nothing.--More threatening
  still for the existence of the hierarchy was the reign of
  =Joseph II.= in Austria. German emperor from A.D. 1765, and
  co-regent with his mother Maria Theresa, he began, immediately
  on his succession to sole rule in A.D. 1780, a radical reform of
  the whole ecclesiastical institutions throughout his hereditary
  possessions. In A.D. 1781 he issued his =Edict of Toleration=,
  by which, under various restrictions, the Protestants obtained
  civil rights and liberty of worship. Protestant places of worship
  were to have no bells or towers, were to pay stole dues to the
  Catholic priests, in mixed marriages the Catholic father had the
  right of educating all his children and the Catholic mother could
  claim the education at least of her daughters. By stopping all
  episcopal communications with the papal curia, and putting all
  papal bulls and ecclesiastical edicts under strict civil control,
  the Catholic church was emancipated from Roman influences, set
  under a native clergy, and made serviceable in the moral and
  religious training of the people, and all her institutions that
  did not serve this end were abolished. Of the 2,000 cloisters,
  606 succumbed before this decree, and those that remained were
  completely sundered from all connexion with Rome. In vain the
  bishops and Pius VI. protested. The pope even went to Vienna in
  A.D. 1782; but though received with great respect, he could make
  nothing of the emperor. Joseph’s procedure had been somewhat
  hasty and inconsiderate, and a reaction set in, led by interested
  parties, on the emperor’s early death in A.D. 1790.--The
  Grand-duke =Leopold of Tuscany=, Joseph’s brother, with the
  aid of the pious Bishop Scipio von Ricci, inclined to Jansenism,
  sought also in a similar way to reform the church of his land
  at the Synod of Pistoia, in A.D. 1786. But here too at last the
  hierarchy prevailed.

  § 165.11. =Theological Literature.=--The Revocation of the Edict
  of Nantes, A.D. 1685, gave the deathblow to the French Reformed
  theology, but it also robbed Catholic theology =in France= of its
  spur and incentive. The Huguenot polemic against the papacy, and
  that of Jansenism against the semi-pelagianism of the Catholic
  church, were silenced; but now the most rabid naturalism, atheism,
  and materialism held the field, and the church theology was so
  lethargic that it could not attempt any serious opposition. Yet
  even here some names are worthy of being recorded. Above all,
  =Bernard de Montfaucon= of St. Maur, the ablest antiquarian of
  France, besides his classical works, issued admirable editions of
  Athanasius, Chrysostom, Origen’s “_Hexapla_,” and the “_Collectio
  Nova Patrum_.” =E. Renaudot=, a learned expert in the oriental
  languages, wrote several works in vindication of the “_Perpétuité
  de la Foi cath._,” a history of the Jacobite patriarchs of
  Alexandria, etc., and compiled a “_Collectio liturgiarum
  Oriental_,” in two vols. Of permanent worth is the “_Bibliotheca
  Sacra_” of the Oratorian =Le Long=, which forms an admirable
  literary-historical apparatus for the Bible. The learned Jesuit
  =Hardouin=, who pronounced all Greek and Latin classics, with
  few exceptions, to be monkish products of the thirteenth century,
  and denied the existence of all pre-Tridentine general councils,
  edited a careful collection of Acts of Councils in twelve vols.
  folio in Paris, 1715, and compiled an elaborate chronology
  of the Old Testament. His pupil, the Jesuit =Berruyer=, wrote
  a romancing “_Hist. du Peuple de Dieu_,” which, though much
  criticised, was widely read. Incomparably more important was
  the Benedictine =Calmet=, died A.D. 1757, whose “_Dictionnaire de
  la Bible_” and “_Commentaire Littéral et Critique_” on the whole
  Bible are really most creditable for their time. And, finally,
  the Parisian professor of medicine, =Jean Astruc=, deserves to
  be named as the founder of the modern Pentateuch criticism, whose
  “_Conjectures sur les Mémoires Originaux_,” etc., appeared in
  Brussels A.D. 1753.--Within the limits of the French Revolution
  the noble theosophist =St. Martin=, died A.D. 1805, a warm
  admirer of Böhme, wrote his brilliant and profound treatises.

  § 165.12. =In Italy= the most important contributions were in
  the department of history. =Mansi=, in his collection of Acts of
  Councils in thirty-one vols. folio, A.D. 1759 ff., and =Muratori=,
  in his “_Scriptores Rer. Italic._,” in twenty-eight vols., and
  “_Antiquitt. Ital. Med. Ævi_,” in six vols., show brilliant
  learning and admirable impartiality. =Ugolino=, in a gigantic
  work, “_Thesaurus Antiquitt. ss._,” thirty-four folio vols.,
  A.D. 1744 ff., gathers together all that is most important for
  biblical archæology. The three =Assemani=, uncle and two nephews,
  cultured Maronites in Rome, wrought in the hitherto unknown
  field of Syrian literature and history. The uncle, Joseph Simon,
  librarian at the Vatican, wrote “_Bibliotheca Orientalis_,”
  in four vols., A.D. 1719 ff., and edited Ephraem’s [Ephraim’s]
  works in six vols. The elder nephew, Stephen Evodius, edited
  the “_Acta ss. Martyrum Orient. et Occid._,” in two vols.,
  and the younger, Joseph Aloysius, a “_Codex Liturgicus Eccles.
  Univ._,” in thirteen vols. Among dogmatical works the “_Theologia
  hist.-dogm.-scholastica_,” in eight vols. folio, Rome, 1739, of
  the Augustinian =Berti= deserves mention. =Zaccaria= of Venice,
  in some thirty vols., proved an indefatigable opponent of
  Febronianism, Josephinism, and such-like movements, and a careful
  editor of older Catholic works. The Augustinian =Florez=, died
  A.D. 1773, did for =Spain= what Muratori had done for Italy
  in making collections of ancient writers, which, with the
  continuations of the brethren of his order, extended to fifty
  folio volumes.--In =Germany= the greatest Catholic theologian
  of the century was =Amort=. Of his seventy treatises the
  most comprehensive is the “_Theologia Eclectica, Moralis et
  Scholastica_,” in four vols. folio, A.D. 1752. He conducted
  a conciliatory polemic against the Protestants, contested
  the mysticism of Maria von Agreda (§ 156, 5), and vigorously
  controverted superstition, miracle-mongering, and all manner
  of monkish extravagances. To the time of Joseph II. belongs the
  liberal, latitudinarian supernaturalist =Jahn= of Vienna, whose
  “Introduction to the Old Testament,” and “Biblical Antiquities”
  did much to raise the standard of biblical learning. For
  his anti-clericalism he was deprived of his professorship in
  A.D. 1805, and died in A.D. 1816 a canon in Vienna. To this
  century also belongs the greatly blessed literary labours of
  the accomplished mystic, =Sailer=, beginning at Ingolstadt in
  A.D. 1777, and continued at Dillingen from A.D. 1784. Deprived
  in A.D. 1794 of his professorship on pretence of his favouring
  the Illuminati, it was not till A.D. 1799 that he was allowed to
  resume his academic work in Ingolstadt and Landshut. By numerous
  theological, ascetical, and philosophical tracts, but far more
  powerfully by his lectures and personal intercourse, he sowed
  the seeds of rationalism, which bore fruit in the teachings
  of many Catholic universities, and produced in the hearts of
  many pupils a warm and deep and at the same time a gentle and
  conciliatory Catholicism, which heartily greeted, even in pious
  Protestants, the foundations of a common faith and life. Compare
  § 187, 1.--Continuation, § 191.

  § 165.13. =The German-Catholic Contribution to the
  Illumination.=--The Catholic church of Germany was also carried
  away with the current of “the Illumination,” which from the
  middle of the century had overrun Protestant Germany. While the
  exorcisms and cures of Father Gassner in Regensburg were securing
  signal triumphs to Catholicism, though these were of so dubious
  a kind that the bishops, the emperor, and finally even the curia,
  found it necessary to check the course of the miracle worker,
  =Weishaupt=, professor of canon law in Ingolstadt, founded,
  in A.D. 1776, the secret society of the =Illuminati=, which
  spread its deistic ideas of culture and human perfectibility
  through Catholic South Germany. Though inspired by deadly
  hatred of the Jesuits, Weishaupt imitated their methods, and
  so excited the suspicion of the Bavarian government, which, in
  A.D. 1785, suppressed the order and imprisoned and banished its
  leaders.--Catholic theology too was affected by the rationalistic
  movement. But that the power of the church to curse still
  survived was proved in the case of the Mainz professor, =Laurence
  Isenbiehl=, who applied the passage about Immanuel, in Isaiah
  vii. 14, not to the mother of Christ, but to the wife of the
  prophet, for which he was deposed in A.D. 1774, and on account
  of his defective knowledge of theology was sent back for two
  years to the seminary. When in A.D. 1778 he published a learned
  treatise on the same theme, he was put in prison. The pope too
  condemned his exposition as pestilential, and Isenbiehl “as
  a good Catholic” retracted. =Steinbühler=, a young jurist of
  Salzburg, having been sentenced to death in A.D. 1781 for some
  contemptuous words about the Catholic ceremonies, was pardoned,
  but soon after died from the ill-treatment he had received. The
  rationalistic movement got hold more and more of the Catholic
  universities. In Mainz, =Dr. Blau=, professor of dogmatics,
  promulgated with impunity the doctrine that in the course of
  centuries the church has often made mistakes. In the Austrian
  universities, under the protection of the Josephine edict, a
  whole series of Catholic theologians ventured to make cynically
  free criticisms, especially in the field of church history. At
  Bonn University, founded in A.D. 1786 by the Elector-archbishop
  of Cologne, there were teachers like =Hedderich=, who sportively
  described himself on the title page of a dissertation as “_jam
  quater Romæ damnatus_,” =Dereser=, previously a Carmelite monk,
  who followed Eichhorn in his exposition of the biblical miracles,
  and =Eulogius Schneider=, who, after having made Bonn too hot
  for him by his theological and poetical recklessness, threw
  himself into the French Revolution, for two years marched through
  Alsace with the guillotine as one of the most dreaded monsters,
  and finally, in A.D. 1794, was made to lay his own head on the
  block.--At the Austrian universities, under the protection of
  the tolerant Josephine legislation, a whole series of Catholic
  theologians, Royko, Wolff, Dannenmayr, Michl, etc., criticised,
  often with cynical plainness, the proceedings and condition of
  the Catholic church. To this class also, in the first stage of
  his remarkably changeful and eventful career, belongs Ign. Aur.
  =Fessler=. From 1773, a Capuchin in various cloisters, last of
  all in Vienna, he brought down upon himself the bitter hatred
  of his order by making secret reports to the emperor about the
  ongoings that prevailed in these convents. He escaped their
  enmity by his appointment, in 1784, as professor of the oriental
  languages and the Old Testament at Lemberg, but was in 1787
  dismissed from this office on account of various charges against
  his life, teaching, and poetical writings. In Silesia, in 1791,
  he went over to the Protestant church, joined the freemasons,
  held at Berlin the post of a councillor in ecclesiastical and
  educational affairs for the newly won Catholic provinces of
  Poland, and, after losing this position in consequence of the
  events of the war of 1806, found employment in Russia in 1809;
  first, as professor of oriental languages at St. Petersburg,
  and afterwards, when opposed and persecuted there also on
  suspicion of entertaining atheistical views, as member of a legal
  commission in South Russia. Meanwhile having gradually moved from
  a deistical to a vague mystical standpoint, he was in 1819 made
  superintendent and president of the evangelical consistory at
  Saratov, with the title of an evangelical bishop, and after the
  abolition of that office in 1833 he became general superintendent
  at St. Petersburg, where he died in 1839. His romances and
  tragedies as well as his theological and religious writings
  are now forgotten, but his “Reminiscences of his Seventy Years’
  Pilgrimage,” published in 1824, are still interesting, and his
  “History of Hungary,” in ten volumes, begun in 1812, is of
  permanent value.

  § 165.14. =The French Contribution to the Illumination.=--The
  age of Louis XIV., with the morals of its Jesuit confessors, the
  lust, bigotry, and hypocrisy of its court, its dragonnades and
  Bastille polemic against revivals of a living Christianity among
  Huguenots, mystics, and Jansenists, its prophets of the Cevennes
  and Jansenist convulsionists, etc., called forth a spirit of
  freethinking to which Catholicism, Jansenism, and Protestantism
  appeared equally ridiculous and absurd. This movement was
  essentially different from English deism. The principle of
  the English movement was _common sense_, the universal moral
  consciousness in man, with the powerful weapon of rational
  criticism, maintaining the existence of an ideal and moral
  element in men, and holding by the more general principles of
  religion. French naturalism, on the other hand, was a philosophy
  of the _esprit_, that essentially French lightheartedness
  which laughed away everything of an ideal sort with scorn and
  wit. Yet there was an intimate relationship between the two.
  The philosophy of common sense came to France, and was there
  travestied into a philosophy _d’esprit_. The organ of this French
  philosophy was the “_Encyclopédie_” of Diderot and D’Alembert,
  and its most brilliant contributors, Montesquieu, Helvetius,
  Voltaire, and Rousseau. =Montesquieu=, A.D. 1689-1755, whose
  “_Esprit des Lois_” in two years passed through twenty-two
  editions, wrote the “_Lettres Persanes_,” in which with biting
  wit he ridiculed the political, social, and ecclesiastical
  condition of France. =Helvetius=, A.D. 1715-1771, had his book,
  “_De l’Esprit_,” burnt in A.D. 1759 by order of parliament,
  and was made to retract, but this only increased his influence.
  =Voltaire=, A.D. 1694-1778, although treating in his writings
  of philosophical and theological matters, gives only a hash
  of English deism spiced with frivolous wit, showing the same
  tendency in his historical and poetical works, giving a certain
  eloquence to the commonest and filthiest subjects, as in his
  “_Pucelle_” and “_Candide_.” He obtained, however, an immense
  influence that extended far past his own days. To the same class
  belongs =Jean Jacques Rousseau=, A.D. 1712-1778, belonging to the
  Roman Catholic church only as a pervert for seventeen years in
  the middle of his life. Of a nobler nature than Voltaire, he
  yet often sank into deep immorality, as he tells without reserve,
  but also without any hearty penitence, in his _Confessions_.
  His whole life was taken up with the conflict for his ideals
  of freedom, nature, human rights, and human happiness. In
  his “_Contrat Social_” of A.D. 1762, he commends a return
  to the natural condition of the savage as the ideal end of
  man’s endeavour. His “_Emile_” of A.D. 1761 is of epoch-making
  importance in the history of education, and in it he eloquently
  sets forth his ideal of a natural education of children,
  while he sent all his own (natural) children to a foundling
  hospital.--The physician =De la Mettrie=, who died at the court
  of Frederick the Great in A.D. 1751, carried materialism to
  its most extreme consequences, and the German-Frenchman Baron
  =Holbach=, A.D. 1723-1789, wrote the “_Système de la Nature_,”
  which in two years passed through eighteen editions.[495]

  § 165.15. These seeds bore fruit in the =French Revolution=.
  Voltaire’s cry “_Écrasez l’infame_,” was directed against the
  church of the Inquisition, the massacre of St. Bartholomew,
  and the dragonnades, and Diderot had exclaimed that the world’s
  salvation could only come when the last king had been strangled
  with the entrails of the last priest. The constitutional National
  Assembly, A.D. 1789-1791, wished to set aside, not the faith of
  the people, but only the hierarchy, and to save the state from
  a financial crisis by the goods of the church. All cloisters
  were suppressed and their property sold. The number of bishops
  was reduced to one half, all ecclesiastical offices without
  a pastoral sphere were abolished, the clergy elected by the
  people paid by the state, and liberty of belief recognised as
  an inalienable right of man. The legislative National Assembly,
  A.D. 1791, 1792, made all the clergy take an oath to the
  constitution on pain of deposition. The pope forbad it under
  the same threat. Then arose a schism. Some 40,000 priests who
  refused the oath mostly quitted the country. Avignon (§ 110, 4)
  had been incorporated in the French territory. The terrorist
  National Convention, A.D. 1792-1795, which brought the king
  to the scaffold on January 21st, A.D. 1793, and the queen on
  October 16th, prohibited all Christian customs, on 5th October
  abolished the Christian reckoning of time, and on November 7th
  Christianity itself, laid waste 2,000 churches and converted
  _Notre Dame_ into a _Temple de la Raison_, where a ballet-dancer
  represented the goddess of reason. Stirred up by the fanatical
  baron, “Anacharsis” Cloots, “the apostle of human freedom and the
  personal enemy of Jesus Christ,” the Archbishop Gobel, now in his
  sixtieth year, came forward, proclaiming his whole past life a
  fraud, and owning no other religion than that of freedom. On the
  other hand, the noble Bishop Gregoire of Blois, the first priest
  to support the constitution, who voted for the abolition of
  royalty, but not the execution of the king, was not driven by
  the terrorism of the convention, of which he was a member, from
  a bold and open profession of Christianity, appearing in his
  clerical dress and unweariedly protesting against the vandalism
  of the Assembly. Robespierre[496] himself said, “_Si Dieu
  n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer_,” passed in A.D. 1794
  the resolution, _Le peuple français reconnait l’Être suprême et
  l’immortalité de l’âme_, and issued an order to celebrate the
  _fête de l’Être suprême_. The Directory, A.D. 1795-1799, restored
  indeed Christian worship, but favoured the deistical sect of the
  =Theophilanthropists=, whose high-swelling phrases soon called
  forth public scorn, while in A.D. 1802 the first consul banished
  their worship from all churches. But meanwhile, in A.D. 1798, in
  order to nullify the opposition of the pope, French armies had
  overrun Italy and proclaimed the Church States a Roman Republic.
  =Pius VI.= was taken prisoner to France, and died in A.D. 1799 at
  Valence under the rough treatment of the French, without having
  in the least compromised himself or his office.[497]

  § 165.16. =The Pseudo-Catholics.=

    1. =The Abrahamites or Bohemian Deists.= When Joseph II. issued
       his edict of toleration in A.D. 1781, a sect which had
       hitherto kept itself secret under the mask of Catholicism
       made its appearance in the Bohemian province of Pardubitz.
       The Abrahamites were descended from the old Hussites,
       and professed to follow the faith of Abraham before his
       circumcision. Their fundamental doctrine was deistic
       monotheism, and of the Bible they accepted only the ten
       commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. But as they would
       neither attend the Jewish synagogue nor the churches of any
       existing Christian sect, the emperor refused them religious
       toleration, drove them from their homes, and settled them
       in A.D. 1783 on the eastern frontiers. Many of them, in
       consequence of persecution, returned to the Catholic church,
       and even those who remained steadfast did not transmit their
       faith to their children.

  § 165.17.

    2. =The Frankists.=--Jacob Leibowicz, the son of a Jewish rabbi
       in Galicia, attached himself in Turkey, where he assumed the
       name of =Frank=, to the Jewish sect of the Sabbatarians, who,
       repudiating the Talmud, adopted the cabbalistic book Sohar
       as the source of their more profound religious teaching.
       Afterwards in Podolia, which was then still Polish, he was
       esteemed among his numerous adherents as a Messiah sent of
       God. Bitterly hated by the rabbinical Jews, and accused of
       indulging in vile orgies in their assemblies, many of those
       Soharists were thrown into prison at the instigation of
       Bishop Dembowski of Kaminetz. But when they turned and
       accused their opponents of most serious crimes against
       Christendom, and, at Frank’s suggestion, pointing out what
       they alleged to be an identity between the book Sohar and
       the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and incarnation, made
       it known that they were inclined to become converts, they
       won the favour of the bishop. He arranged a disputation
       between the two parties, pronounced the Talmudists beaten,
       confiscated all available copies of the Talmud, dragged
       them through the streets tied to the tail of a horse, and
       then burnt them. Dembowski, however, died soon after in
       A.D. 1757, and the cathedral chapter expelled the Soharists
       from Kaminetz. They appealed to King Augustus III. and to
       Archbishop Lubienski of Lemberg, renewing their profession
       of faith in the Trinity, and promising to be subject to the
       pope. In a disputation with the Talmudists lasting three
       days they sought to prove that the Talmudists used Christian
       blood in their services, which afterwards led to the death
       of five of the Jews thus accused. By Frank’s advice, who
       took part neither in this nor in the former disputation,
       but was the secret leader of the whole movement, they now
       formally applied for admission into the Catholic church,
       and their leader now entered Lemberg in great state. They
       actually submitted to be thus driven by him, and 1,000 of
       his adherents were baptized at Lemberg. Frank was baptized
       at Warsaw under the name of =Joseph=, the king himself
       acting as sponsor. In all Catholic journals this event was
       celebrated as a signal triumph for the Catholic church.
       But Frank among his own disciples continued to play the
       _rôle_ of a miracle-working Messiah. Hence in A.D. 1760
       the Inquisition stepped in. Some of his followers were
       imprisoned, others banished, and he himself as a heresiarch
       condemned to confinement for life with hard labour, from
       which after thirteen years he was liberated on the first
       partition of Poland in A.D. 1772, through the favour of
       Catherine II., who employed him as secret political agent.
       Feeling that his life was insecure in Poland, he went to
       Moravia, and at Brünn reorganized his numerous and attached
       followers into a well-knit society, by which he was revered
       as the incarnation of the Deity, and his beautiful daughter
       Eva, brought up by her noble godmother, as “the divine
       Emuna.” How he was permitted, under the protection of the
       Catholic church, to continue here for sixteen years, playing
       the _rôle_ of a Messiah, and to amass such wealth as enabled
       him to purchase, in A.D. 1788, from the impoverished prince
       of Homburg-Birstein his castle at Offenbach, with all the
       privileges attached to it, is an insoluble mystery. He now
       called himself Baron von Frank, formed with his followers
       from Moravia and Poland a brilliant establishment, which
       outwardly adhered to the Roman Catholic church, although he
       very seldom attended the Catholic services. Frank died in
       A.D. 1791, and was buried with great pomp, but without the
       presence of the Catholic clergy. His daughter Eva was able
       to maintain the extravagant establishment of her father
       for twenty-six years, when the debt resting on the castle
       reached three million florins. At last, in A.D. 1817, the
       long-threatened catastrophe occurred. Eva died suddenly,
       and a coffin said to contain her body was actually with
       all decorum laid in the grave.


                     § 166. THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES.

  The oppressed condition of the orthodox church in the Ottoman empire
continued unchanged. It had a more vigorous development in Russia,
where its ascendency was unchallenged. Although the Russian church,
from the time of its obtaining an independent patriarchate at Moscow,
in A.D. 1589, was constitutionally emancipated from the mother church
of Constantinople, it yet continued in close religious affinity with it.
This was intensified by the adoption of the common confession, drawn up
shortly before by Peter Mogilas (§ 152, 3). The patriarchal constitution
in Russia, however, was but short-lived, for Peter I., in 1702,
after the death of the Patriarch Hadrian, abolished the patriarchate,
arrogated to himself as emperor the highest ecclesiastical office,
and in A.D. 1721 constituted “the Holy Synod,” to which, under the
supervision of a procurator guarding the rights of the state, he
assigned the supreme direction of spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.
To these proposals the Patriarch of Constantinople gave his approval.
In this reform of the church constitution Theophanes Procopowicz,
Metropolitan of Novgorod, was the emperor’s right hand.--The
monophysite church of Abyssinia was again during this period the
scene of Christological controversies.

  § 166.1. =The Russian State Church.=--From the time of the
  liturgical reformation of the Patriarch Nikon (§ 163, 10) a
  new and peculiar =service of song= took the place of the old
  unison style that had previously prevailed in the Russian church.
  Without instrumental accompaniment, it was sustained simply by
  powerful male voices, and was executed, at least in the chief
  cities, with musical taste and charming simplicity. Among
  the =theologians=, the above-named Procopowicz, who died in
  A.D. 1736, occupied a prominent position. His “Handbook of
  Dogmatics,” without departing from the doctrines of his church,
  is characterized by learning, clearness of exposition, and
  moderation. From the middle of the century, however, especially
  among the superior clergy, there crept in a Protestant tendency,
  which indeed held quite firmly by the old theology of the
  œcumenical synods of the Greek Church, but set aside or laid
  little stress upon later doctrinal developments. Even the
  celebrated and widely used catechism, drawn up originally for the
  use of the Grand-duke Paul Petrovich, by his tutor, the learned
  Platón, afterwards Metropolitan of Moscow, was not quite free
  from this tendency. It found yet more decided expression in
  the dogmatic handbook of Theophylact, archimandrite of Moscow,
  published in A.D. 1773.--Continuation, § 206, 1.

  § 166.2. =Russian Sects.=--To the sects of the seventeenth
  century (§ 163, 10) are to be added spiritualistic gnostics of
  the eighteenth, in which we find a blending of western ideas with
  the old oriental mysticism. Among those were the =Malakanen=, or
  consumers of milk, because, in spite of the orthodox prohibition,
  they used milk during the fasts. They rejected all anointings,
  even chrism and priestly consecration, and acknowledged only
  spiritual anointing by the doctrine of Christ. They also
  volatilized the idea of baptism and the Lord’s supper into that
  of a merely spiritual cleansing and nourishing by the word of the
  gospel. Otherwise they led a quiet and honourable life. More
  important still in regard to numbers and influence were the
  =Duchoborzen=. Although belonging exclusively to the peasant
  class, they had a richly developed theological system of a
  speculative character, with a notable blending of theosophy,
  mysticism, Protestantism, and rationalism. They idealized the
  doctrine of the sacraments after the style of the Quakers, would
  have no special places of worship or an ordained clergy, refused
  to take oaths or engage in military service, and led peaceable
  and useful lives. They made their first appearance in Moscow in
  the beginning of the eighteenth century under Peter the Great,
  and spread through other cities of Old Russia.--Continuation,
  § 210, 3.

  § 166.3. =The Abyssinian Church= (§§ 64, 1; 73, 2).--About the
  middle of the century a monk appeared, proclaiming that, besides
  the commonly admitted twofold birth of Christ, the eternal
  generation of the Father and the temporal birth of the Virgin
  Mary, there was a third birth through anointing with the Holy
  Spirit in the baptism in Jordan. He thus convulsed the whole
  Abyssinian church, which for centuries had been in a state of
  spiritual lethargy. The _abuna_ with the majority of his church
  held by the old doctrine, but the new also found many adherents.
  The split thus occasioned has continued till the present time,
  and has played no unimportant part in the politico-dynastic
  struggles of the last ten years (§ 184, 9).




                      II. The Protestant Churches.


         § 167. THE LUTHERAN CHURCH BEFORE “THE ILLUMINATION.”

  By means of the founding of the University of Halle in A.D. 1694
a fresh impulse was given to the pietist movement, and too often the
whole German Church was embroiled in violent party strifes, in which
both sides failed to keep the happy mean, and laid themselves open to
the reproach of the adversaries. Spener died in A.D. 1705, Francke in
A.D. 1727, and Breithaupt in A.D. 1732. After the loss of these leaders
the Halle pietism became more and more gross, narrow, unscientific,
regardless of the Church confession, frequently renouncing definite
beliefs for hazy pious feeling, and attaching undue importance to pious
forms of expression and methodistical modes of life. The conventionalism
encouraged by it became a very Pandora’s box of sectarianism and
fanaticism (§ 170, 1). But it had also set up a ferment in the church
and in theology which created a wholesome influence for many years. More
than 6,000 theologians from all parts of Germany had down to Francke’s
death received their theological training in Halle, and carried the
leaven of his spirit into as many churches and schools. A whole series
of distinguished teachers of theology now rose in almost all the
Lutheran churches of the German states, who, avoiding the onesidedness
of the pietists and their opponents, taught and preached pure doctrine
and a pious life. From Calixt they had learnt to be mild and fair
towards the Reformed and Catholic churches, and by Spener they had
been roused to a genuine and hearty piety. Gottfried Arnold’s protest,
onesided as it was, had taught them to discover, even among heretics
and sectaries, partial and distorted truths; and from Calov and Löscher
they had inherited a zeal for pure doctrine. Most eminent among these
were Albert Bengel, of Württemberg, who died in A.D. 1752, and Chr. Aug.
Crusius of Leipzig, who died in A.D. 1775. But when the flood of “the
Illumination” came rushing in upon the German Lutheran Church about the
middle of the century, it overflowed even the fields sown by these noble
men.

  § 167.1. =The Pietist Controversies after the Founding of the
  Halle University= (§ 159, 3).--Pietism, condemned by the orthodox
  universities of Leipzig and Wittenberg, was protected and
  encouraged in Halle. The crowds of students flocking to this new
  seminary roused the wrath of the orthodox. The Wittenberg faculty,
  with Deutschmann at its head, issued a manifesto in A.D. 1695,
  charging Spener with no less than 264 errors in doctrine. Nor
  were those of Leipzig silent, Carpzov going so far as to style
  the mild and peace-loving Spener a _procella ecclesiæ_. Other
  leading opponents of the pietists were Schelwig of Dantzig,
  Mayer of Wittenberg, and Fecht of Rostock. When Spener died in
  A.D. 1705 his opponents gravely discussed whether he could be
  thought of as in glory. Fecht of Rostock denied that it could
  be. Among the later champions of pure doctrine the worthiest
  and ablest was the learned Löscher, superintendent at Dresden,
  A.D. 1709-1747, who at least cannot be reproached with dead
  orthodoxy. His “_Vollständiger Timotheus Verinus_,” two vols.,
  1718, 1721, is by far the most important controversial work
  against pietism.[498] Francis Buddeus of Jena for a long time
  sought ineffectually to bring about a reconciliation between
  Löscher and the pietists of Halle. In A.D. 1710 Francke and
  Breithaupt obtained a valorous colleague in Joachim Lange;
  but even he was no match for Löscher in controversy. Meanwhile
  pietism had more and more permeated the life of the people, and
  occasioned in many places violent popular tumults. In several
  states conventicles were forbidden; in others, _e.g._ Württemberg
  and Denmark, they were allowed.

  § 167.2. The orthodox regarded the pietists as a new sect,
  with dangerous errors that threatened the pure doctrine of the
  Lutheran Church; while the pietists maintained that they held by
  pure Lutheran orthodoxy, and only set aside its barren formalism
  and dead externalism for biblical practical Christianity. The
  controversy gathered round the doctrines of the new birth,
  justification, sanctification, the church, and the millennium.

    a. The new birth. The orthodox maintained that regeneration
       takes place in baptism (§ 141, 13), every baptized person
       is regenerate; but the new birth needs nursing, nourishment,
       and growth, and, where these are wanting, reawakening.
       The pietists identified awakening or conversion with
       regeneration, considered that it was effected in later
       life through the word of God, mediated by a corporeal and
       spiritual penitential struggle, and a consequent spiritual
       experience, and sealed by a sensible assurance of God’s
       favour in the believer’s blessed consciousness. This
       inward sealing marks the beginning, introduction into the
       condition of babes in Christ. They distinguished a _theologia
       viatorum_, _i.e._ the symbolical church doctrine, and a
       _theologia regenitorum_, which has to do with the soul’s
       inner condition after the new birth. They have consequently
       been charged with maintaining that a true Christian who has
       arrived at the stage of spiritual manhood may and must in
       this life become free from sin.

    b. Justification and Sanctification. In opposition to an
       only too prevalent externalizing of the doctrine of
       justification, Spener has taught that only living faith
       justifies, and if genuine must be operative, though not
       meritorious. Only in faith proved to be living by a pious
       life and active Christianity, but not in faith in the
       external and objective promises of God’s word, lies the sure
       guarantee of justification obtained. His opponents therefore
       accused him of confounding justification and sanctification,
       and depreciating the former in favour of the latter.
       And, though not by Spener, yet by many of his followers,
       justification was put in the background, and in a onesided
       manner stress was laid upon practical Christianity.
       Spener and Francke had expressly preached against worldly
       dissipation and frivolity, and condemned dancing, the
       theatre, card-playing, as detrimental to the progress of
       sanctification, and therefore sinful; while the orthodox
       regarded them as matters of indifference. Besides this, the
       pietists held the doctrine of a day of grace, assigned to
       each one within the limit of his earthly life (_terminism_).

    c. The Church and the Pastorate. Orthodoxy regarded word and
       sacrament and the ministry which administered them as the
       basis and foundation of the church; pietism held that the
       individual believers determined the character and existence
       of the church. In the one case the church was thought
       to beget, nurse, and nourish believers; in the other
       believers, constituted, maintained, and renewed the church,
       accomplishing this best by conventicles, in which living
       Christianity preserved itself and diffused its influence
       abroad. The orthodox laid great stress upon clerical
       ordination and the grace of office; pietists on the person
       and his faith. Spener had taught that only he who has
       experienced in his own heart the power of the gospel,
       _i.e._ he who has been born again, can be a true preacher
       and pastor. Löscher maintained that the official acts of an
       unconverted preacher, if only he be orthodox, may be blessed
       as well as those of a converted man, because saving power
       lies not in the person of the preacher, but in the word of
       God which he preaches, in its purity and simplicity, and in
       the sacraments which he dispenses in accordance with their
       institution. The pietists then went so far as absolutely
       to deny that saving results could follow the preaching of
       an unconverted man. The proclamation of forgiveness by the
       church without the inward sealing had for them no meaning;
       yea, they regarded it as dangerous, because it quieted
       conscience and made sinners secure. Hence they keenly
       opposed private confession and churchly absolution. Of a
       special grace of office they would know nothing: the true
       ordination is the new birth; each regenerate one, and such
       a one only, is a true priest. The orthodox insisted above
       all on pure doctrine and the church confession; the pietists
       too regarded this as necessary, but not as the main thing.
       Spener decidedly maintained the duty of accepting the church
       symbols; but later pietists rejected them as man’s work, and
       so containing errors. Among the orthodox, again, some went
       so far as to claim for their symbols absolute immunity from
       error. Spener’s opposition to the compulsory use of fixed
       Scripture portions, prescribed forms of prayer, and the
       exorcism formulary occasioned the most violent contentions.
       On the other hand, his reintroduction of the confirmation
       service before the first communion, which had fallen into
       general desuetude, was imitated, and soon widely prevailed,
       even among the orthodox.

    d. Eschatology. Spener had interpreted the biblical doctrine of
       the 1,000 years’ reign as meaning that, after the overthrow
       of the papacy and the conversion of heathens and Jews, a
       period of the most glorious and undisturbed tranquillity
       would dawn for the kingdom of Christ on earth as prelude
       to the eternal sabbath. His opponents denounced this as
       chiliasm and fanaticism.

    e. There was, finally, a controversy about Divine providence
       occasioned by the founding of Francke’s orphan house at
       Halle. The pietists pointed to the establishment and growth
       of this institution as an instance of immediate divine
       providence; while Löscher, by indicating the common means
       employed to secure success, reduced the whole affair to the
       domain of general and daily providence, without denying the
       value of the strong faith in God and the active love that
       characterized its founder, as well as the importance of the
       Divine blessing which rested upon the work.[499]

  § 167.3. =Theology= (§ 159, 4).--The last two important
  representatives of the =Old Orthodox School= were =Löscher=, who,
  besides his polemic against pietism, made learned contributions
  to biblical philology and church history; and his companion in
  arms, =Cyprian= of Gotha, who died in A.D. 1745, the ablest
  combatant of Arnold’s “_Ketzerhistorie_,” and opponent of union
  efforts and of the papacy.--The =Pietist School=, more fruitful
  in practical than scientific theology, contributed to devotional
  literature many works that will never be forgotten. The learned
  and voluminous writer =Joachim Lange=, who died A.D. 1744, the
  most skilful controversialist among the Halle pietists, author
  of the “Halle Latin Grammar,” which reached its sixtieth edition
  in A.D. 1809, published a commentary on the whole Bible in
  seven folio vols. after the Cocceian method. Of importance as
  a historian of the Reformation was =Salig= of Wolfenbüttel,
  who died in A.D. 1738. =Christian Thomasius= at first attached
  himself to the pietists as an opponent of the rigid adherence
  to the letter of the orthodox, but was repudiated by them as an
  indifferentist. To him belongs the honour of having turned public
  opinion against the persecution of witches (§ 117, 4). Out of
  the contentions of pietists and orthodox there now rose a =third
  school=, in which Lutheran theology and learning were united with
  genuine piety and profound thinking, decided confessionalism with
  moderation and fairness. Its most distinguished representatives
  were =Hollaz= of Pomerania, died 1713 (“_Examen Theologicum
  Acroamaticum_”); =Buddeus= of Jena, died 1729 (“_Hist. Ecclst.
  V.T._,” “_Instit. Theol. Dogma_,” “_Isagoge Hist. Theol. Univ._”);
  =J. Chr. Wolf= of Homburg, died 1739 (“_Biblioth. Hebr._,” “_Curæ
  Philol. et Crit. in N.T._”); =Weismann= of Tübingen, died 1747
  (“_Hist. Ecclst._”); =Carpzov= of Leipzig, died A.D. 1767 as
  superintendent at Lübeck (“_Critica s. V.T._,” “_Introductio
  ad Libros cen. V.T._,” “_Apparatus Antiquitt. s. Codicis_”);
  =J. H. Michaelis= of Halle, died 1731 (“_Biblia. Hebr. c.
  Variis Lectionibus et Brev. Annott._,” “_Uberiores Annott. in
  Hagiograph._”); assisted in both by his learned nephew =Chr. Ben.
  Michaelis= of Halle, died 1764; =J. G. Walch= of Jena, died 1755
  (“_Einl. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten_,” “_Biblioth. Theol.
  Selecta_,” “_Biblioth. Patristica_,” “_Luther’s Werke_”); =Chr.
  Meth. Pfaff= of Tübingen, died 1760 (“_K. G., K. Recht, Dogmatik,
  Moral_”); =L. von Mosheim= of Helmstädt [Helmstadt] and Göttingen,
  died 1755, the father of modern church history (“_Institt. Hist.
  Ecclst._,” “_Commentarii Rebus Christ. ante Constant. M._,”
  “_Dissertationes_,” etc.); =J. Alb. Bengel= of Stuttgart, died
  1752 (“_Gnomon N.T._,” a commentary on the N.T. distinguished
  by pregnancy of expression and profundity of thought; from
  his interpretation of Revelation he expected the millennium to
  begin in A.D. 1836); and =Chr. A. Crusius= of Leipzig, died 1775
  (“_Hypomnemata ad Theol. Propheticam._”)--A =fourth= theological
  school arose out of the application of the mathematical
  method of demonstration by the philosopher =Chr. von Wolff=
  of Halle, who died A.D. 1754. Wolff attached himself to
  the philosophical system of Leibnitz, and sought to unite
  philosophy and Christianity; but under the manipulation of his
  logico-mathematical method of proof he took all vitality out of
  the system, and the pre-established harmony of the world became
  a purely mechanical clockwork. He looked merely to the logical
  accuracy of Christian truths, without seeking to penetrate their
  inner meaning, gave formal exercise to the understanding, while
  the heart was left empty and cold; and thus inevitably revelation
  and mystery made way for a mere natural theology. Hence the
  charge brought against the system of tending to fatalism and
  atheism, not only by narrow pietists like Lange, but by able
  and liberal theologians like Buddeus and Crusius, was quite
  justifiable. By a cabinet order of Frederick William I. in
  A.D. 1723 Wolff was deposed, and ordered within two days,
  on pain of death, to quit the Prussian states. But so soon as
  Frederick II. ascended the throne, in A.D. 1740, he recalled the
  philosopher to Halle from Marburg, where he had meanwhile taught
  with great success.[500] =Sig. Jac. Baumgarten=, the pious and
  learned professor in Halle, who died in A.D. 1757, was the first
  to introduce Wolff’s method into theology. In respect of contents
  his theology occupies essentially the old orthodox ground.
  The ablest promoter of the system was =John Carpov= of Weimar,
  who died in A.D. 1768 (“_Theol. Revelata Meth. Scientifica
  Adornata_”). When applied to sermons, the Wolffian method led
  to the most extreme insipidity and absurdity.

  § 167.4. =Unionist Efforts.=--The distinguished theologian
  Chr. Matt. Pfaff, chancellor of the University of Tübingen, who,
  without being numbered among the pietists, recognised in pietism
  a wholesome reaction against the barren worship of the letter
  which had characterized orthodoxy, regarded a union between
  the Lutheran and Reformed churches on their common beliefs,
  which in importance far exceeded the points of difference, as
  both practicable and desirable; and in A.D. 1720 expressed this
  opinion in his “_Alloquium Irenicum ad Protestantes_,” in which
  he answered the challenge of the “_Corpus Evangelicorum_” at
  Regensburg (§ 153, 1). His proposal, however, found little favour
  among Lutheran theologians. Not only Cyprian of Gotha, but even
  such conciliatory theologians as Weismann of Tübingen and Mosheim
  of Helmstädt [Helmstadt], opposed it. But forty years later a
  Lutheran theologian, Heumann of Göttingen, demonstrated that “the
  Reformed doctrine of the supper is true,” and proposed, in order
  to end the schism, that Lutherans should drop their doctrine
  of the supper and the Reformed their doctrine of predestination.
  This pamphlet, edited after the author’s death by Sack of Berlin,
  in A.D. 1764, produced a great sensation, and called forth a
  multitude of replies on the Lutheran side, the best of which
  were those of Walch of Jena and Ernesti of Leipzig. Even within
  the Lutheran church, however, it found considerable favour.

  § 167.5. =Theories of Ecclesiastical Law.=--Of necessity during
  the first century of the Protestant church its government was
  placed in the hands of the princes, who, because there were no
  others to do so, dispensed the _jura episcopalia_ as _præcipua
  membra ecclesiæ_. What was allowed at first in the exigency of
  these times came gradually to be regarded as a legal right.
  Orthodox theology and the juristic system associated with it,
  especially that of Carpzov, justified this assumption in what
  is called the =episcopal system=. This theory firmly maintains
  the mediæval distinction between the spiritual and civil powers
  as two independent spheres ordained of God; but it installs the
  prince as _summus episcopus_, combining in his person the highest
  spiritual with the highest civil authority. In lands, however,
  where more than one confession held sway, or where a prince
  belonging to a different section of the church succeeded, the
  practical difficulties of this theory became very apparent; as,
  _e.g._, when a Reformed or Romish prince had to be regarded as
  _summus episcopus_ of a Lutheran church. Driven thus to seek
  another basis for the claims of royal supremacy, a new theory,
  that of the =territorial system=, was devised, according to
  which the prince possessed highest ecclesiastical authority, not
  as _præcipuum membrum ecclesiæ_, but as sovereign ruler in the
  state. The headship of the church was therefore not an independent
  prerogative over and above that of civil government, but an
  inherent element in it: _cujus regio, illius et religio_. The
  historical development of the German Reformation gave support to
  this theory (§ 126, 6), as seen in the proceedings of the Diet of
  Spires in A.D. 1526, in the Augsburg and Westphalian Peace.
  A scientific basis was given it by Puffendorf of Heidelberg,
  died A.D. 1694, in alliance with Hobbes (§ 163, 3). It was
  further developed and applied by Christian Thomasius of Halle,
  died A.D. 1728, and by the famous J. H. Böhmer in his “_Jus
  Ecclesiasticum Potestantium_.” Thomasius’ connexion with the
  pietists and his indifference to confessions secured for the
  theory a favourable reception in that party. Spener himself
  indeed preferred the Calvinistic presbyterial constitution,
  because only in it could equality be given to all the three
  orders, _ministerium ecclesiasticum_, _magistratus politicus_,
  _status œconomicus_. This protest by Spener against the two
  systems was certainly not without influence upon the construction
  of a third theory, the =collegial system=, proposed by Pfaff of
  Tübingen, died A.D. 1760. According to this scheme there belonged
  to the sovereign as such only the headship of the church, _jus
  circa sacra_, while the _jura in sacra_, matters pertaining to
  doctrine, worship, ecclesiastical law and its administration,
  installation of clergy, and excommunication, as _jura
  collegialia_, belonged to the whole body of church members. The
  normal constitution therefore required the collective vote of
  all the members through their synods. But outward circumstances
  during the Reformation age had necessitated the relegating the
  discharge of these collegial rights to the princes, which in
  itself was not unallowable, if only the position be maintained
  that the prince acts _ex commisso_, and is under obligation to
  render an account to those who have commissioned him. This system,
  on account of its democratic character, found hearty supporters
  among the later rationalists. But as a matter of fact nowhere
  was any of the three systems consistently carried out. The
  constitution adopted in most of the national churches was a
  weak vacillation between all the three.[501]

  § 167.6. =Church Song= (§ 159, 3) received, during the first half
  of the century, many valuable contributions. Two main groups of
  singers may be distinguished:

    1. The pietistic school, characterized by a biblical and
       practical tendency. The spiritual life of believers, the
       work of grace in conversion, growth in holiness, the varying
       conditions and experiences of the religious life, were
       favourite themes. They were fitted, not so much for use
       in the public services, as for private devotion, and few
       comparatively have been retained in collections of church
       hymns. The later productions of this school sank more and
       more into sentimentalism and allegorical and fanciful play
       of words. We may distinguish among the Halle pietists an
       older school, A.D. 1690-1720, and a younger, A.D. 1720-1750.
       The former, coloured by the fervent piety of Francke,
       produced simple, hearty, and often profound songs. The most
       distinguished representatives were =Freylinghausen=, died
       A.D. 1739, Francke’s son-in-law, and director of the Halle
       Orphanage, editor in A.D. 1717 of a hymn-book widely used
       among the pietists, was author of the hymns “Pure Essence,
       spotless Fount of Light,” “The day expires;” =Chr. Fr.
       Richter=, physician to the Orphanage, died A.D. 1711, author
       of thirty-three beautiful hymns, including “God, whom I as
       Love have known;” =Emilia Juliana=, Countess of Schwarzburg
       Rudolstadt, died A.D. 1706, who wrote 586 hymns, including
       “Who knows how near my end may be?” =Schröder=, pastor in
       Magdeburg, died A.D. 1728, wrote “One thing is needful: Let
       me deem;” =Winckler=, cathedral preacher of Magdeburg, died
       A.D. 1722, author of “Strive, when thou art called of God;”
       =Dessler=, rector of Nuremburg, died A.D. 1722, composer
       of “I will not let Thee go, Thou help in time of need,” “O
       Friend of souls, how well is me;” =Gotter=, died A.D. 1735,
       who wrote, “O Cross, we hail thy bitter reign;” =Cresselius=,
       pastor in Dusseldorf [Düsseldorf], author of “Awake, O man,
       and from thee shake.” The younger Halle school represents
       pietism in its period of decay. Its best representatives
       are =J. J. Rambach=, professor at Giessen, died A.D. 1735,
       who wrote “I am baptized into thy name;” =Allendorf=, court
       preacher at Cöthen, died A.D. 1773, editor of a collection
       of poetic renderings from the Canticles.

    2. The poets of the orthodox party, although opposed to the
       pietists, are all more or less touched by the fervent piety
       of Spener. =Neumeister=, pastor at Hamburg, died A.D. 1756,
       was an orthodox hymn-writer of thoroughly conservative
       tendencies, zealously opposing the onesidedness of pietism,
       with a strong, ardent faith in the orthodox creed, but
       without much significance as a poet. =Schmolck=, pastor
       at Schweidnitz, died A.D. 1737, wrote over 1,000 hymns,
       including “Blessed Jesus, here we stand,” “Hosanna to the
       Son of David! Raise,” “Welcome, thou Victor in the strife.”
       =Sol. Franck=, secretary to the consistory at Weimar, died
       A.D. 1725, wrote over 300 hymns, including “Rest of the
       weary, thou thyself art resting now.” The mediating party
       between pietism and orthodoxy, represented by Bengel and
       Crusius in theology, is represented among hymn-writers
       by =J. Andr. Rothe=, died A.D. 1758, and by =Mentzer=,
       died A.D. 1734, composer of “Oh, would I had a thousand
       tongues!” In A.D. 1750 J. Jac. von Moser collected a
       list of 50,000 spiritual songs printed in the German
       language.--Continuation, § 171, 1.

  § 167.7. =Sacred Music= (§ 159, 5).--Decadence of musical taste
  accompanied the lowering of the poetic standard, and pietists
  went even further than the orthodox in their imitation and
  adaptation of operatic airs. =Freylinghausen=, not only himself
  composed many such melodies, but made a collection from various
  sources in A.D. 1704, retaining some of the more popular of the
  older tunes.--There now arose, amid all this depravation of taste,
  a noble musician, who, like the good householder, could bring
  out of his treasure things new and old. =J. Seb. Bach=, the most
  perfect organist who ever lived, was musical director of the
  School of St. Thomas, Leipzig, and died A.D. 1750. He turned
  enthusiastically to the old chorale, which no one had ever
  understood and appreciated as he did. He harmonized the old
  chorales for the organ, made them the basis for elaborate organ
  studies, gave expression to his profoundest feelings in his
  musical compositions and in his recitatives, duets, and airs,
  reproduced at the sacred concerts many fine old chorales wedded
  to most appropriate Scripture passages. He is for all times
  the unrivalled master in fugue, harmony, and modulation. In his
  passion music we have expression given to the profoundest ideas
  of German Protestantism in the noblest music. After Bach comes a
  master in oratorio music hitherto unapproached, =G. Fr. Handel=
  of Halle, who, from A.D. 1710 till his death in A.D. 1759,
  lived mostly in England. For twenty-five years he wrought for
  the opera-house, and only in his later years gave himself to
  the composing of oratorios. His operas are forgotten, but his
  oratorios will endure to the end of time. His most perfect
  work is the “Messiah,” which Herder describes as a Christian
  epic in music. Of his other great compositions, “Samson,”
  “Judas Maccabæus,” and “Jephtha” may be mentioned.[502]

  § 167.8. =The Christian Life and Devotional Literature.=--Pietism
  led to a powerful revival of religious life among the people,
  which it sustained by zealous preaching and the publication of
  devotional works. A similar activity displayed itself among the
  orthodox. Francke began his charitable labours with seven florins;
  but with undaunted faith he started his Orphanage, writing over
  its door the words of Isaiah xl. 31. In faith and benevolence
  Woltersdorff was a worthy successor of Francke; and Baron von
  Canstein applied his whole means to the founding of the Bible
  Institute of Halle. Missions too were now prosecuted with a zeal
  and success which witnessed to the new life that had arisen in
  the Lutheran church.--A remarkable manifestation of the pietistic
  spirit of this age is seen in =The Praying Children in Silesia=,
  A.D. 1707. Children of four years old and upward gathered in open
  fields for singing and prayer, and called for the restoration of
  churches taken away by the Catholics. The movement spread over
  the whole land. In vain was it denounced from the pulpits and
  forbidden by the authorities. Opposition only excited more and
  more the zeal of the children. At last the churches were opened
  for their services. The excitement then gradually subsided. It
  was, however, long a subject of discussion between the pietists
  and the orthodox; the latter denouncing it as the work of the
  devil, the former regarding it as a wonderful awakening of God’s
  grace.--Best remembered of the many devotional writers of this
  period are Bogatsky of Halle, died A.D. 1774, whose “Golden
  Treasury” is still highly esteemed;[503] and Von Moser, died
  A.D. 1785, who lived a noble and exemplary life at Stuttgart
  amid much sore persecution. The great need of simple explanation
  of Scripture appears from the great sale of such popular
  commentaries as those of Pfaff at Tübingen, 1730, Starke at
  Leipzig, 1741, and the Halle Bible of S. J. Baumgarten, 1748.

  § 167.9. =Missions to the Heathen.=--The quickening of
  religious life by pietism bore fruit in new missionary activity.
  Frederick IV. of Denmark founded in his East Indian possessions
  the Tranquebar mission in A.D. 1706, under Ziegenbalg and
  Plutschau. Ziegenbalg, who translated the New Testament into
  Tamil, died in A.D. 1719. From the Danish possessions this
  mission carried its work over into the English Indian territories.
  Able and zealous workers were sent out from the Halle Institute,
  of whom the greatest was Chr. Fr. Schwartz, who died in A.D. 1798,
  after nearly fifty years of noble service in the mission field.
  In the last quarter of the century, however, under the influence
  of rationalism, zeal for missions declined, the Halle society
  broke up, and the English were allowed to reap the harvest
  sown by the Lutherans. The Halle professor Callenberg founded
  in A.D. 1728 a society for the conversion of the Jews, in the
  interests of which Stephen Schultz travelled over Europe, Asia,
  and Africa, preaching the Cross among the Jews. Christianity had
  been introduced among the Eskimos in Greenland in the eleventh
  century (§ 93, 5), but the Scandinavian colony there had been
  forgotten, and no trace of the religion which it had taught any
  longer remained. This reproach to Christianity lay sore on the
  heart of Hans Egede, a Norwegian pastor, and he found no rest
  till, supported by a Danish-Norwegian trading house, he sailed
  with his family in A.D. 1721 for these frozen and inhospitable
  shores. Amid almost inconceivable hardships, and with at first
  but little success, he continued to labour unweariedly, and even
  after the trading company abandoned the field he remained. In
  A.D. 1733 he had the unexpected joy of welcoming three Moravian
  missionaries, Christian David and the brothers Stach. His joy
  was too soon dashed by the spiritual pride of the new arrivals,
  who insisted on modelling everything after their own Moravian
  principles, and separated themselves from the noble Egede, when
  he refused to yield, as an unspiritual and unconverted man. Egede,
  on the other hand, though deeply offended at their confounding
  justification and sanctification, their contempt of pure doctrine,
  and their unscriptural views and mode of speech, was ready to
  attribute all this to their defective theological training.
  He rewarded their unkindness, when they were stricken down in
  sore sickness, with unwearied, loving care. In A.D. 1736 he
  returned to Denmark, leaving his son Paul to carry on his work,
  and continued director of the Greenland Mission Seminary in
  Copenhagen till his death in A.D. 1758.[504]--Continuation,
  § 171, 5.


            § 168. THE CHURCH OF THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN.[505]

  The highly gifted Count Zinzendorf, inspired even as a boy, out of
fervent love to the Saviour, with the idea of gathering together the
lovers of Jesus, took occasion of the visit of some Moravian Exultants
to his estate to realize his cherished project. On the Hutberg he
dropped the mustard seed of the dream of his youth into fertile soil,
where, under his fervent care, it soon grew into a stately tree, whose
branches spread over all European lands, and thence through all parts
of the habitable globe. The society which he founded was called “The
Society of the United Brethren.” The fact that this society was not
overwhelmed by the extravagances to which for a time it gave way, that
its fraternising with the fanatics, the extravagant talk in which its
members indulged about a special covenant with the Saviour, and their
not over-modest claims to a peculiar rank in the kingdom of God, did not
lead to its utter overthrow in the abyss of fanaticism, and that on the
slippery paths of its mystical marriage theory it was able to keep its
feet, presents a phenomenon, which stands alone in church history, and
more than anything else proves how deeply rooted founder and followers
were in the saving truths of the gospel. The count himself laid aside
many of his extravagances, and what still remained was abandoned by
his sensible and prudent successor Spangenberg, so far as it was not
necessarily involved in the fundamental idea of a special covenant
with the Saviour. The special service rendered by the society was
the protest which it raised against the generally prevailing apostasy.
During this period of declension it saved the faith of many pious souls,
affording them a welcome refuge, with rich spiritual nourishment and
nurture. With the reawakening of the religious life in the nineteenth
century, however, its adherents lost ground in Europe more and more,
by maintaining their old onesidedness in life and doctrine, their
depreciatory estimate of theological science, and the quarrelsome spirit
which they generally manifested. But in one province, that of missions
to the heathen, their energy and success have never yet been equalled.
Their thorough and well-organized system of education also deserves
particular mention. At present the Society of the Brethren numbers half
a million, distributed among 100 settlements or thereabout.

  § 168.1. =The Founder of the Moravian Brotherhood=, Nic. Ludwig
  Count von =Zinzendorf= and Pottendorf, was born in Dresden in
  A.D. 1700. Spener was one of his sponsors at baptism. His father
  dying early, and his mother marrying a second time, the boy,
  richly endowed with gifts of head and heart, was brought up by
  his godly pietistic grandmother, the Baroness von Gersdorf. There
  in his earliest youth he learned to seek his happiness in the
  closest personal fellowship with the Lord, and the tendency of
  his whole future life to yield to the impulses of pious feeling
  already began to assert itself. In his tenth year he entered the
  Halle Institute under Francke, where the pietistic idea of the
  need of the _ecclesiolæ in ecclesia_ took firm possession of his
  heart. Even in his fifteenth year he sought its realization by
  founding among his fellow students “The Order of the Grain of
  Mustard Seed” (Matt. xiii. 31). After completing his school
  course, his uncle and guardian, in order to put an end to his
  pietistic extravagances, sent him to study law at the orthodox
  University of Wittenberg. Here he had at first to suffer a sort
  of martyrdom as a rigid pietist swimming against the orthodox
  current. His residence at Wittenberg, however, was beneficial
  to him in freeing him unconsciously of the Halle pietism,
  which had restrained his spiritual development. He did indeed
  firmly maintain the fundamental idea of pietism, _ecclesiolæ
  in ecclesia_, but in his mind it gained a wider significance
  than pietism had given it. His endeavours to secure a personal
  conference, and where possible a union, between the Halle
  and Wittenberg leaders were unsuccessful. In A.D. 1719 he
  left Wittenberg and travelled for two years, visiting the most
  distinguished representatives of all confessions and sects. This
  too fostered his idea of a grand gathering of all who love the
  Lord Jesus. On his return home, in A.D. 1721, at the wish of his
  relatives he entered the service of the Saxon government. But a
  religious genius like Zinzendorf could find no satisfaction in
  such employment. And soon an opportunity presented itself for
  carrying out the plan to which his thoughts and longings were
  directed.[506]

  § 168.2. =The Founding of the Brotherhood=, A.D. 1722-1727. The
  Schmalcald, and still more the Thirty Years’ War, had brought
  frightful suffering and persecution upon the Bohemian and
  Moravian Brethren. Many of them sought refuge in Poland and
  Prussia. One of the refugees was the famous educationist J. Amos
  Comenius, who died in A.D. 1671, after having been bishop of the
  Moravians at Lissa in Posen from 1648. Those who remained behind
  were, even after the Peace of Westphalia, subjected to the
  cruellest oppression! Only secretly in their houses and at the
  risk of their lives could they worship God according to the faith
  of their fathers; and they were obliged publicly to profess their
  adherence to the Romish church. Thus gradually the light of the
  gospel was extinguished in the homes of their descendants, and
  only a tradition, becoming ever more and more faint, remained
  as a memory of their ancestral faith. A Moravian carpenter,
  Christian David, born and reared in the Romish church, but
  converted by evangelical preaching, succeeded in the beginning
  of the eighteenth century in fanning into a flame again in some
  families the light that had been quenched. This little band of
  believers, under David’s leading, went forth in A.D. 1722 and
  sought refuge on Zinzendorf’s estate in Lusatia. The count was
  then absent, but the steward, with the hearty concurrence of
  the count’s grandmother, gave them the Hutberg at Berthelsdorf
  as a settlement. With the words of Psalm lxxxiv. 4 on his lips,
  Christian David struck the axe into the tree for building the
  first house. Soon the little town of Herrnhut had arisen, as
  the centre of that Christian society which Zinzendorf now sought
  with all his heart and strength to develop and promote. Gradually
  other Moravians dropped in, but a yet greater number from far and
  near streamed in, of all sorts of religious revivalists, pietists,
  separatists, followers of Schwenckfeld, etc. Zinzendorf had no
  thought of separation from the Lutheran church. The settlers were
  therefore put under the pastoral care of Rothe, the worthy pastor
  of Berthelsdorf (§ 167, 6). To organize such a mixed multitude
  was no easy task. Only Zinzendorf’s glorious enthusiasm for
  the idea of a congregation of saints, his eminent organizing
  talents, the wonderful elasticity and tenacity of his will,
  the extraordinary prudence, circumspection, and wisdom of his
  management, made it possible to cement the incongruous elements
  and avoid an open breach. The Moravians insisted upon restoring
  their old constitution and discipline, and of the others, each
  wished to have prominence given to whatever he thought specially
  important. Only on one point were they all agreed, the duty of
  refusing to conform to the Lutheran church and its pastor Rothe.
  The count, therefore, felt obliged to form a new and separatist
  society. Personally he had no special liking for the old Moravian
  constitution; but the lot decided in its favour, while the idea
  of continuing a pre-Reformation martyr church was not without a
  certain charm. Thus Zinzendorf drew up a constitution with old
  Moravian forms and names, on the basis of which the colony was
  established, August 13th, A.D. 1727, under the name of the United
  Brotherhood.

  § 168.3. =The Development of the Brotherhood down to Zinzendorf’s
  Death=, A.D. 1727-1760.--With great energy the new society
  proceeded to found settlements in Germany, Holland, England,
  Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and North America, as well as among
  German residents in other lands. In A.D. 1734, Zinzendorf
  submitted to examination at Tübingen as candidate for license,
  and in A.D. 1737 received episcopal consecration from the Berlin
  court preacher, Jablonsky, who was at the same time bishop of
  the Moravian Brethren, which the same prelate had two years
  previously granted to Dr. Nitschmann, another member of the
  society. The efforts of the Brethren to spread their cause now
  attracted attention. The Saxon government in A.D. 1736 sent to
  Herrnhut a commission, of which Löscher was a member. But in
  A.D. 1736, before it submitted its report, which on the whole
  was favourable, Zinzendorf quitted the country, probably by the
  elector’s command at the instigation of the Austrian government,
  which objected to the harbouring of so many Bohemian and Moravian
  emigrants. Like all those at this time persecuted on account
  of religion he took refuge in Wetterau (§ 170, 2). With his
  little family of pilgrims he settled at Ronneburg near Büdingen,
  founded the prosperous churches of Marienborn and Herrnhaag, and
  travelled extensively in Europe and America. This period of exile
  was the period when the society was most successful in spreading
  outwardly, but it was also the period when it suffered most from
  troubles and dissensions within. It was bitterly attacked by
  Lutheran theologians, and much more venomously by apostates from
  its own fold. The Brethren at this time afforded only too much
  ground for misunderstanding and reproach. To this period belongs
  the famous fiction of a special covenant, the Pandora-box
  of all other absurdities; the development of the count’s own
  theological views and peculiar form of expression in his numerous
  works; the composition and introduction of unsavoury spiritual
  songs, with their silly conceits and many blasphemous and even
  obscene pictures and analogies; the market-crier laudations of
  their church, the not always pure methods of propaganda, the
  introduction of a marriage discipline fitted to break down all
  modest restraints; and, finally, the so-called _Niedlichkeiten_,
  or boisterous festivals. Even the pietists opposed these
  antinomian excesses. Tersteegen, too (§ 169, 1), whose mystic
  tendency inclined him strongly toward pietist views, reproached
  the Herrnhuters with frivolity. This polemic, disagreeable as it
  was, exercised a wholesome influence upon the society. The count
  became more guarded in his language, and more prudent in his
  behaviour, while he set aside the most objectionable excrescences
  of doctrine and practice that had begun to show themselves in the
  community. At last, in A.D. 1747, the Saxon government repeated
  the edict of banishment so far as the person of the founder
  was concerned, and when, two years later, the society expressly
  accepted the Augsburg Confession, it was formally recognised
  in Saxony. In this same year, A.D. 1749, an English act of
  parliament recognised it as a church with a pure episcopal
  succession on equal terms with the Anglican episcopal
  church.--Zinzendorf continued down to his death to direct the
  affairs of this church, which hung upon him with childlike
  affection, reflecting his personality, not only in its
  excellences, but also in all its extravagances. He died in
  A.D. 1760 in the full enjoyment of that blessedness which his
  fervent love for the Saviour had brought him.

  § 168.4. =Zinzendorf’s Plan and Work.=--While Zinzendorf
  received his first impulse from pietism, he soon perceived its
  onesidedness and narrowness. He would have no conventicle, but
  one organized community; no ideal invisible, but a real visible
  church; no narrow methodism, but a rich, free administration of
  the Christian spirit. He did not, in the first instance, aim at
  the conversion of the world, nor even at the reformation of the
  church, but at gathering and preserving those belonging to the
  Saviour. He hoped, however, to erect a reservoir in which he
  might collect every little brooklet of living water, from which
  he might again water the whole world. And when he succeeded in
  organizing a community, he was quite convinced that it was the
  Philadelphia of the Apocalypse (iii. 7 ff.), that it introduced
  “the Philadelphian period” of church history, of which all
  prophets and apostles had prophesied. His plan had originally
  reference to all Christendom, and he even took a step toward
  realizing this universal idea. In order to build a bridge
  between the Catholic church and his own community, he issued, in
  A.D. 1727, a Christo-Catholic hymn-book and prayer-book, and had
  even sketched out a letter to the pope to accompany a copy of his
  book. He also attempted, by a letter to the patriarchs and then
  to Elizabeth, empress of Russia, to interest the Greek church
  in his scheme, dwelling upon the Greek extraction of the church
  of the Moravian Brethren (§ 79, 2). His gathering of members,
  however, was practically limited to the Protestant churches. All
  confessions and sects afforded him contingents. He was himself
  heartily attached to the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran
  church. But in a society whose distinctive characteristic it was
  to be the gathering point for the pious of all nationalities,
  doctrine and confession could not be the uniting bond. It could
  be only a fellowship of love and not of creed, and the bond
  a community of loving sentiment and loving deeds. The inmost
  principle of Lutheranism, reconciliation by the blood of Christ,
  was saved, indeed was made the characteristic and vital doctrine,
  the one point of union between Moravians, Lutherans, and Reformed.
  Over the three parties stood the count himself as _ordinarius_;
  but this gave an external and not a confessional unity. The
  subsequent acceptance of the Augsburg Confession, in A.D. 1749,
  was a political act, so as to receive a civil status, and
  had otherwise no influence. Instead then of the confession,
  Zinzendorf made the =constitution= the bond of union. Its forms
  were borrowed from the old Moravian church order, but dominated
  and inspired by Zinzendorf’s own spirit. The old Moravian
  constitution was episcopal and clerical, and proceeded from
  the idea of the church; while the new constitution of Herrnhut
  was essentially presbyterial, and proceeded from the idea of
  the community, and that as a communion of saints. The Herrnhut
  bishops were only titular bishops; they had no diocese, no
  jurisdiction, no power of excommunication. All these prerogatives
  belonged to the united eldership, in which the lay element
  was distinctly predominant. Herrnhut had no pastors, but
  only preaching brothers; the pastoral care devolved upon the
  elders and their assistants. But beside these half-Lutheran and
  pseudo-Moravian peculiarities, there was also a Donatist element
  at the basis of the constitution. This lay in the fundamental
  idea of absolutely true and pure children of God, and reached
  full expression in the concluding of a =special covenant= with
  the Saviour at London on Sept. 16th, A.D. 1741. Leonard Dober for
  some years administered the office of an elder-general. But at
  the London synod it was declared that he had not the requisite
  gifts for that office. Dober now wished to resign. While in
  confusion as to whom they could appoint, it flashed into the
  minds of all to appoint the Saviour Himself. “Our feeling and
  heart conviction was, that He made a special covenant with His
  little flock, taking us as His peculiar treasure, watching over
  us in a special way, personally interesting Himself in every
  member of our community, and doing that for us perfectly which
  our previous elders could only do imperfectly.”

  § 168.5. Among the =numerous extravagances= which Zinzendorf
  countenanced for a time, the following may be mentioned.

    1. The notion of the motherhood of the Holy Spirit. Zinzendorf
       described the holy Trinity as “man, woman, and child.”
       The Spirit is the mother in three respects: the eternal
       generation of the Son of God, the conception of the Man
       Jesus, and the second birth of believers.

    2. The notion of the fatherhood of Jesus Christ (Isa. ix. 6).
       Creation is ascribed solely to the Son, hence Christ is our
       special, direct Father. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
       is only, “in the language of men, our father-in-law or
       grandfather.”

    3. In reference to our Lord’s life on earth, Zinzendorf
       delighted in using terms of contempt, in order to emphasize
       the depths of His humiliation.

    4. In like manner he uses reproachful terms in speaking of the
       style of the sacred Scriptures, and the inspired community
       prefers a living Bible.

    5. The theory and practice of mystical marriage, according to
       Ephesians v. 32. The community and each member of it are
       spiritual brides of Christ, and the marriage relation and
       begetting of children were set forth and spiritualized in
       a singularly indelicate manner.

  § 168.6. =Zinzendorf’s greatness= lay in the fervency of his
  love of the Saviour, and in the yearning desire to gather under
  the shadow of the cross all who loved the Lord. His weakness
  consisted not so much in his manifested extravagances, as in his
  idea that he had been called to found a society. To the realizing
  of this idea he gave his life, talents, heart, and means. The
  advantages of rank and culture he also gave to this one task.
  He was personally convinced of his Divine call, and as he
  did not recognise the authority of the written word, but only
  subjective impressions, it is easily seen how he would drift into
  absurdities and inconsistencies. The end contemplated seemed to
  him supremely important, so that to realize it he did not scruple
  to depart from strict truthfulness.--Zinzendorf’s writings,
  over one hundred in number, are characterized by originality,
  brilliancy, and peculiar forms of expression. Of his 2,000 hymns,
  mostly improvised for public services, 700 of the best were
  revised and published by Knapp. Two are still found in most
  collections, and are more or less reproduced in our English hymns,
  “Jesus still lead on,” and “Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness.”

  § 168.7. =The Brotherhood under Spangenberg’s
  Administration.=--For its present form the Brotherhood is indebted
  to its wise and sensible bishop, =Aug. Gottl. Spangenberg=, who
  died A.D. 1792. Born in 1704, he became personally acquainted
  with Zinzendorf in 1727, after he had completed his studies at
  Jena under Buddæus, and continued ever after on terms of close
  intimacy with him and his community. Through the good offices
  of G. A. Francke, son and successor of A. H. Francke, he was
  called in Sept., 1732, to the office of an assistantship in the
  theological faculty at Halle, and appointed school inspector of
  the Orphanage; but very soon offence was taken at the brotherly
  fellowship which he had, not only with the society of Herrnhut,
  but also with other separatists. The misunderstanding that
  thus arose led in April, 1733, to his deprivation under a royal
  cabinet order, and his expulsion by military power from Halle.
  He now formally joined the communion of the Brethren. The first
  half of his signally blessed ministry of sixty years among the
  Moravians was chiefly devoted to foreign mission work, both in
  their colonies abroad and in their stations in heathen lands.
  In Holland in 1734, in England and Denmark in 1735, he obtained
  official permission for the founding of Moravian colonies in
  Surinam, in the American state of Georgia, and in Santa Cruz,
  the forming and management of which he himself undertook, besides
  directing the mission work in these places. Returning from
  America in 1762, he won, after Zinzendorf’s death, so complete
  an ascendency in the church in every respect, that he may well
  be regarded as its second founder. At the Synod of Marienborn,
  in A.D. 1764, the constitution was revised and perfected.
  Zinzendorf’s monarchical prerogative was surrendered to the
  eldership, and Spangenberg prudently secured the withdrawal of
  all excrescences and extravagances. But the central idea of a
  special covenant was not touched, and Sept. 16th is still held as
  a grand pentecost festival. In the fifth section of the statutes
  of the United Brethren at Gnaden, 1819, it distinguishes itself
  from all the churches as a “society of true children of God; as
  a family of God, with Jesus as its head. ” In the fourth section
  of the “Historical Account of the Constitution of the United
  Brethren at Gnaden, 1823,” the society is described as “a company
  of living members of the invisible body of Jesus Christ;” and in
  its litany for Easter morning, it adds as a fourth particular to
  the article of the creed: “I believe that our brothers _N. N._,
  and our sisters _N. N._ have joined the church above, and have
  entered into the joy of the Lord.” The synod of A.D. 1848
  modified this article, and generally the society’s distinctive
  views are not made so prominent. This liberal tendency had
  dogmatic expression given to it in Spangenberg’s “_Idea Fidei
  Fratrum_.” Only a few new settlements have been formed since
  Zinzendorf’s death, and none of any importance; while the
  hitherto flourishing Moravian settlements in Wetterau were
  destroyed and their members banished, in A.D. 1750, by the
  reigning prince, Count von Isenburg-Büdingen, on account of
  their refusing to take the oath of allegiance.--After the first
  attempt to establish societies among the German emigrants in
  Livonia and Esthonia in A.D. 1729-1743 had ended in the expulsion
  of the Herrnhuters, these regions proved in the second half of
  the century a more fruitful field than any other. They secured
  there a relation to the national church such as they never
  attained unto elsewhere. They had in these parts formally
  organized a church within the church, whose members, mostly
  peasants, felt convinced that they had been called by the Lord’s
  own voice as His chosen little flock, a proceeding which caused
  infinite trouble, especially in Livonia, to the faithful pastors,
  who perceived the deadly mischief that was being wrought, and
  witnessed against them from God’s word. This protest was too
  powerful and convincing to be disregarded, and now, not only
  too late, but also in too half-hearted a way, Herrnhut began,
  in A.D. 1857, to turn back, so as to save its Livonian institute
  by inward regeneration from certain overthrow.

  § 168.8. =The doctrinal peculiarities of the Brotherhood= cannot
  be quite correctly described as un-Lutheran, or anti-Lutheran.
  Bengel smartly characterized them in a single phrase: “They
  plucked up the stock of sound doctrine, stripped oft what was
  most essential and vital, and retained the half of it,” which not
  only then, but even still retains its truth and worth. Salvation
  is regarded as proceeding purely from the Son, the God-Man,
  so that the relation of the Father and of the Holy Spirit to
  redemption is scarcely even nominal; and the redemption of the
  God-Man again is viewed one-sidedly as consisting only in His
  sufferings and death, while the other side, that is grounded on
  His life and resurrection, is either carefully passed over, or
  its fruit is represented as borrowed from the atoning death. Thus
  not only justification, but sanctification is derived exclusively
  from the death of Christ, and this, not so much as a forensic
  substitutionary satisfaction, although that is not expressly
  denied, but rather as a Divine love-sacrifice which awakens
  an answering love in us. The whole of redemption is viewed as
  issuing from Christ’s blood and wounds; and since from this mode
  of viewing the subject God’s grace and love are made prominent
  rather than His righteousness, we hear almost exclusively of
  the gospel, and little or nothing of the law. All preaching
  and teaching were avowedly directed to the awakening of pious
  feelings of love to God, and thus tended to foster a kind of
  religious sentimentalism.

  § 168.9. =The peculiarities of worship among the Brethren=
  were also directed to the excitement of pious feeling; their
  sensuously sweet sacred music, their church hymns, overcharged
  with emotion, their richly developed liturgies, their restoration
  of the _agape_ with tea, biscuit, and chorale-singing, the
  fraternal kiss at communion, in their earlier days also washing
  of the feet, etc. The daily watchword from the O.T. and doctrinal
  texts from the N.T. were regarded as oracles, and were intended
  to give a special impress to the religious feelings of the day.
  As early as A.D. 1727 they had a hymn-book containing 972 hymns.
  Most of these were compositions of their own, a true reflection
  of their religious sentiments at that period. It also contained
  Bohemian and Moravian hymns, translated by Mich. Weiss, and
  also many old favourites of the evangelical church, often sadly
  mutilated. By A.D. 1749 it had received twelve appendices and
  four supplements. In these appendices, especially in the twelfth,
  the one-sided tendency to give prominence to feeling was carried
  to the most absurd lengths of caricature in the use of offensive
  and silly terms of endearment as applied to the Saviour.
  Zinzendorf admitted the defects of this production, and had
  it suppressed in 1751, and in London prepared a new, expurgated
  edition of the hymn-book. Under Spangenberg’s presidency
  Christian Gregor issued, in A.D. 1778, a hymn-book, containing
  542 from Zinzendorf’s book and 308 of his own pious rhymes. He
  also published a chorale book in A.D. 1784. Among their sacred
  poets Zinzendorf stands easily first. His only son, Christian
  Renatus, who died A.D. 1752, left behind him a number of sacred
  songs. Their hymns were usually set to the melodies of the Halle
  pietists.

  § 168.10. In regard to the =Christian life=, the Brotherhood
  withdrew from politics and society, adopted stereotyped forms of
  speech and peculiar usages, even in their dress. They sought to
  live undisturbed by controversy, in personal communion with the
  Saviour. Their separatism as a covenanted people may be excused
  in view of the unbelief prevailing in the Protestant church, but
  it has not been overcome by the reawakening of spiritual life
  in the Church. As to their =ecclesiastical constitution=, Christ
  Himself, as the Chief Elder of the church, should have in it the
  direct government. The leaders, founding upon Proverbs xvi. 33
  and Acts i. 26, held that fit expression was given to this
  principle by the use of the lot; but soon opposition to this
  practice arose, and with its abandonment the “special covenant”
  theory lost all its significance. The lot was used in election of
  office-bearers, sending of missionaries, admission to membership,
  etc. But in regard to marriage, it was used only by consent
  of the candidates for marriage, and an adverse result was not
  enforced. The administration of the affairs of the society
  lay with the conference of the united elders. From time to
  time general synods with legislative power were summoned. The
  membership was divided into groups of married, widowed, bachelors,
  maidens, and children, with special duties, separate residences,
  and also special religious services in addition to those common
  to all. The church officers were bishops, presbyters, deacons,
  deaconesses, and acolytes.

  § 168.11. =Missions to the Heathen.=--Zinzendorf’s meeting with
  a West Indian negro in Copenhagen awakened in him at an early
  period the missionary zeal. He laid the matter before the church,
  and in A.D. 1732 the first Herrnhut missionaries, Dober and
  Nitschmann, went out to St. Thomas, and in the following year
  missions were established in Greenland, North America, almost
  all the West Indian islands, South America, among the Hottentots
  at the Cape, the East Indies, among the Eskimos of Labrador,
  etc. Their missionary enterprise forms the most brilliant and
  attractive part of the history of the Moravians. Their procedure
  was admirably suited to uncultured races, and only for such. In
  the East Indies, therefore, they were unsuccessful. They were
  never wanting in self-denying missionaries, who resigned all from
  love to the Saviour. They were mostly pious, capable artisans,
  who threw themselves with all their hearts into their new work,
  and devoted themselves with affectionate tenderness to the
  advancement of the bodily and spiritual interests of those
  among whom they laboured. One of the noblest of them all was the
  missionary patriarch Zeisberger, who died in A.D. 1808, after
  toiling among the North American Indians for sixty-three years.
  These missions were conducted at a surprisingly small outlay. The
  Brethren also interested themselves in the conversion of the Jews.
  In A.D. 1738 Dober wrought among the Jews of Amsterdam; and with
  greater success in A.D. 1739, Lieberkühn, who also visited the
  Jews in England and Bohemia, and was honoured by them with the
  title of “rabbi.”[507]


         § 169. THE REFORMED CHURCH BEFORE THE “ILLUMINATION.”

  The sharpness of the contest between Calvinism and Lutheranism was
moderated on both sides. The union efforts prosecuted during the first
decades of the century in Germany and Switzerland were always defeated
by Lutheran opposition. In the Dutch and German Reformed Churches, even
during the eighteenth century, Cocceianism was still in high repute.
After it had modified strict Calvinism, the opposition between Reformed
orthodoxy and Arminian heterodoxy became less pronounced, and more and
more Arminian tendencies found their way into Reformed theology. What
pietism and Moravianism were for the Lutheran church of Germany,
Methodism was, in a much greater measure, and with a more enduring
influence, for the episcopal church of England.

  § 169.1. =The German Reformed Church.=--The Brandenburg dynasty
  made unwearied efforts to effect a =union= between the Lutheran
  and Reformed churches throughout their territories (§ 154, 4).
  Frederick I. (III.) instituted for this purpose in A.D. 1703 a
  _collegium caritativum_, under the presidency of the Reformed
  court preacher Ursinus (ranked as bishop, that he might officiate
  at the royal coronation), in which also, on the side of the
  Reformed, Jablonsky, formerly a Moravian bishop, and, on the part
  of the Lutherans, the cathedral preacher Winkler of Magdeburg and
  Lüttke, provost of Cologne-on-the-Spree, took part. Spener, who
  wanted not a made union but one which he himself was making, gave
  expression to his opinion, and soon passed over. Lüttke after a
  few _sederunts_ withdrew, and when Winkler in A.D. 1703 published
  a plan of union, _Arcanum regium_, which the Lutheran church
  merely submitted for the approval of the Reformed king, such a
  storm of opposition arose against the project, that it had to
  be abandoned. In the following year the king took up the matter
  again in another way. Jablonsky engaged in negotiations with
  England for the introduction of the Anglican episcopal system
  into Prussia, in order by it to build a bridge for the union with
  Lutheranism. But even this plan failed, in consequence of the
  succession of Frederick William I. in A.D. 1713, whose shrewd
  sense strenuously opposed it.--The vacillating statements of
  the _Confessio Sigismundi_ (§ 154, 3) regarding =predestination=
  made it possible for the Brandenburg Reformed theologians to
  understand it as teaching the doctrine of particular as well as
  universal grace, and so to make it correspond with Brandenburg
  Reformed orthodoxy. The rector of the Joachimsthal Gymnasium in
  Berlin, Paul Volkmann, in A.D. 1712, interpreted it as teaching
  universal grace, and so in his _Theses theologicæ_ he constructed
  a system of theology, in which the divine foreknowledge of the
  result, as the reconciling middle term between the particularism
  and universalism of the call, was set forth in a manner
  favourable to the latter. The controversy that was aroused over
  this, in which even Jablonsky argued for the more liberal view,
  while on the other side Barckhausen, Volkmann’s colleague, in
  his _Amica Collatio Doctrinæ de Gratia, quam vera ref. confitetur
  Ecclesia, cum Doctr. Volkmanni_, etc., came forward under the
  name of _Pacificus Verinus_ as his most determined opponent, was
  put a stop to in A.D. 1719 by an edict of Frederick William I.,
  which enjoined silence on both parties, without any result having
  been reached.--One of the noblest mystics that ever lived was
  =Gerhard Tersteegen=, died A.D. 1769. He takes a high rank as a
  sacred poet. Anxious souls made pilgrimages to him from far and
  near for comfort, counsel, and refreshment. Though not exactly a
  separatist, he had no strong attachment to the church.[508]--The
  prayer-book of =Conrad Mel=, pastor and rector at Hersfeld in
  Hesse, died A.D. 1733, continues to the present day a favourite
  in pious families of the Reformed communion.

  § 169.2. =The Reformed Church in Switzerland.=--=The Helvetic
  Confession=, with its strict doctrine of predestination and its
  peculiar inspiration theory (§ 161, 3), had been indeed accepted,
  in A.D. 1675, by all the Reformed cantons as the absolute
  standard of doctrine in church and school; but this obligation
  was soon felt to be oppressive to the conscience, and so
  the Archbishop of Canterbury and the kings of England and
  Prussia repeatedly interceded for its abrogation. In Geneva,
  though vigorously opposed by a strictly orthodox minority, the
  _Vénérable Compagnie_ succeeded, in A.D. 1706, with the rector
  of the Academy at its head, J. A. Turretin, whose father had
  been one of the principal authors of the formula, in modifying
  the usual terms of subscription, _Sic sentio, sic profiteor,
  sic docebo, et contrarium non docebo_, into _Sic docebo quoties
  hoc argumentum tractandum suscipiam, contrarium non docebo,
  nec ore, nec calamo, nec privatim, nec publice_; and afterwards,
  in A.D. 1725, it was entirely set aside, and adhesion to the
  Scriptures of the O. and N.T., and to the catechism of Calvin,
  made the only obligation. More persistent on both sides was the
  struggle in Lausanne; yet even there it gradually lost ground,
  and by the middle of the century it had no longer any authority
  in Switzerland.--The =union efforts= made by the Prussian dynasty
  found zealous but unsuccessful advocates in the chancellor Pfaff
  of Lutheran Württemberg (§ 167, 4), and in Reformed Switzerland
  in J. A. Turretin of Geneva.

  § 169.3. =The Dutch Reformed Church.=--Toward the end of the
  seventeenth century, in consequence of threats on the part
  of the magistrates, the passionate violence of the =dispute
  between= Voetians and Cocceians (§ 162, 5) was moderated; but
  in the beginning of the eighteenth century the flames burst
  forth anew, reaching a height in 1712, when a marble bust of
  Cocceius was erected in a Leyden church. An obstinate Voetian,
  Pastor Fruytier of Rotterdam, was grievously offended at this
  proceeding, and published a controversial pamphlet full of the
  most bitter reproaches and accusations against the Cocceians,
  which, energetically replied to by the accused, was much more
  hurtful than useful to the interests of the Voetians. At last
  a favourable hearing was given to a word of peace which a highly
  respected Voetian, the venerable preacher of eighty years of
  age, _J. Mor. Mommers_, addressed to the parties engaged in
  the controversy. He published in A.D. 1738, under the title of
  “_Eubulus_,” a tract in which he proved that neither Cocceius
  himself nor his most distinguished adherents had in any essential
  point departed from the faith of the Reformed church, and that
  from them, therefore, in spite of all differences that had
  since arisen, the hand of fellowship should not be withheld.
  In consequence of this, the magistrates of Gröningen first of
  all decided, that forthwith, in filling up vacant pastorates, a
  Cocceian and Voetian should be appointed alternately; a principle
  which gradually became the practice throughout the whole country.
  At the same time also care was now taken that in the theological
  faculties both schools should have equal representation. But
  meanwhile also new departures had been made in each of the two
  parties. Among the Voetians, after the pattern formerly given
  them by Teellinck (§ 162, 4), followed up by the Frisian preacher
  Theod. Brakel, died A.D. 1669, and further developed by Jodocus
  von Lodenstein of Utrecht, died A.D. 1677, mysticism had made
  considerable progress; and the Cocceians, in the person of
  Hermann Witsius, drew more closely toward the pietism of the
  Voetians and the Lutherans. The most distinguished representative
  of this conciliatory party was F. A. Lampe of Detmold, afterwards
  professor in Utrecht, previously and subsequently pastor in
  Bremen, in high repute in his church as a hymn-writer, but best
  known by his commentary on John.--These conciliatory measures
  were frustrated by the publication, in A.D. 1740, of a work by
  =Schortinghuis= of Gröningen, which pronounced the Scriptures
  unintelligible and useless to the natural man, but made fruitful
  to the regenerate and elect by the immediate enlightenment of the
  Holy Spirit, evidenced by deep groanings and convulsive writhings.
  It was condemned by all the orthodox. The author now confined
  himself to his pastorate, where he was richly blessed. He died in
  A.D. 1750. His notions spread like an epidemic, till stamped out
  by the united efforts of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities
  in A.D. 1752.

  § 169.4. =Methodism.=--=In the episcopal church of England= the
  living power of the gospel had evaporated into the formalism of
  scholastic learning and a mechanical ritualism. A reaction was
  set on foot by =John Wesley=, born A.D. 1703, a young man of
  deep religious earnestness and fervent zeal for the salvation
  of souls. During his course at Oxford, in A.D. 1729, along with
  some friends, including his brother Charles, he founded a society
  to promote pious living.[509] Those thus leagued together were
  scornfully called Methodists. From A.D. 1732, =George Whitefield=,
  born in A.D. 1714, a youth burning with zeal for his own and his
  fellow men’s salvation, wrought enthusiastically along with them.
  In A.D. 1735 the brothers Wesley went to America to labour for
  the conversion of the Indians in Georgia. On board ship they met
  Nitschmann, and in Savannah Spangenberg, who exercised a powerful
  influence over them. John Wesley accepted a pastorate in Savannah,
  but encountered so many hindrances, that he decided to return to
  England in A.D. 1738. Whitefield had just sailed for America, but
  returned that same year. Meanwhile Wesley visited Marienborn and
  Herrnhut, and so became personally acquainted with Zinzendorf. He
  did not feel thoroughly satisfied, and so declined to join the
  society. On his return he began, along with Whitefield, the great
  work of his life. In many cities they founded religious societies,
  preached daily to immense crowds in Anglican churches, and when
  the churches were refused, in the open air, often to 20,000
  or even 30,000 hearers. They sought to arouse careless sinners
  by all the terrors of the law and the horrors of hell, and by
  a thorough repentance to bring about immediate conversion. An
  immense number of hardened sinners, mostly of the lower orders,
  were thus awakened and brought to repentance amid shrieks and
  convulsions. Whitefield, who divided his attentions between
  England and America, delivered in thirty-four years 18,000
  sermons; Wesley, who survived his younger companion by twenty-one
  years, dying in A.D. 1791, and was wont to say the world was
  his parish, delivered still more. Their association with the
  Moravians had been broken off in A.D. 1740. To the latter, not
  only was the Methodists’ style of preaching objectionable, but
  also their doctrine of “Christian perfection,” according to
  which the true, regenerate Christian can and must reach a perfect
  holiness of life, not indeed free from temptation and error,
  but from all sins of weakness and sinful lusts. Wesley in turn
  accused the Herrnhuters of a dangerous tendency toward the errors
  of the quietists and antinomians. Zinzendorf came himself to
  London to remove the misunderstanding, but did not succeed.
  The great Methodist leaders were themselves separated from one
  another in A.D. 1741. Whitefield’s doctrine of grace and election
  was Calvinistic; Wesley’s Arminian.--From A.D. 1748 the =Countess
  of Huntingdon= attached herself to the Methodists, and secured an
  entrance for their preaching into aristocratic circles. With all
  her humility and self-sacrifice she remained aristocrat enough
  to insist on being head and organizer. Seeing she could not
  play this _rôle_ with Wesley, she attached herself closely to
  Whitefield. He became her domestic chaplain, and with other
  clergymen accompanied her on her travels. Wherever she went she
  posed as a “queen of the Methodists,” and was allowed to preach
  and carry on pastoral work. She built sixty-six chapels, and in
  A.D. 1768 founded a seminary for training preachers at Trevecca in
  Wales, under the oversight of the able and gentle John Fletcher,
  reserving supreme control to herself. After Whitefield’s death,
  in A.D. 1770, the opposition between the Calvinistic followers
  of Whitefield and the Arminian Wesleyans burst out in a much more
  violent form. Fletcher and his likeminded fellow labourers were
  charged with teaching the horrible heresy of the universality of
  grace, and were on that account discharged by the countess from
  the seminary of Trevecca. They now joined Wesley, around whom the
  great majority of the Methodists had gathered.

  § 169.5. The Methodists did not wish to separate from
  the episcopal church, but to work as a leaven within it.
  Whitefield was able to maintain this connexion by the aid of
  his aristocratic countess and her relationship with the higher
  clergy; but Wesley, spurning such aid, and trusting to his great
  powers of organization, felt driven more and more to set up
  an independent society. When the churches were closed against
  him and his fellow workers, and preaching in the open air was
  forbidden, he built chapels for himself.[510] The first was
  opened in Bristol, in A.D. 1739. When his ordained associates
  were too few for the work, he obtained the assistance of lay
  preachers. He founded two kinds of religious societies: The
  _united societies_ embraced all, the _band societies_ only the
  tried and proved of his followers. Then he divided the _united
  societies_ again into _classes_ of from ten to twenty persons
  each, and the _class-leaders_ were required to give accurate
  accounts of the spiritual condition and progress of those under
  their care. Each member of the _united_ as well as the _band
  societies_ held a _society ticket_, which had to be renewed
  quarterly. The outward affairs of the societies were managed by
  _stewards_, who also took care of the poor. A number of local
  societies constituted a _circuit_ with a superintendent and
  several itinerant preachers.[511] Wesley superintended all
  the departments of oversight, administration, and arrangement,
  supported from A.D. 1744 by an annual conference. Daily preaching
  and devotional exercises in the chapels, weekly class-meetings,
  monthly watchnights, quarterly fasts and lovefeasts, an
  annual service for the renewing of the covenant, and a great
  multiplication of prayer-meetings, gave a special character
  to Methodistic piety. Charles Wesley composed hymns for their
  services. They carefully avoided collision with the services
  of the state church. The American Methodists, who had been up
  to this time supplied by Wesley with itinerant missionaries, in
  A.D. 1784, after the War of Independence, gave vigorous expression
  to their wish for a more independent ecclesiastical constitution,
  which led Wesley, in opposition to all right order, to ordain for
  them by his own hand several preachers, and to appoint, in the
  person of Thomas Coke, a superintendent, who assumed in America
  the title of bishop. Coke became the founder of the Methodist
  Episcopal Church of America, which soon outstripped all other
  denominations in its zeal for the conversion of sinners, and
  in consequent success. The breach with the mother church was
  completed by the adoption of a creed in which the Thirty-nine
  Articles were reduced to twenty-five. At the last conference
  presided over by Wesley, A.D. 1790, it was announced that they
  had in Britain 119 circuits, 313 preachers, and in the United
  States 97 circuits and 198 preachers. After Wesley’s death,
  in A.D. 1791, his autocratic supremacy devolved, in accordance
  with the Methodist “Magna Charta,” the _Deed of Declaration_
  of A.D. 1784, upon a fixed conference of 100 members, but its
  hierarchical organization has been the cause of many subsequent
  splits and divisions.[512]

  § 169.6. =Theological Literature=--=Clericus=, of Amsterdam, died
  A.D. 1736, an Arminian divine, distinguished himself in biblical
  criticism, hermeneutics, exegesis, and church history. =J. J.
  Wettstein= was in A.D. 1730 deposed for heresy, and died in
  A.D. 1754 as professor at the Remonstrant seminary at Amsterdam.
  His critical edition of the N.T. of A.D. 1751 had a great
  reputation. =Schultens= of Leyden, died A.D. 1750, introduced a
  new era for O.T. philology by the comparative study of related
  dialects, especially Arabic. He wrote commentaries on Job and
  Proverbs. Of the Cocceian exegetes we mention, =Lampe= of Bremen,
  died A.D. 1729, “Com. on John,” three vols., etc., and =J. Marck=
  of Leyden, died A.D. 1731, “Com. on Minor Prophets.” In biblical
  antiquity, =Reland= of Utrecht, died A.D. 1718, wrote “_Palæstina
  ex vett. monum. Illustr. Antiquitt. ss._;” in ecclesiastical
  antiquity, Bingham, died A.D. 1723, “Origines Ecclest.; or,
  Antiquities of the Christian Church,” ten vols., 1724, a
  masterpiece not yet superseded. Of English apologists who
  wrote against the deists, =Leland=, died A.D. 1766, “Advantage
  and Necessity of the Christian Revelation;” =Stackhouse=, died
  A.D. 1752, “History of the Bible.” Of dogmatists, =Stapfer= of
  Bern, died A.D. 1775, and =Wyttenbach= of Marburg, died A.D. 1779,
  who followed the Wolffian method. Among church historians,
  =J. A. Turretin= of Geneva, died A.D. 1757, and =Herm. Venema= of
  Franeker, died A.D. 1787.--The most celebrated of the writers of
  sacred songs in the English language was the Congregationalist
  preacher =Isaac Watts=, died A.D. 1748, whose “Hymns and Spiritual
  Songs,” which first appeared in A.D. 1707, still hold their
  place in the hymnbooks of all denominations, and have largely
  contributed to overthrow the Reformed prejudice against using
  any other than biblical psalms in the public service of praise.


                     § 170. NEW SECTS AND FANATICS.

  The pietism of the eighteenth century, like the Reformation of the
sixteenth, was followed by the appearance of all sorts of fanatics and
extremists. The converted were collected into little companies, which,
as _ecclesiolæ in ecclesia_, preserved the living flame amid prevailing
darkness, and out of these arose separatists who spoke of the church as
Babylon, regarded its ordinances impure, and its preaching a mere jingle
of words. They obtained their spiritual nourishment from the mystical
and theosophical writings of Böhme, Gichtel, Guyon, Poiret, etc. Their
chief centre was Wetterau, where, in the house of Count Casimir von
Berleburg, all persecuted pietists, separatists, fanatics, and sectaries
found refuge. The count chose from them his court officials and personal
servants, although he himself belonged to the national Reformed church.
There was scarcely a district in Protestant Germany, Switzerland, and
the Netherlands where there were not groups of such separatists; some
mere harmless enthusiasts, others circulated pestiferous and immoral
doctrines. Quite apart from pietism Swedenborgianism made its appearance,
claiming to have a new revelation. Of the older sects the Baptists and
the Quakers sent off new swarms, and even predestinationism gave rise to
a form of mysticism allied to pantheism.

  § 170.1. =Fanatics and Separatists in Germany.=--Juliana =von
  Asseburg=, a young lady highly esteemed in Magdeburg for her
  piety, declared that from her seventh year she had visions and
  revelations, especially about the millennium. She found a zealous
  supporter in Dr. J. W. Petersen, superintendent of Lüneburg.
  After his marriage with Eleonore von Merlau, who had similar
  revelations, he proclaimed by word and writing a fantastic
  chiliasm and the restitution of all things. He was deposed in
  A.D. 1692, and died in A.D. 1727.[513] =Henry Horche=, professor
  of theology at Herborn, was the originator of a similar movement
  in the Reformed church. He founded several Philadelphian societies
  (§ 163, 9) in Hesse, and composed a “mystical and prophetical
  bible,” the so called “Marburg Bible,” A.D. 1712. Of other
  fanatical preachers of that period one of the most prominent
  was =Hochmann=, a student of law expelled from Halle for his
  extravagances, a man of ability and eloquence, and highly
  esteemed by Tersteegen. Driven from place to place, he at last
  found refuge at Berleburg, and died there in A.D. 1721. In
  Württemberg the pious court chaplain, =Hedinger=, of Stuttgart,
  died A.D. 1703, was the father of pietism and separatism. The
  most famous of his followers were =Gruber= and =Rock=, who,
  driven from Württemberg, settled with other separatists at
  Wetterau, renouncing the use of the sacraments and public worship.
  Of those gathered together in the court of Count Casimir, the
  most eminent were =Dr. Carl=, his physician, the French mystic
  =Marsay=, and =J. H. Haug=, who had been expelled from Strassburg,
  a proficient in the oriental languages. They issued a great
  number of mystical works, chief of all the Berleburg Bible,
  in eight vols., 1726-1742, of which Haug was the principal
  author. Its exposition proceeded in accordance with the threefold
  sense; it vehemently contended against the church doctrine of
  justification, against the confessional writings, the clerical
  order, the dead church, etc. It showed occasionally profound
  insight, and made brilliant remarks, but contained also
  many trivialities and absurdities. The mysticism which is
  prominent in this work lacks originality, and is compiled from
  the mystico-theosophical writings of all ages from Origen down
  to Madame Guyon.

  § 170.2. =The Inspired Societies in Wetterau.=--After the
  unfortunate issue of the Camisard War in A.D. 1705 (§ 153, 4)
  the chief of the prophets of the Cevennes fled to England. They
  were at first well received, but were afterwards excommunicated
  and cast into prison. In A.D. 1711 several of them went to
  the Netherlands, and thence made their way into Germany. Three
  brothers, students at Halle, named Pott, adopted their notion
  of the gift of inspiration, and introduced it into Wetterau in
  A.D. 1714. =Gruber= and =Rock=, the leaders of the separatists
  there, were at first opposed to the doctrine, but were overpowered
  by the Spirit, and soon became its most enthusiastic champions.
  Prayer-meetings were organized, immense lovefeasts were held, and
  by itinerant brethren an _ecclesia ambulatoria_ was set on foot,
  by which spiritual nourishment was brought to believers scattered
  over the land and the children of the prophets were gathered from
  all countries. The “utterances” given forth in ecstasy were calls
  to repentance, to prayer, to the imitation of Christ, revelations
  of the divine will in matters affecting the communities,
  proclamations of the near approach of the Divine judgment upon a
  depraved church and world, but without fanatical-sensual chiliasm.
  Also, except in the contempt of the sacraments, they held by the
  essentials of the church doctrine. In A.D. 1715 a split occurred
  between the _true_ and the _false_ among the inspired. The true
  maintained a formal constitution, and in A.D. 1716 excluded all
  who would not submit to that discipline. By A.D. 1719 only Rock
  claimed the gift of inspiration, and did so till his death in
  A.D. 1749. Gruber died in A.D. 1728, and with him a pillar of
  the society fell. Rock was the only remaining prop. A new era of
  their history begins with their intercourse with the Herrnhuters.
  Zinzendorf sent them a deputation in A.D. 1730, and paid them
  a visit in person at Berleberg [Berleburg]. Rock’s profound
  Christian personality made a deep impression upon him. But he
  was offended at their contempt of the sacraments, and at the
  convulsive character of their utterances. This, however, did not
  hinder him from expressing his reverence for their able leader,
  who in return visited Zinzendorf at Herrnhut in A.D. 1732. In the
  interests of his own society Zinzendorf shrank from identifying
  himself with those of Wetterau. Rock denounced him as a new
  Babylon-botcher, and he retaliated by calling Rock a false
  prophet. When the Herrnhuters were driven from Wetterau in
  A.D. 1750 (§ 168, 3, 7), the inspired communities entered on
  their inheritance. But with Rock’s death in A.D. 1749 prophecy had
  ceased among them. They sank more and more into insignificance,
  until the revival of spiritual life, A.D. 1816-1821, brought them
  into prominence again. Government interference drove most of them
  to America.

  § 170.3. Quite a peculiar importance belongs to =J. C. Dippel=,
  theologian, physician, alchemist, discoverer of Prussian blue and
  _oleum dippelii_, at first an orthodox opponent of pietism, then,
  through Gottfr. Arnold’s influence, an adherent of the pietists,
  and ultimately of the separatists. In A.D. 1697, under the name
  of _Christianus Democritus_, he began to write in a scoffing
  tone of all orthodox Christianity, with a strange blending
  of mysticism and rationalism, but without any trace profound
  Christian experience. Persecuted on every hand, exiled or
  imprisoned, he went hither and thither through Germany, Holland,
  Denmark, and Sweden, and found a refuge at last at Berleberg
  [Berleburg] in A.D. 1729. Here he came in contact with the
  inspired, who did everything in their power to win him over; but
  he declared that he would rather give himself to the devil than
  to this Spirit of God. He was long intimate with Zinzendorf, but
  afterwards poured out upon him the bitterest abuse. He died in
  the count’s castle at Berleberg [Berleburg] in A.D. 1734.[514]

  § 170.4. =Separatists of Immoral Tendency.=--One of the worst was
  the =Buttlar sect=, founded by Eva von Buttlar, a native of Hesse,
  who had married a French refugee, lived gaily for ten years at
  the court of Eisenach, and then joined the pietists and became
  a rigid separatist. Separated from her husband, she associated
  with the licentiate Winter, and founded a Philadelphian society
  at Allendorf in A.D. 1702, where the foulest immoralities were
  practised. Eva herself was reverenced as the door of paradise,
  the new Jerusalem, the mother of all, Sophia come from heaven,
  the new Eve, and the incarnation of the Spirit. Winter was
  the incarnation of the Father, and their son Appenfeller the
  incarnation of the Son. They pronounced marriage sinful; sensual
  lusts must be slain in spiritual communion, then even carnal
  association is holy. Eva lived with all the men of the sect
  in the most shameless adultery. So did also the other women
  of the community. Expelled from Allendorf after a stay of six
  weeks, they sought unsuccessfully to gain a footing in various
  places. At Cologne they went over to the Catholic church.
  Their immoralities reached their climax at Lüde near Pyrmont.
  Winter was sentenced to death in A.D. 1706, but was let off
  with scourging. Eva escaped the same punishment by flight,
  and continued her evil practices unchecked for another year.
  She afterwards returned to Altona, where with her followers
  leading outwardly an honourable life, she attached herself
  to the Lutheran church, and died, honoured and esteemed, in
  A.D. 1717.--In a similar way arose in A.D. 1739 the =Bordelum
  sect=, founded at Bordelum by the licentiates Borsenius and Bär;
  and the =Brüggeler sect=, at Brüggeler in Canton Bern, where
  in A.D. 1748 the brothers Kohler gave themselves out as the
  two witnesses (Rev. xi.). Of a like nature too was the =sect
  of Zionites= at Ronsdorf in the Duchy of Berg. Elias Eller, a
  manufacturer at Elberfeld, excited by mystical writings, married
  in A.D. 1725 a rich old widow, but soon found more pleasure in a
  handsome young lady, Anna von Buchel, who by a nervous sympathetic
  infection was driven into prophetic ecstasy. She proclaimed the
  speedy arrival of the millennium; Eller identified her with the
  mother of the man-child (Rev. xii. 1). When his wife had pined
  away through jealousy and neglect and died, he married Buchel.
  The first child she bore him was a girl, and the second, a boy,
  soon died. When a strong opposition arose in Elberfeld against
  the sect, he, along with his followers, founded Ronsdorf, as
  a New Zion, in A.D. 1737. The colony obtained civil rights,
  and Eller was made burgomaster. Anna having died in A.D. 1744,
  Eller gave his colony a new mother, and practised every manner
  of deceit and tyranny. After the infatuation had lasted a long
  time, the eyes of the Reformed pastor Schleiermacher, grandfather
  of the famous theologian, were at last opened. By flight to the
  Netherlands he escaped the fate of another revolter, whom Eller
  persuaded the authorities at Düsseldorf to put to death as a
  sorcerer. Every complaint against himself was quashed by Eller’s
  bribery of the officials. After his death in A.D. 1750 his
  stepson continued this Zion game for a long time.

  § 170.5. =Swedenborgianism.=--=Emanuel von Swedenborg= was born
  at Stockholm, in A.D. 1688, son of the strict Lutheran bishop
  of West Gothland, Jasper Swedberg. He was appointed assessor
  of the School of Mines at Stockholm, and soon showed himself to
  be a man of encyclopædic information and of speculative ability.
  After long examination of the secrets of nature, in a condition
  of magnetic ecstasy, in which he thought that he had intercourse
  with spirits, sometimes in heaven, sometimes in hell, he became
  convinced, in A.D. 1743, that he was called by these revelations
  to restore corrupted Christianity by founding a church of the
  New Jerusalem as the finally perfected church. He published the
  apocalyptic revelations as a new gospel: “_Arcana Cœlestia in
  Scr. s. Detecta_,” in seven vols.; “_Vera Chr. Rel._,” two vols.
  After his death, in A.D. 1772, his “_Vera Christiana Religio_”
  was translated into Swedish, but his views never got much hold
  in his native country. They spread more widely in England, where
  John Clowes, rector of St. John’s Church, Manchester, translated
  his writings, and himself wrote largely in their exposition and
  commendation. Separate congregations with their own ministers,
  and forms of worship, sprang up through England in A.D. 1788,
  and soon there were as many as fifty throughout the country.
  From England the New Church spread to America.--In Germany it
  was specially throughout Württemberg that it found adherents.
  There, in A.D. 1765, Oetinger (§ 171, 9) recognised Swedenborg’s
  revelations, and introduced many elements from them into
  his theosophical system.--Swedenborg’s religious system was
  speculative mysticism, with a physical basis and rationalizing
  results. The aim of religion with him is the opening of an
  intimate correspondence between the spiritual world and man,
  and giving an insight into the mystery of the connexion between
  the two. The Bible (excluding the apostolic epistles, as merely
  expository), pre-eminently the Apocalypse, is recognised by him
  as God’s word; to be studied, however, not in its literal but
  in its spiritual or inner sense. Of the church dogmas there is
  not one which he did not either set aside or rationalistically
  explain away. He denounces in the strongest terms the church
  doctrine of the Trinity. God is with him only one Person,
  who manifests Himself in three different forms: the Father is
  the principle of the manifesting God; the Son, the manifested
  form; the Spirit, the manifested activity. The purpose of the
  manifestation of Christ is the uniting of the human and Divine;
  redemption is nothing more than the combating and overcoming of
  the evil spirits. But angels and devils are spirits of dead men
  glorified and damned. He did not believe in a resurrection of the
  flesh, but maintained that the spiritual form of the body endures
  after death. The second coming of Christ will not be personal
  and visible, but spiritual through a revelation of the spiritual
  sense of Holy Scripture, and is realized by the founding of the
  church of the New Jerusalem.[515]

  § 170.6. =New Baptist Sects= (§ 163, 3).--In Wetterau about
  A.D. 1708 an anabaptist sect arose called =Dippers=, because they
  did not recognise infant baptism and insisted upon the complete
  immersion of adult believers. They appeared in Pennsylvania
  in A.D. 1719, and founded settlements in other states. Of the
  “perfect” they required absolute separation from all worldly
  practices and enjoyments and a simple, apostolic style of dress.
  To baptism and the Lord’s supper they added washing the feet
  and the fraternal kiss and anointing the sick. The =Seventh-day
  Baptists= observe the seventh instead of the first day of the
  week, and enjoin on the “perfect” celibacy and the community of
  goods. New sects from England continued to spread over America.
  Of these were the =Seed= or =Sucker Baptists=, who identified the
  non-elect with the seed of the serpent, and on account of their
  doctrine of predestination regarded all instruction and care of
  children useless. A similar predestinarian exaggeration is seen
  in the =Hard-shell Baptists=, who denounce all home and foreign
  missions as running counter to the Divine sovereignty. Many,
  sometimes called Campbellites from their founder, reject any
  party name, claiming to be simply =Christians=, and acknowledge
  only so much in Scripture as is expressly declared to be “the
  word of the Lord.” The =Six-Principles-Baptists= limit their
  creed to the six articles of Hebrews vi. 1, 2. The brothers
  Haldane, about the middle of the eighteenth century, founded
  in Scotland the Baptist sect of =Haldanites=, which has with
  great energy applied itself to the practical cultivation of
  the Christian life.--Continuation, §§ 208, 1; 211, 3.

  § 170.7. =New Quaker Sects.=--The =Jumpers=, who sprang up among
  the Methodists of Cornwall about A.D. 1760, are in principle
  closely allied to the early Quakers (§ 163, 4). They leaped
  and danced after the style of David before the ark and uttered
  inarticulate howls. They settled in America, where they have
  adherents still.--The =Shakers= originated from the prophets of
  the Cevennes who fled to England in A.D. 1705. They converted
  a Quaker family at Bolton in Lancashire named Wardley, and the
  community soon grew. In A.D. 1758 Anna Lee, wife of a farrier
  Stanley, joined the society, and, as the apocalyptic bride,
  inaugurated the millennium. She taught that the root of all sin
  was the relationship of the sexes. Maltreated by the mob, she
  emigrated to America, along with thirty companions, in A.D. 1774.
  Though persecuted here also, the sect increased and formed in the
  State of New York the _Millennial Church_ or _United Society of
  Believers_. Anna died in A.D. 1784; but her prophets declared
  that she had merely laid aside the earthly garb and assumed the
  heavenly, so that only then the veneration of “Mother Anna” came
  into force. As Christ is the Son of the eternal Wisdom, Anna is
  the daughter; as Christ is the second Adam, she is the second
  Eve, and spiritual mother of believers as Christ is their father.
  Celibacy, community of goods, common labour (chiefly gardening),
  as a pleasure, not a burden, common domestic life as brothers
  and sisters, and constant intercourse with the spirit world, are
  the main points in her doctrine. By the addition of voluntary
  proselytes and the adoption of poor helpless children the sect
  has grown, till now it numbers 3,000 or 4,000 souls in eighteen
  villages. The capital is New Lebanon in the State of New York.
  The name Shakers was given them from the quivering motion of
  body in their solemn dances. In their services they march about
  singing “On to heaven we will be going,” “March heavenward, yea,
  victorious band,” etc. Like the Quakers (§ 163, 6) they have
  neither a ministry nor sacraments, and their whole manner of life
  is modelled on that of the Quakers. The purity of the relation of
  brothers and sisters has always been free from suspicion.[516]

  § 170.8. =Predestinarian-Mystical Sects.=--The =Hebræans=,
  founded by Verschoor, a licentiate of the Reformed church of
  Holland deposed under suspicion of Spinozist views, in the end
  of the seventeenth century, hold it indispensably necessary
  to read the word of God in the original. They were fatalists,
  and maintained that the elect could commit no sin. True faith
  consisted in believing this doctrine of their own sinlessness.
  About the same time sprang up the =Hattemists=, followers of
  _Pontiaan von Hattem_, a preacher deposed for heresy, with
  fatalistic views like the Hebræans, but with a strong vein
  of pantheistic mysticism. True piety consisted in the believer
  resting in God in a purely passive manner, and letting God alone
  care for him. The two sects united under the name of Hattemists,
  and continued to exist in Holland and Zealand till about A.D. 1760.


              § 171. RELIGION, THEOLOGY, AND LITERATURE OF
                        THE “ILLUMINATION.”[517]

  In England during the first half of the century deism had still
several active propagandists, and throughout the whole century efforts,
not altogether unsuccessful, were made to spread Unitarian views.
From the middle of the century, when the English deistic unbelief had
died out, the “Illumination,” under the name of rationalism, found an
entrance into Germany. Arminian pelagianism, recommended by brilliant
scholarship, English deism, spread by translations and refutations,
and French naturalism, introduced by a great and much honoured king,
were the outward factors in securing this result. The freemason lodges,
carried into Germany from England, a relic of mediævalism, aided the
movement by their endeavour after a universal religion of a moral
and practical kind. The inward factors were the Wolffian philosophy
(§ 167, 3), the popular philosophy, and the pietism, with its
step-father separatism (§ 170), which immediately prepared the soil
for the sowing of rationalism. Orthodoxy, too, with its formulas that
had been outlived, contributed to the same end. German rationalism is
essentially distinguished from Deism and Naturalism by not breaking
completely with the Bible and the church, but eviscerating both by its
theories of accommodation and by its exaggerated representations of
the limitations of the age in which the books of Scripture were written
and the doctrines of Christianity were formulated. It thus treats the
Bible as an important document, and the church as a useful religious
institution. Over against rationalism arose supernaturalism, appealing
directly to revelation. It was a dilution of the old church faith by
the addition of more or less of the water of rationalism. Its reaction
was therefore weak and vacillating. The temporary success of the
vulgar rationalism lay, not in its own inherent strength, but in the
correspondence that existed between it and the prevailing spirit of the
age. The philosophy, however, as well as the national literature of the
Germans, now began a victorious struggle against these tendencies, and
though itself often indifferent and even hostile to Christianity, it
recognised in Christ a school-master. Pestalozzi performed a similar
service to popular education by his attempts to reform effete systems.

  § 171.1. =Deism, Arianism, and Unitarianism in the English Church.=

    1. =The Deists= (§ 164, 3). With Locke’s philosophy (§ 164, 2)
       deism entered on a new stage of its development. It is
       henceforth vindicated on the ground of its reasonableness.
       The most notable deists of this age were =John Toland=,
       an Irishman, first Catholic, then Arminian, died A.D. 1722,
       author of “Christianity not Mysterious,” “Nazarenus, or
       Jewish, Gentile, and Mohametan Christianity,” etc. The Earl
       of =Shaftesbury=, died A.D. 1713, wrote “Characteristics of
       Men,” etc. =Anthony Collins=, J.P. in Essex, died A.D. 1729,
       author of “Priestcraft in Perfection,” “Discourse of
       Freethinking,” etc. =Thomas Woolston=, fellow of Cambridge,
       died in prison in A.D. 1733, author of “Discourse on the
       Miracles of the Saviour.” =Mandeville= of Dort, physician in
       London, died A.D. 1733, wrote “Free Thoughts on Religion.”
       =Matthew Tindal=, professor of law in Oxford, died A.D. 1733,
       wrote “Christianity as Old as the Creation.” =Thomas
       Morgan=, nonconformist minister, deposed as an Arian, then
       a physician, died A.D. 1743, wrote “The Moral Philosopher.”
       =Thomas Chubb=, glover and tallow-chandler in Salisbury, died
       A.D. 1747, author of popular compilations, “The True Gospel
       of Jesus Christ.” Viscount =Bolingbroke=, statesman, charged
       with high treason and pardoned, died A.D. 1751, writings
       entitled, “Philosophical Works.”--Along with the deists
       as an opponent of positive Christianity may be classed the
       famous historian and sceptic =David Hume=, librarian in
       Edinburgh, died A.D. 1776, author of “Inquiry concerning
       the Human Understanding,” “Natural History of Religion,”
       “Dialogues concerning Natural Religion,” etc.[518]--Deism
       never made way among the people, and no attempt was made
       to form a sect. Among the numerous opponents of deism these
       are chief: Samuel Clarke, died A.D. 1729; Thomas Sherlock,
       Bishop of London, died A.D. 1761; Chandler, Bishop of Durham,
       died A.D. 1750; Leland, Presbyterian minister in Dublin,
       died A.D. 1766, wrote “View of Principal Deistic Writers,”
       three vols., 1754; Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester,
       died A.D. 1779; Nath. Lardner, dissenting minister,
       died A.D. 1768, wrote “Credibility of the Gospel History,”
       seventeen vols., 1727-1757. With these may be ranked
       the famous pulpit orator of the Reformed church of France,
       Saurin, died A.D. 1730, author of _Discours hist., crit.,
       theol., sur les Evénements les plus remarkables du V. et N.T._

    2. =The So-called Arians.= In the beginning of the century
       several distinguished theologians of the Anglican church
       sought to give currency to an Arian doctrine of the
       Trinity. Most conspicuous was =Wm. Whiston=, a distinguished
       mathematician, physicist, and astronomer of the school of
       Sir Isaac Newton, and his successor in the mathematical
       chair at Cambridge. Deprived of this office in A.D. 1708
       for spreading his heterodox views, he issued in A.D. 1711 a
       five-volume work, “Primitive Christianity Revived,” in which
       he justified his Arian doctrine of the Trinity as primitive
       and as taught by the ante-Nicene Fathers, and insisted upon
       augmenting the N.T. canon by the addition of twenty-nine
       books of the apostolic and other Fathers, including the
       apostolic “Constitutions” and “Recognitions” which he
       maintained were genuine works of Clement. Subsequently
       he adopted Baptist views, and lost himself in fantastic
       chiliastic speculations. He died A.D. 1752. More sensible
       and moderate was =Samuel Clarke=, also distinguished
       as a mathematician of Newton’s school and as a classical
       philologist. As an opponent of deism in sermons and
       treatises he had gained a high reputation as a theologian,
       when his work, “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,”
       in A.D. 1712, led to his being accused of Arianism by
       convocation; but by conciliatory explanations he succeeded
       in retaining his office till his death in A.D. 1729. But the
       excitement caused by the publication of his work continued
       through several decades, and was everywhere the cause of
       division. His ablest apologist was Dan. Whitby, and his
       keenest opponent Dan. Waterland.

    3. =The Later Unitarians.= The anti-trinitarian movement
       entered on a new stage in A.D. 1770. After Archdeacon
       Blackburne of London, in A.D. 1766, had started the idea,
       at first anonymously, in his “Confessional,” he joined
       in A.D. 1772 with other freethinkers, among whom was his
       son-in-law =Theophilus Lindsey=, in presenting to Parliament
       a petition with 250 signatures, asking to have the clergy of
       the Anglican church freed from the obligation of subscribing
       to the Thirty-nine Articles and the Liturgy, and to have the
       requirement limited to assent to the Scriptures. This prayer
       was rejected in the Lower House by 217 votes against 71.
       Lindsey now resigned his clerical office, announced his
       withdrawal from the Anglican church, founded and presided
       over a Unitarian congregation in London from A.D. 1774, and
       published a large number of controversial Unitarian tracts.
       He died in A.D. 1808. The celebrated chemist and physicist
       =Joseph Priestley=, A.D. 1733-1806, who had been a
       dissenting minister in Birmingham from A.D. 1780, joined
       the Unitarian movement in 1782, giving it a new impetus by
       his high scientific reputation. He wrote the “History of
       the Corruptions of Christianity,” and the “History of Early
       Opinions about Jesus Christ,” denying that there is any
       biblical foundation for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity,
       and seeking to show that it had been forced upon the church
       against her will from the Platonic philosophy. These and
       a whole series of other controversial writings occasioned
       great excitement, not only among theologians, but also
       among the English people of all ranks. At last the mob rose
       against him in A.D. 1791. His house and all his scientific
       collections and apparatus were burnt. He narrowly escaped
       with his life, and soon after settled in America, where he
       wrote a church history in four vols. Of his many English
       opponents the most eminent was Bishop Sam. Horsley, a
       distinguished mathematician and commentator on the works
       of Sir Isaac Newton.

  § 171.2. =Freemasons.=--The mediæval institution of freemasons
  (§ 104, 13) won much favour in England, especially after the Great
  Fire of London in A.D. 1666. The first step toward the formation
  of freemason lodges of the modern type was taken about the end of
  the sixteenth century, when men of distinction in other callings
  sought admission as honorary members. After the rebuilding
  of London and the completion of St. Paul’s in A.D. 1710, most
  of the lodges became defunct, and the four that continued to
  exist united in A.D. 1717 into one grand lodge in London, which,
  renouncing material masonry, assumed the task of rearing the
  temple of humanity. In A.D. 1721 the Rev. Mr. Anderson prepared
  a constitution for this reconstruction of a trade society into
  a universal brotherhood, according to which all “free masons”
  faithfully observing the moral law as well as all the claims of
  humanity and patriotism, came under obligation to profess the
  religion common to all good men, transcending all confessional
  differences, without any individual being thereby hindered from
  holding his own particular views. Although, in imitation of the
  older institution, all members by reason of their close connexion
  were bound to observe the strictest secrecy in regard to their
  masonic signs, rites of initiation and promotion, and forms
  of greeting, it is not properly a secret society, since the
  constitution was published in A.D. 1723, and members publicly
  acknowledge that they are such.--From London the new institute
  spread over all England and the colonies. Lodges were founded
  in Paris in A.D. 1725, in Hamburg in A.D. 1737, in Berlin in
  A.D. 1740. This last was raised in A.D. 1744 into a grand lodge,
  with Frederick II. as grand master. But soon troubles and disputes
  arose, which broke up the order about the end of the century.
  Rosicrucians (§ 160, 1) and alchemists, pretending to hold the
  secrets of occult science, Jesuits (§ 210, 1), with Catholic
  hierarchical tendencies, and “Illuminati” (§ 165, 13), with
  rationalistic and infidel tendencies, as well as adventurers of
  every sort, had made the lodges centres of quackery, juggling,
  and plots.[519]

  § 171.3. =The German “Illumination.”=

    1. =Its Precursors.= One of the first of these, following in
       the footsteps of Kuntzen and Dippel, was =J. Chr. Edelmann=
       of Weissenfels, who died A.D. 1767. He began in A.D. 1735
       the publication of an immense series of writings in a rough
       but powerful style, filled with bitter scorn for positive
       Christianity. He went from one sect to another, but never
       found what he sought. In A.D. 1741 he accepted Zinzendorf’s
       invitation, and stayed with the count for a long time. He
       next joined the Berleberg [Berleburg] separatists, because
       they despised the sacraments, and contributed to their
       Bible commentary, though Haug had to alter much of his work
       before it could be used. This and his contempt for prayer
       brought the connexion between him and the society to an
       end. He then led a vagabond life up and down through Germany.
       Edelmann regarded himself as a helper of providence, and at
       least a second Luther. Christianity he pronounced the most
       irrational of all religions; church history a conglomeration
       of immorality, lies, hypocrisy, and fanaticism; prophets
       and apostles, bedlamites; and even Christ by no means
       a perfect pattern and teacher. The world needs only one
       redemption--redemption from Christianity. Providence,
       virtue, and immortality are the only elements in religion.
       No less than 166 separate treatises came from his facile
       pen.--=Laurence Schmidt= of Wertheim in Baden, a scholar
       of Wolff, was author of the notorious “Wertheimer Bible
       Version,” which rendered Scripture language into the dialect
       of the eighteenth century, and eviscerated it of all positive
       doctrines of revelation. This book was confiscated by the
       authorities, and its author cast into prison.

  § 171.4.

    2. =The Age of Frederick the Great.= Hostility to all positive
       Christianity spread from England and France into Germany.
       The writings of the English deists were translated and
       refuted, but mostly in so weak a style that the effect
       was the opposite of that intended. Whilst English deism
       with its air of thoroughness made way among the learned,
       the poison of frivolous French naturalism committed
       its ravages among the higher circles. The great king of
       Prussia =Frederick II.=, A.D. 1740-1786, surrounded by
       French freethinkers Voltaire, D’Argens, La Metrie, etc.,
       wished every man in his kingdom to be saved after his own
       fashion. In this he was quite earnest, although his personal
       animosity to all ecclesiastical and pietistic religion made
       him sometimes act harshly and unjustly. Thus, when Francke
       of Halle (son of the famous A. H. Francke) had exhorted
       his theological students to avoid the theatre, the king,
       designating him “hypocrite” Francke, ordered him to attend
       the theatre himself and have his attendance attested by the
       manager. His bitter hatred of all “priests” was directed
       mainly against their actual or supposed intolerance,
       hypocrisy, and priestly arrogance; and where he met with
       undoubted integrity, as in Gellert and Seb. Bach, or simple,
       earnest piety, as in General Ziethen, he was not slow in
       paying to it the merited tribute of hearty acknowledgment
       and respect. His own religion was a philosophical
       deism, from which he could thoroughly refute Holbach’s
       materialistic “_Système de la Nature_.”--Under the name
       of the German popular philosophy (Moses Mendelssohn,
       Garve, Eberhard, Platner, Steinbart, etc.), which started
       from the Wolffian philosophy, emptied of its Christian
       contents, there arose a weak, vapoury, and self-satisfied
       philosophizing on the part of the common human reason.
       Basedow was the reformer of pedagogy in the sense of the
       “Illumination,” after the style of Rousseau, and crying
       up his wares in the market made a great noise for a while,
       although Herder declared that he would not trust calves, far
       less men, to be educated by such a pedagogue. The “Universal
       German Library” of the Berlin publisher Nicolai, 106 vols.
       A.D. 1765-1792, was a literary Inquisition tribunal against
       all faith in revelation or the church. The “Illumination”
       in the domain of theology took the name of rationalism.
       Pietistic Halle cast its skin, and along with Berlin took
       front rank among the promoters of the “Illumination.” In the
       other universities champions of the new views soon appeared,
       and rationalistic pastors spread over all Germany, to preach
       only of moral improvement, or to teach from the pulpit about
       the laws of health, agriculture, gardening, natural science,
       etc. The old liturgies were mutilated, hymn-books revised
       after the barbarous tastes of the age, and songs of mere
       moral tendency substituted for those that spoke of Christ’s
       atonement. An ecclesiastical councillor, Lang of Regensburg,
       dispensed the communion with the words: “Eat this bread! The
       Spirit of devotion rest on you with His rich blessing! Drink
       a little wine! The virtue lies not in this wine; it lies in
       you, in the divine doctrine, and in God.” The Berlin provost,
       W. Alb. Teller, declared publicly: “The Jews ought on
       account of their faith in God, virtue, and immortality, to
       be regarded as genuine Christians.” C. Fr. Bahrdt, after he
       had been deposed for immorality from various clerical and
       academical offices, and was cast off by the theologians,
       sought to amuse the people with his wit as a taphouse-keeper
       in Halle, and died there of an infamous disease in A.D. 1792.

  § 171.5.

    3. =The Wöllner Reaction.=--In vain did the Prussian government,
       after the death of Frederick the Great, under Frederick
       William II., A.D. 1786-1797, endeavour to restore the church
       to the enjoyment of its old exclusive rights by punishing
       every departure from its doctrines, and insisting that
       preaching should be in accordance with the Confession.
       At the instigation of the Rosicrucians (§ 160, 1) and of
       the minister Von Wöllner, a country pastor ennobled by the
       king, the =Religious Edict of 1788= was issued, followed
       by a statement of severe penalties; then by a _Schema
       Examinationis Candidatorum ss. Ministerii rite Instituendi_;
       and in A.D. 1791, by a commission for examination under the
       Berlin chief consistory and all the provincial consistories,
       with full powers, not only over candidates, but also over
       all settled pastors. But notwithstanding all the energy
       with which he sought to carry out his edict, the minister
       could accomplish nothing in the face of public opinion,
       which favoured the resistance of the chief consistory.
       Only one deposition, that of Schulz of Gielsdorf, near
       Berlin, was effected, in A.D. 1792. Frederick William III.,
       A.D. 1797-1840, dismissed Wöllner in A.D. 1798, and set
       aside the edict as only fostering hypocrisy and sham piety.

  § 171.6. =The Transition Theology.=--Four men, who endeavoured to
  maintain their own belief in revelation, did more than all others
  to prepare the way for rationalism: Ernesti of Leipzig, in the
  department of N.T. exegesis; Michaelis of Göttingen, in O.T.
  exegesis; Semler of Halle, in biblical and historical criticism;
  and Töllner of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, in dogmatics. =J. A.
  Ernesti=, A.D. 1707-1781, from A.D. 1734 rector of St. Thomas’
  School, from A.D. 1742 professor at Leipzig, colleague to Chr. A.
  Crusius (§ 167, 3), was specially eminent as a classical scholar,
  and maintained his reputation in that department, even after
  becoming professor of theology in A.D. 1758. His _Institutio
  Interpretis N.T._, of A.D. 1761, made it an axiom of exegesis
  that the exposition of Scripture should be conducted precisely
  as that of any other book. But even in the domain of classical
  literature there must be an understanding of the author as a
  whole, and the expositor must have appreciation of the writer’s
  spirit, as well as have acquaintance with his language and the
  customs of his age. And just from Ernesti’s want of this, his
  treatise on biblical hermeneutics is rationalistic, and he became
  the father of rationalistic exegesis, though himself intending
  to hold firmly by the doctrine of inspiration and the creed of
  the church.--What Ernesti did for the N.T., =J. D. Michaelis=,
  A.D. 1717-1791, son of the pious and orthodox Chr. Bened.
  Michaelis, did for the O.T. He was from A.D. 1750 professor
  at Göttingen, a man of varied learning and wide influence. He
  publicly acknowledged that he had never experienced anything of
  the _testimonium Sp. s. internum_, and rested his proofs of the
  divinity of the Scriptures wholly on external evidences, _e.g._
  miracles, prophecy, authenticity, etc., a spider’s web easily
  blown to pieces by the enemy. No one has ever excelled him in the
  art of foisting his own notions on the sacred authors and making
  them utter his favourite ideas. A conspicuous instance of this is
  his “Laws of Moses,” in six vols.--In a far greater measure than
  either Ernesti or Michaelis did =J. Sol. Semler=, A.D. 1725-1791,
  pupil of Baumgarten, and from A.D. 1751 professor at Halle, help
  on the cause of rationalism. He had grown up under the influence
  of Halle pietism in the profession of a customary Christianity,
  which he called his private religion, which contributed to his
  life a basis of genuine personal piety. But with a rare subtlety
  of reasoning as a man of science, endowed with rich scholarship,
  and without any wish to sever himself from Christianity, he
  undermined almost all the supports of the theology of the church.
  This he did by casting doubt on the genuineness of the biblical
  writings, by setting up a theory of inspiration and accommodation
  which admitted the presence of error, misunderstanding, and pious
  fraud in the Scriptures, by a style of exposition which put aside
  everything unattractive in the N.T. as “remnants of Judaism,”
  by a critical treatment of the history of the church and its
  doctrines, which represented the doctrines of the church as the
  result of blundering, misconception, and violence, etc. He was a
  voluminous author, leaving behind him no less than 171 writings.
  He sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind, by which he himself
  was driven along. He firmly withstood the installation of Bahrdt
  at Halle, opposed Basedow’s endeavours, applied himself eagerly
  to refute the “Wolfenbüttel Fragments” of Reimarus, edited by
  Lessing in 1774-1778, which represented Christianity as founded
  upon pure deceit and fraud, and defended even the edict of
  Wöllner. But the current was not thus to be stemmed, and Semler
  died broken-hearted at the sight of the heavy crop from his own
  sowing.--J. Gr. Töllner, A.D. 1724-1774, from A.D. 1756 professor
  at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, was in point of learning and influence
  by no means equal to those now named; yet he deserves a place
  alongside of them, as one who opened the door to rationalism in
  the department of dogmatics. He himself held fast to the belief
  in revelation, miracles, and prophecy, but he also regarded it
  as proved that God saves men by the revelation of nature; the
  revelation of Scripture is only a more sure and perfect means. He
  also examined the divine inspiration of Scripture, and found that
  the language and thoughts were the authors’ own, and that God
  was concerned in it in a manner that could not be more precisely
  determined. Finally, in treating of the active obedience of
  Christ, he gives such a representation of it as sets aside the
  doctrine of the church.

  § 171.7. =The Rationalistic Theology.=--From the school of
  these men, especially from that of Semler, went forth crowds
  of rationalists, who for seventy years held almost all the
  professorships and pastorates of Protestant Germany. At their
  head stands =Bahrdt=, A.D. 1741-1792, writer at first of orthodox
  handbooks, who, sinking deeper and deeper through vanity, want of
  character, and immorality, and following in the steps of Edelmann,
  wrote 102 vols., mostly of a scurrilous and blasphemous character.
  The rationalists, however, were generally of a nobler sort:
  =Griesbach= of Jena, A.D. 1745-1812, distinguished as textual
  critic of the N.T.; =Teller= of Berlin, published a lexicon
  to the N.T., which substituted “leading another life” for
  regeneration, “improvement” for sanctification, etc.; Koppe of
  Göttingen, and Rosenmüller of Leipzig wrote _scholia_ on N.T.,
  and Schulze and Bauer on the O.T. Of far greater value were the
  performances of =J. G. Eichhorn= of Göttingen, A.D. 1752-1827,
  and =Bertholdt= of Erlangen, A.D. 1774-1822, who wrote
  introductions to the O.T. and commentaries. In the department
  of church history, =H. P. C. Henke= of Helmstädt and the
  talented statesman, =Von Spittler= of Württemberg, wrote
  from the rationalistic standpoint. Steinbart and Eberhardt
  [Eberhard] wrote more in the style of the popular philosophy.
  The subtle-minded =J. H. Tieftrunk=, A.D. 1760-1837, professor
  of philosophy at Halle, introduced into theology the Kantian
  philosophy with its strict categories. Jerusalem, Zollikofer,
  and others did much to spread rationalistic views by their
  preaching.[520]

  § 171.8. =Supernaturalism.=--Abandoning the old orthodoxy without
  surrendering to rationalism, the supernaturalists sought to
  maintain their hold of the Scripture revelation. Many of them
  did so in a very uncertain way: their revelation had scarcely
  anything to reveal which was not already given by reason. Others,
  however, eagerly sought to preserve all essentially vital truths.
  Morus of Leipzig, Ernesti’s ablest student, Less of Göttingen,
  Döderlein of Jena, Seiler of Erlangen, and Nösselt of Halle,
  were all representatives of this school. More powerful opponents
  of rationalism appeared in =Storr= of Tübingen, A.D. 1746-1805,
  who could break a lance even with the philosopher of Königsberg,
  =Knapp= of Halle, and =Reinhard= of Dresden, the most famous
  preacher of his age. Reinhard’s sermon on the Reformation
  festival of A.D. 1800 created such enthusiasm in favour of the
  Lutheran doctrine of justification, that government issued an
  edict calling the attention of all pastors to it as a model. The
  most distinguished apologists were the mathematician =Euler= of
  St. Petersburg, the physiologist, botanist, geologist, and poet
  =Haller= of Zürich and the theologians =Lilienthal= of Königsberg
  and =Kleuker= of Kiel. The most zealous defender of the faith was
  the much abused =Goeze= of Hamburg, who fought for the palladium
  of Lutheran orthodoxy against his rationalistic colleagues,
  against the theatre, against Barth, Basedow, and such-like,
  against the “Wolfenbüttel Fragments,” against the “Sorrows of
  Werther,” etc. His polemic may have been over-violent, and he
  certainly was not a match for such an antagonist as Lessing; he
  was, however, by no means an obscurantist, ignoramus, fanatic,
  or hypocrite, but a man in solemn earnest in all he did. In
  the field of church history important services were rendered
  by =Schröckh= of Wittenberg and =Walch= of Göttingen, laborious
  investigators and compilers, =Stäudlin= and =Planck= of Göttingen,
  and =Münter= of Copenhagen.--Among English theologians of this
  tendency toward the end of the century, the most famous was
  =Paley= of Cambridge, A.D. 1743-1805, whose “Principles of Moral
  and Political Philosophy” and “Evidences of Christianity” were
  obligatory text-books in the university. His “_Horæ Paulinæ_”
  prove the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles from the
  epistles, and his “Natural Theology” demonstrates God’s being
  and attributes from nature.

  § 171.9. =Mysticism and Theosophy.=--=Oetinger= of Württemburg
  [Württemberg], the _Magus_ of the South, A.D. 1702-1782,
  takes rank by himself. He was a pupil of Bengel (§ 167, 3),
  well grounded in Scripture, but also an admirer of Böhme and
  sympathising with the spiritualistic visions of Swedenborg. But
  amid all, with his biblical realism and his theosophy, which held
  corporeity to be the end of the ways of God, he was firmly rooted
  in the doctrines of Lutheran orthodoxy.--The best mystic of the
  Reformed church was =J. Ph. Dutoit= of Lausanne, A.D. 1721-1793,
  an enthusiastic admirer of Madame Guyon; he added to her quietist
  mysticism certain theosophical speculations on the original
  nature of Adam, the creation of woman, the fall, the necessity
  of the incarnation apart from the fall, the basing of the
  sinlessness of Christ upon the immaculate conception of his
  mother, etc. He gathered about him during his lifetime a large
  number of pious adherents, but after his death his theories were
  soon forgotten.

  § 171.10. =The German Philosophy.=--As Locke accomplished the
  descent from Bacon to deism and materialism, so =Wolff= effected
  the transition from Leibnitz to the popular philosophy. =Kant=,
  A.D. 1724-1804, saved philosophy from the baldness and self-
  sufficiency of Wolffianism, and pointed it to its proper element
  in the spiritual domain. Kant’s own philosophy stood wholly
  outside of Christianity, on the same platform with rationalistic
  theology. But by deeper digging in the soil it unearthed many a
  precious nugget, of whose existence the vulgar rationalism had
  never dreamed, without any intention of becoming a schoolmaster
  to lead to Christ. Kant showed the impossibility of a knowledge
  of the supernatural by means of pure reason, but admitted
  the ideas of God, freedom, and immortality as postulates of
  the practical reason and as constituting the principle of all
  religion, whose only content is the moral law. Christianity and
  the Bible are to remain the basis of popular instruction, but
  are to be expounded only in an ethical sense. While in sympathy
  with rationalism, he admits its baldness and self-sufficiency.
  His keen criticism of the pure reason, the profound knowledge of
  human weakness and corruption shown in his doctrine of radical
  evil, his categorical imperative of the moral law, were well
  fitted to awaken in more earnest minds a deep distrust of
  themselves, a modest estimate of the boasted excellences of
  their age, and a feeling that Christianity could alone meet their
  necessities.--=F. H. Jacobi=, A.D. 1743-1819, “with the heart a
  Christian, with the understanding a pagan,” as he characterized
  himself, took religion out of the region of mere reason into the
  depths of the universal feelings of the soul, and so awakened a
  positive aspiration.--=J. G. Fichte=, A.D. 1762-1814, transformed
  Kantianism, to which he at first adhered, into an idealistic
  science of knowledge, in which only the _ego_ that posits itself
  appears as real, and the _non-ego_, only by its being posited by
  the _ego_; and thus the world and nature are only a reflex of the
  mind. But when, accused of atheism in A.D. 1798, he was expelled
  from his position in Jena, he changed his views, rushing from the
  verge of atheism into a mysticism approaching to Christianity. In
  his “Guide to a Blessed Life,” A.D. 1806, he delivered religion
  from being a mere servant to morals, and sought the blessedness
  of life in the loving surrender of one’s whole being to the
  universal Spirit, the full expression of which he found in
  John’s Gospel. Pauline Christianity, on the other hand, with its
  doctrine of sin and redemption, seemed to him a deterioration,
  and Christ Himself only the most complete representative of
  the incarnation of God repeated in all ages and in every pious
  man.--In the closing years of the century, =Schelling= brought
  forward his theory of _identity_, which was one of the most
  powerful instruments in introducing a new era.[521]

  § 171.11. =The German National Literature.=--When the powerful
  strain of the evangelical church hymn had well-nigh expired in
  the feeble lispings of =Gellert’s= sacred poetry, =Klopstock=
  began to chant the praises of the Messiah in a higher strain. But
  the pathos of his odes met with no response, and his “Messiah,”
  of which the first three cantos appeared in A.D. 1748, though
  received with unexampled enthusiasm, could do nothing to exorcise
  the spirit of unbelief, and was more praised than read. The
  theological standpoint of =Lessing=, A.D. 1729-1781, is set forth
  in one of his letters to his brother. “I despise the orthodox
  even more than you do, only I despise the clergy of the new style
  even more. What is the new-fashioned theology of those shallow
  pates compared with orthodoxy but as dung-water compared with
  dirty water? On this point we are at one, that our old religious
  system is false; but I cannot say with you that it is a patchwork
  of bunglers and half philosophers. I know nothing in the world
  upon which human ingenuity has been more subtly exercised than
  upon it. That religious system which is now offered in place of
  the old is a patchwork of bunglers and half philosophers.” He is
  offended at men hanging the concerns of eternity on the spider’s
  thread of external evidences, and so he was delighted to hurl
  the Wolfenbüttel “Fragments” at the heads of theologians and the
  Hamburg pastor Goeze, whom he loaded with contumely and scorn.
  Thoroughly characteristic too is the saying in the “_Duplik_:”
  That if God holding in his right hand all truth, and in his
  left hand the search after truth, subject to error through all
  eternity, were to offer him his choice, he would humbly say,
  “Father the left, for pure truth is indeed for thee alone.” In
  his “_Nathan_” only Judaism and Mohammedanism are represented by
  truly noble and ideal characters, while the chief representative
  of Christianity is a gloomy zealot, and the conclusion of the
  parable is that all three rings are counterfeit. In another
  work he views revelation as one of the stages in “The Education
  of the Human Race,” which loses its significance as soon as
  its purpose is served. In familiar conversation with Jacobi
  he frankly declared his acceptance of the doctrine of Spinoza:
  Ἓν καὶ πᾶν.[522] =Wieland=, A.D. 1733-1813, soon turned
  from his youthful zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy to the
  popular philosophy of the cultured man of the world. =Herder=,
  A.D. 1744-1803, with his enthusiastic appreciation of the
  poetical contents of the Bible, especially of the Old Testament,
  was not slow to point out the insipidity of its ordinary
  treatment. =Goethe=, A.D. 1749-1832, profoundly hated the
  vandalism of neology, delighted in “The Confessions of a
  Fair Soul” (§ 172, 2), had in earlier years sympathy with the
  Herrnhuters, but in the full intellectual vigour of his manhood
  thought he had no need of Christianity, which offended him by
  its demand for renunciation of self and the world. =Schiller=,
  A.D. 1759-1805, enthusiastically admiring everything noble,
  beautiful and good, misunderstood Christianity, and introduced
  into the hearts of the German people Kantian rationalism clothed
  in rich poetic garb. His lament on the downfall of the gods of
  Greece, even if not so intended by the poet himself, told not so
  much against orthodox Christianity as against poverty-stricken
  deism, which banished the God of Christianity from the world
  and set in his place the dead forces of nature. And if indeed
  he really thought that for religion’s sake he should confess
  to no religion, he has certainly in many profoundly Christian
  utterances given unconscious testimony to Christianity.--The
  Jacobi philosophy of feeling found poetic interpreters in =Jean
  Paul Richter=, A.D. 1763-1825, and =Hebel=, died A.D. 1826, in
  whom we find the same combination of pious sentiment which is
  drawn toward Christianity and the sceptical understanding which
  allied itself to the revolt against the common orthodoxy. =J. H.
  Voss=, a rough, powerful Dutch peasant, who in his “_Luise_”
  sketched the ideal of a brave rationalistic country parson, and,
  with the inexorable rigour of an inquisitor, hunted down the
  night birds of ignorance and oppression. But alongside of those
  children of the world stood two genuine sons of Luther, =Matthias
  Claudius=, A.D. 1740-1815, and =J. G. Hamann=, A.D. 1730-1788,
  the “Magus of the North” and the Elijah of his age, of whom Jean
  Paul said that his commas were planetary systems and his periods
  solar systems, to whom the philosopher Hemsterhuis erected in
  the garden of Princess Gallitzin a tablet with the inscription:
  “To the Jews a stumbling- block, to the Greeks foolishness.” With
  them may also be named two noble sons of the Reformed church, the
  physiognomist =Lavater=, A.D. 1741- 1801, and the devout dreamer,
  =Jung-Stilling=, A.D. 1740-1817. The famous historian, =John von
  Müller=, A.D. 1752- 1809, well deserves mention here, who more
  than any previous historian made Christ the centre and summit
  of all times; and also the no less famous statesman =C. F. von
  Moser=, the most German of the Germans of this century, who,
  with noble Christian heroism, in numerous political and patriotic
  tracts, battled against the prevailing social and political vices
  of his age.

  § 171.12. The great Swiss educationist =Pestalozzi=,
  A.D. 1746-1827, assumed toward the Bible, the church, and
  Christianity an attitude similar to that of the philosopher of
  Königsberg. The conviction of the necessity and wholesomeness
  of a biblical foundation in all popular education was rooted
  in his heart, and he clearly saw the shallowness of the popular
  philosophy, whether presented under the eccentric naturalism of
  Rousseau or the bald utilitarianism of Basedow. His whole life
  issued from the very sanctuary of true Christianity, as seen in
  his self-sacrificing efforts to save the lost, to strengthen the
  weak, and to preach to the poor by word and deed the gospel of
  the all-merciful God whose will it is that all should be saved.
  He began his career as an educationist in A.D. 1775 by receiving
  into his house deserted beggar children, and carried on his
  experiments in his educational institutions at Burgdorf till
  A.D. 1798, and at Isserten till A.D. 1804. His writings, which
  circulated far and wide, gained for his methods recognition and
  high approval.[523]


        § 172. CHURCH LIFE IN THE PERIOD OF THE “ILLUMINATION.”

  The ancient faith of the church had even during this age of prevailing
unbelief its seven thousand who refused to bow the knee to Baal. The
German people were at heart firmly grounded in the Christianity of the
Bible and the church, and where the pulpit failed had their spiritual
wants supplied by the devout writings of earlier days. Where the modern
vandalism of the “Illumination” had mutilated and watered down the books
of praise, the old church songs lingered in the memories of fathers and
mothers, and were sung with ardour at family worship. For many men of
culture, who were more exposed to danger, the Society of the Brethren
afforded a welcome refuge. But even among the most accomplished of the
nation many stood firmly in the old paths. Lavater and Stilling, Haller
and Euler, the two Mosers, father and son, John von Müller and his
brother J. G. Müller, are not by any means the only, but merely the best
known, of such true sons of the church. In Württemberg and Berg, where
religious life was most vigorous, religious sects were formed with new
theological views which made a deep impression on the character and
habits of the people. Also toward the end of the century an awakened
zeal in home and foreign missions was the prelude of the glorious
enterprises of our own days.

  § 172.1. =The Hymnbook and Church Music.=--Klopstock, followed
  by Cramer and Schlegel, introduced the vandalism of altering
  the old church hymns to suit modern tastes and views. But a
  few, like Herder and Schubert, raised their voices against such
  philistinism. The “Illuminist” alterations were unutterably
  prosaic, and the old pathos and poetry of the sixteenth and
  seventeenth century hymns were ruthlessly sacrificed. The
  spiritual songs of the noble and pious Gellert are by far
  the best productions of this period.--=Church Music= too now
  reached its lowest ebb. The old chorales were altered into modern
  forms. A multitude of new, unpopular melodies, difficult of
  comprehension, with a bald school tone, were introduced; the last
  trace of the old rhythm disappeared, and a weary monotony began
  to prevail, in which all force and freshness were lost. As a
  substitute, secular preludes, interludes, and concluding pieces
  were brought in. The people often entered the churches during the
  playing of operatic overtures, and were dismissed amid the noise
  of a march or waltz. The church ceased to be the patron and
  promoter of music; the theatre and concert room took its place.
  The opera style thoroughly depraved the oratorio. For festival
  occasions, cantatas in a purely secular, effeminate style were
  composed. A true ecclesiastical music no longer existed, so that
  even Winterfeld closed his history of church music with Seb. Bach.
  It was, if possible, still worse with the mass music of the Roman
  Catholic church. Palestrina’s earnest and capable school was
  completely lost sight of under the sprightly and frivolous opera
  style, and with the organ still more mischief was done than in
  the Protestant church.

  § 172.2. =Religious Characters.=--The pastor of Ban de la Roche
  in Steinthal of Alsace, “the saint of the Protestant church,”
  =J. Fr. Oberlin=, A.D. 1740-1826, deserves a high place of honour.
  During a sixty years’ pastorate “Father Oberlin” raised his
  poverty-stricken flock to a position of industrial prosperity,
  and changed the barren Steinthal into a patriarchal paradise. The
  same may be said of a noble Christian woman of that age, =Sus.
  Cath. von Klettenberg=, Lavater’s “Cordata,” Goethe’s “Fair Soul,”
  whose genuine confessions are wrought into “_Wilhelm Meister_,”
  the centre of a beautiful Christian circle in Frankfort, where
  the young Goethe received religious impressions that were never
  wholly forgotten.--Community of religious yearnings brought
  together pious Protestants and pious Catholics. The Princess von
  Gallitzin, her chaplain Overberg, and minister Von Fürstenberg
  formed a noble group of earnest Catholics, for whom the ardent
  Lutheran Hamann entertained the warmest affection.

  § 172.3. =Religious Sects.=--In Württemberg there arose out of
  the pietism of Spener, with a dash of the theosophy of Oetinger,
  the party of the =Michelians=, so named from a layman, Michael
  Hahn, whose writings show profound insight into the truths of the
  gospel. He taught the doctrine of a double fall, in consequence
  of which he depreciated though he did not forbid marriage; of a
  restitution of all things; while he subordinated justification
  to sanctification, the Christ for us to the Christ in us, etc.
  As a reaction against this extreme arose the =Pregizerians=, who
  laid exclusive stress upon baptism and justification, declared
  assurance and heart-breaking penitence unnecessary, and imparted
  to their services as much brightness and joy as possible. Both
  sects spread over Württemberg and still exist, but in their
  common opposition to the destructive tendencies of modern times,
  they have drawn more closely together. In their chiliasm and
  restitutionism they are thoroughly agreed.--The =Collenbuschians=
  in Canton Berg propounded a dogmatic system in which Christ
  empties Himself of His divine attributes, and assumes with sinful
  flesh the tendencies to sin that had to be fought against, the
  sufferings of Christ are attributed to the wrath of Satan, and
  His redemption consists in His overcoming Satan’s wrath for us
  and imparting His Spirit to enable us to do works of holiness.
  The most distinguished adherents of Collenbusch were the two
  Hasencamps and the talented Bremen pastor Menken.

  § 172.4. =The Rationalistic “Illumination” outside of
  Germany.=--In Amsterdam, in A.D. 1791, a =Restored Lutheran
  Church= or =Old Light= was organized on the occasion of the
  intrusion of a rationalistic pastor. It now numbers eight Dutch
  congregations with 14,000 adherents and 11 pastors. Under the
  name of =Christo Sacrum= some members of the French Reformed
  church at Delft, in A.D. 1797, founded a denomination which
  received adherents of all confessions, holding by the divinity
  of Christ and His atonement, and treating all confessional
  differences as non-essential and to be held only as private
  opinions. In their public services they adopted mainly the forms
  of the Anglican episcopal church. Though successful at first, it
  soon became rent by the incongruity of its elements. In England
  the dissenters and Methodists provided a healthy protest against
  the lukewarmness of the State church. In =William Cowper=,
  A.D. 1731-1800, we have a noble and brilliant poet of high
  lyrical genius, whose life was blasted by the terrorism of a
  predestinarian doctrine of despair and the religious melancholy
  produced by Methodistic agonies of soul.

  § 172.5. =Missionary Societies and Missionary Enterprise.=--In
  order to arouse interest in the idea of a grand union for
  practical Christian purposes, the Augsburg elder, John Urlsperger,
  travelled through England, Holland, and Germany. The Basel
  Society for Spreading Christian Truth, founded in A.D. 1780, was
  the firstfruits of his zeal, and branches were soon established
  throughout Switzerland and Southern Germany. The Basel Bible
  Society was founded in A.D. 1804, and the Missionary Society
  in A.D. 1816.--At a meeting of English Baptist preachers at
  Kettering, in Northamptonshire, in A.D. 1792, William Carey was
  the means of starting the Baptist Missionary Society. Carey was
  himself its first missionary. He sailed for India in A.D. 1793,
  and founded the Serampore Mission in Bengal. The work of the
  society has now spread over the East and West Indies, the Malay
  Archipelago, South Africa, and South America. A popular preacher,
  Melville Horne, who had been himself in India, published “Letters
  on Missions,” in A.D. 1794, in which he earnestly counselled a
  union of all true Christians for the conversion of the heathen.
  In response to this appeal a large number of Christians of all
  denominations, mostly Independents, founded in A.D. 1795, the
  London Missionary Society, and in the following year the first
  missionary ship, _The Duff_, under Captain Wilson, sailed for the
  South Seas with twenty-nine missionaries on board. Its operations
  now extend to both Indies, South Africa, and North America;
  but its chief hold is in the South Seas. In the Society Islands
  the missionaries wrought for sixteen years without any apparent
  result, till at last King Pomare II. of Tahiti sought baptism as
  the first-fruits of their labours. A victory gained over a pagan
  reactionary party in A.D. 1815 secured complete ascendency to
  Christianity. The example of the London Society was followed by
  the founding of two Scottish societies in A.D. 1796 and a Dutch
  society in A.D. 1797, and the Church Missionary Society in London
  in A.D. 1799, for the English possessions in Africa, Asia, etc.
  The Danish Lutheran (§ 167, 9) and the Herrnhut (§ 168, 11)
  societies still continued their operations.[524]--Continuation,
  §§ 183, 184.




                            FOURTH SECTION.

               CHURCH HISTORY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.




                      I. General and Introductory.


      § 173. SURVEY OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY.

  A reaction had set in against the atheistic spirit of the French
Revolution, and the victories of A.D. 1813, 1815, encouraged the
pious in their Christian confidence. Princes and people were full of
gratitude to God. Alexander I., Francis I., and Frederick William III.,
representing the three principal churches, in A.D. 1815, after the
political situation had been determined by the Congress of Vienna,
formed “the Holy Alliance,” a league of brotherly love for mutual
defence and maintenance of peace, to which all the European princes
adhered with the exception of the pope, the sultan, and the king of
England. Through Metternich’s arts it ultimately degenerated into an
instrument of repression and tyranny.--Incongruous elements were present
everywhere. The restoration of the papacy in A.D. 1814 had given a new
impulse to ultramontanism, as did also the Reformation centenary of
A.D. 1817 to Protestantism; while supernaturalism and pietism prevailing
in the Lutheran and Reformed churches led to renewed attempts at union.
Old sects were strengthened and new sects arose. Pantheism, materialism,
and atheism, as well as socialism and communism, without concealment
attacked Christianity; while pauperism and vagabondage, on the one hand,
and the Stock Exchange swindling of capitalists, on the other, spread
moral consumption through all classes of society. The ultramontanes, led
by the Jesuits, reasserted the most arrogant claims of the papacy. The
climax was reached when Pius IX. obtained a decree of council affirming
his infallibility, while by the Nemesis of history the royal crown was
torn from his head.


            § 174. NINETEENTH CENTURY CULTURE IN RELATION TO
                      CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH.

  Down to A.D. 1840, when zeal for it began to abate, philosophy
exercised an important influence on the religious development of the
age, both in the departments of science and of life. While rationalism
was not able to transcend the standpoint of Kant, the other theological
tendencies were more or less determined formally, and even materially
by the philosophical movements of this period. Alongside of philosophy,
literature, itself to a great extent coloured by contemporary philosophy,
exerted a powerful influence on the religious opinions of the more
cultured among the people. The sciences, too, came into closer relations,
partly friendly, partly hostile, to Christianity; and art in some of its
masterpieces paid a noble tribute to the church.

  § 174.1. =The German Philosophy= (§ 171, 10).--=Fries=, whose
  philosophy was Kantian rationalism, modified by elements borrowed
  from Jacobi, influenced such theologians as De Wette. =Schelling=,
  in his “Philosophy of Identity,” had advanced from Fichte’s
  idealism to a pantheistic naturalism. From Fichte he had learned
  that this world is nothing without spirit; but while Fichte
  recognised this world, the _non-ego_, as reality only in so far
  as man seizes upon it and penetrates it by his spirit, and so
  raises it into real being, Schelling regards spirit as nothing
  else than the life of nature itself. In the lower stages of this
  nature-life spirit is still slumbering and dreaming, but in man
  it has attained unto consciousness. The nature-life as a whole,
  or the world-soul, is God; man is the reflex of God and the
  world in miniature, a microcosmos. In the world’s development God
  comes into objective being and unfolds his self-consciousness;
  Christianity is the turning point in the world’s history; its
  fundamental dogmas of revelation, trinity, incarnation, and
  redemption are suggestive attempts to solve the world’s riddle.
  Schelling’s poetic view of the world penetrated all the sciences,
  and gave to them a new impulse. Though hateful to the old
  rationalists, this system found ardent admirers among the younger
  theologians. As Schelling to Fichte, so =Hegel= was attached
  to Schelling, and wrought his pantheistic naturalism into a
  pantheistic spiritualism. Not so much in the life of nature as in
  the thinking and doing of the human spirit, the divine revelation
  is the unfolding of the divine self-consciousness from non-being
  into being. Judaism and Christianity are progressive stages of
  this process; Judaism stands far below classic paganism; but in
  Christianity we have the perfect religion, to be developed into
  the highest form of philosophy. The Protestant church doctrine
  was now again accorded the place of honour. Marheincke developed
  Lutheran orthodoxy into a system of speculative theology based on
  Hegelian principles; while Göschel infused into it a pietist
  spirit, which made many hail the new departure as the long-sought
  reconciliation of theology and philosophy. But after Hegel’s
  death in A.D. 1831 the condition of matters suddenly changed.
  His school split into an orthodox wing following the master’s
  ecclesiastical tendencies, and a heterodox wing which deified the
  human spirit. Strauss, Bauer, and Feuerbach led this heterodox
  party in theology, and Ruge in reference to social, æsthetic,
  and political questions. Persecuted by the state in A.D. 1843,
  the Young Hegelians joined the rationalists, whom they had before
  sneered at as “antediluvian theologians.” =Schelling=, who had
  been silent for almost thirty years, took Hegel’s chair in Berlin
  as his decided opponent in A.D. 1841, and with his dualistic
  doctrine of potencies, from which he finally advanced to a
  Christian gnosticism, obtained a temporary influence among the
  younger theologians. He died at the baths of Ragaz in Switzerland
  in A.D. 1854. He flashed for a moment like a meteor, and as
  suddenly his light was quenched.

  § 174.2. The domination of the Hegelian philosophy was overthrown
  by the split in the school and the radicalism of the adherents
  of the left wing, and Schelling in the second stage of his
  philosophical development had not succeeded in founding any
  proper school of his own. A group of younger philosophers, with
  I. H. Fichte at their head, starting from the Hegelian dialectic,
  have striven to free philosophy from the reproach of pantheism
  and to develop a speculative theism in touch with historical
  Christianity. Other members of this school are Weisse, Braniss,
  Chalibæus, Ulrici, Wirth, Romang, etc.--=Herbart= renounces all
  that philosophers from Fichte senior to Fichte junior had done,
  and declares the metaphysical end of their systems beyond the
  horizon of philosophy, which must limit itself to the province of
  experience. His realism is in diametrical opposition to Hegel’s
  idealism. Toward Christianity his philosophy occupies a position
  of indifference. Influenced by Kant’s theory of knowledge as
  well as by the Fichte-Schelling-Hegel idealism and Herbart’s
  realism, with an infusion of Leibnitz’s monad doctrine, =Hermann
  Lotze= of Göttingen has, since A.D. 1844, set forth a system of
  “teleological idealism.” He develops his metaphysical principles
  from what we have by immediate experience internal and external,
  and the invariability of the causal mechanism in everything that
  happens in the inner and outer world he explains as the realizing
  of moral purposes.--=Schopenhauer’s= philosophy, which only in
  the later years of his life (died A.D. 1860) began to attract
  attention, is in spirit utterly opposed to the religion and
  ethics of Christianity. Its task is to describe “The World as
  Will and Idea;” first at that stage of entering into visibility
  which is represented in man does will, the thing-in-itself,
  become joined with idea, and makes its appearance now with it
  over against the world as a conscious subject. But since idea
  is regarded as a pure illusion of the will, this leads to a
  pessimism which takes absolute despair as the only legitimate
  moral principle. =E. von Hartmann= went still further in the
  same direction in his “Philosophy of the Unconscious,” published
  in 1869, of which an English translation in three vols. appeared
  in 1884. He identifies the will with matter and idea with spirit,
  demands in addition to the absolute despair of the individual
  here and hereafter, the complete surrender of the personality to
  the world-process in order to the attainment of its end, the
  annihilation of the world. This dissolution of the world consists
  in the complete withdrawal of the will into the absolute as
  the only unconscious, so that at last the wrong and misery of
  being produced by the irrational will are abolished in this
  withdrawal. From this philosophical standpoint Hartmann attempted
  in A.D. 1874 to take Christianity to pieces, showing some favour
  to Vatican Catholicism, but pouring out the vials of his wrath
  upon Protestantism. His “religion of the future” consists in a
  yearning for freedom from all the burden and misery of being and
  share in the world-process by relapsing into the blessedness of
  non-being.--In France, England, and America much favour has been
  shown to the atheistic-sensual Positivism of =Aug. Comte=, which,
  excluding every form of theology and morals, requires only the
  so-called exact sciences as the object of philosophy. On his later
  notions of a “religion of humanity,” see § 210, 1. On essentially
  similar lines proceeds =Herbert Spencer=, in his “System of
  Synthetic Philosophy,” to whose school also Darwin belonged.
  His followers are styled agnostics, because they regard all
  knowledge of God and divine things as absolutely impossible,
  and evolutionists, because their master endeavours to construct
  all the sciences on the basis of the evolution theory.

  § 174.3. =The Sciences.=-Schelling’s profound theories were of
  all the more significance from their not being restricted to
  the philosophical strivings of his time, but inspiring the other
  sciences with the breath of a new life. To the fullest extent
  the natural sciences exposed themselves to this influence. There
  was not wanting indeed a certain shadowy mysticism, to which
  especially the fancies of mesmeric magnetism largely contributed;
  but this fog gradually cleared away, and the Christian elements
  were purified from their pantheistic surroundings. Steffens
  and Von Schubert taught that the divine book of nature is to be
  regarded as the reflex and expansion of the divine revelation in
  Scripture. The Hegelian philosophy, too, seemed at first likely
  to infuse a Christian spirit into the other sciences. In Göschel,
  at least, there was a thinker who imparted to jurisprudence a
  Christian character, and to Christianity a juristic construction.
  In other respects Hegel’s philosophy in its application to the
  other departments of science gave in many ways a predominance to
  an abstruse dialectic tendency. Its adherents of the extreme left
  sought to construct all sciences _a priori_ from the pure idea,
  and at the same time to root out from them the last vestiges of
  the Christian spirit.

  The greatest names in natural science, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton,
  Haller, Davy, Cuvier, etc., are household words in Christian
  circles. All these and many more were firmly convinced that there
  was no conflict between their most brilliant discoveries and
  Christian truth. In A.D. 1825 the Earl of Bridgwater founded a
  lectureship, and treatises on the power, wisdom, and goodness of
  God as manifested in the creation, have been written by Buckland,
  Chalmers, Whewell, Bell, etc. It was otherwise in Germany.
  Even Schleiermacher, in his “Letters to Lücke,” in A.D. 1829,
  expressed his fears of the prophesied overthrow of all Christian
  theories of the world by the incontrovertible results of physical
  research, and Bretschneider in his “Letters to a Statesman,” in
  A.D. 1830, proclaimed to the world without regret that already
  what Schleiermacher only feared had actually come to pass.
  Physicists, awakening from the glamour of the Schelling nature
  philosophy, pronounced all speculation contraband, and declared
  pure empiricism, the simple investigation of actual things, the
  only permissible object of their labour. And although they handed
  over to theologians and philosophers questions about spirit in
  and over nature, as not belonging to their province, a younger
  generation maintained that spirit was non-existent, because it
  could not be discovered by the microscope and dissecting knife.
  Carl Vogt defined thought to be a secretion of the brain,
  and Moleschott regarded life as a mere mode of matter and
  man’s existence after life only as the manuring of the fields.
  Feuerbach proclaimed that “man is what he eats,” and Buchner
  [Büchner] popularized these views into a gospel for social
  democrats and nihilists. Oersted, the famous discoverer of
  electro-magnetism, had sought “the spirit in nature,” but the
  spirit which he found was not that of the Bible and the church.
  The grandmaster of German scientific research, Alex. von Humboldt,
  saw in the world a cosmos of noble harmony as a whole and in its
  parts, but of Christian ideas in God’s great book of nature he
  finds no trace. In A.D. 1859 the great English naturalist Darwin,
  died A.D. 1882, introduced into the arena the theory of “Natural
  Selection,” by means of which the modification and development of
  the few primary animal forms through the struggle for existence
  and the survival of the fittest by sexual selection is supposed,
  in millions, perhaps milliards, of years, to have brought
  forth the present variety and manifoldness of animal species.
  Multitudes of naturalists now accept his theory of the descent
  of men and apes from a common stem.--In =Medicine= De Valenti on
  the Protestant side, with pietistic earnestness, maintains that
  Christian faith is a vehicle of healing power; while a circle in
  Munich on the Catholic side make worship of saints and the host a
  _conditio sine qua non_ of all medicine. A more moderate attitude
  is assumed by the Roman Catholic Dr. Capellmann of Aachen, in his
  “Pastoral Medicine.”

  § 174.4. Of Christian =Jurists= we have, on the Protestant
  side, Stahl, Savigny, Puchta, Jacobson, Richter, Meier, Scheuerl,
  Hinschius, etc.; and on the Catholic side, Walther, Philipps, etc.
  Among =Historians=, the greatest in modern times is Leopold von
  Ranke, who, with his disciples, occupies a thoroughly Christian
  standpoint. There has appeared, however, on the part of many
  Protestant historians, such as Voigt, Leo, Mentzel, Vorreiter,
  Hurter, Gfroerer [Gfrörer], etc., a tendency in the most
  conspicuous manner to recognise and admire the brilliant
  phenomena of mediæval Catholicism, even going to the length
  of renouncing the vital principles of Protestantism, and
  glorifying a Boniface, a Gregory VII., and an Innocent III.,
  and characterizing the Reformation as a revolution. Ultramontanes
  have been only too ready to turn to their own use all such
  concessions, but show no inclination to make similar admissions
  damaging to their side, so that with them history consists rather
  in the abuse of everything Protestant as vile and perfidious,
  instead of being a record of independent research. Janssen
  [Jansen] of Frankfort stands out prominently above the billows
  of the “_Kulturkampf_” (§ 197), as the greatest master of this
  ultramontane style of history making.--=Geography=, first raised
  to the rank of a science by Carl Ritter, received from its great
  founder a Christian impress and owes much of its development to
  the researches of Christian missionaries. Finally, =Philology=,
  in the hands of Creuzer, Görres, Sepp, etc., unfolds in a
  Christian spirit the religion and mythology of classical paganism;
  and in the hands of Nägelsbach and Lübker expounds the religious
  life of the ancient world in relation to Christian truth.

  § 174.5. =National Literature= (§ 171, 11).--To some extent
  Goethe, but much more decidedly the romantic school of poets, was
  attached to Schelling’s philosophy of nature. The romanticists
  developed a deep religiousness of feeling, as shown in Novalis
  and La Motte Fouqué, and violent opposition to rationalistic
  theology as shown in Tieck, which in the case of Fr. Schlegel ran
  to the other extreme of moral frivolity as seen in his “Lucinde.”
  The romantic school as thus represented by Schlegel was joined by
  the party of Young Germany with its gospel of the rehabilitation
  of the flesh. Its mouthpiece was the gifted poet Heine.
  The pantheistic deification of nature by Schelling, and
  the self-deification of the Hegelian school obtained poetic
  expression in Leop. Schafer’s _Laienbrevier und Weltpriester_,
  as well as in Sallet’s _Laienevangelium_; while the sympathies
  of the young Hegelians with the revolutionary movements gained
  utterance in the poems of Herwegh, and in a more serious
  tone in those of Freiligrath. More recently the views of
  the _Protestantenverein_ (§ 180) have found their poetical
  representative in Nic. Eichhorn, whose “Jesus of Nazareth,” a
  tragical drama, 1880, deals with the life, works, and sufferings
  of the “historical Christ,” after the style of free Protestant
  science, with rich psychological analysis of the character in a
  brilliant imaginative production. Though composed with a view to
  theatrical representation, it has never yet been put on the stage.

  § 174.6. The Christian element was present in the noble patriotic
  songs of E. M. Arndt[525] and Max. von Schenkendorf much more
  distinctly than in the romantic school. Enthusiasm in the
  struggle for freedom awakened faith in the living God. Uhland’s
  lovely lyrics, with their enthusiasm for the present interests
  of the Fatherland, entitle him to rank among patriotic poets, and
  their brilliant and profound rendering of the old German legends
  places him in the romantic school, which, however, in clearness
  and depth he leaves far behind. Without being a distinctively
  Christian poet, his warm sympathy with the life of the German
  people gives him a genuine interest in the Christian religion.
  The same may be said of Rückert’s highly finished poems, which
  transplanted the fragrant flowers of oriental sensuousness
  and contemplativeness into the garden of German poetry. A more
  decided Christian consecration of poetic genius is seen in the
  noble and beautiful lyrics of Emanuel Geibel, died 1884, the
  greatest and most Christian of the secular poets of the present.
  Of those ordinarily ranked as sacred poets may be named Knapp,
  Döring, Spitta, Garve, Vict. Strauss, etc., who for the most
  part contributed their sacred songs to Knapp’s “_Christoterpe_”
  (1833-1853). A later publication of equal merit, called the
  “_Neue Christoterpe_,” has been edited since 1880 by Kögel, Baur,
  and Frommel. But with all the Christian depth and spirituality,
  freshness and warmth, which we meet with in the productions of
  these Christian poets, none of them has been able to rise to
  the noble simplicity, power, popular force, and fitting them for
  church use, objectivity which are present in the old evangelical
  church hymns. In this respect they all bear too conspicuously the
  signature of their age, with its subjective tone and the noise
  and turmoil of present conflicts. Of all modern poets, Rückert
  alone approaches in his advent hymn the measure and spirit of the
  old church song.--In the department of novels and romance there
  has been shown an almost invariable hostility toward Christianity,
  religion being either entirely avoided or held up to contempt by
  having as its representatives, simpletons, hypocrites, or knaves.

  § 174.7. In =France=, Chateaubriand in his “_Genie du
  Christianisme_” pronounces an eloquent eulogy on the half-pagan
  Christianity of the Middle Ages. In another work he makes the
  representatives of heathenism in the age of Constantine act like
  Homeric heroes, and those of Christianity speak “like theologians
  of the age of Bossuet.” Lamartine may be described as a Christian
  romanticist. Victor Hugo, Balzac, George Sand, Sue, Dumas,
  etc., influenced by the Revolution, developed an antichristian
  tendency; while naked naturalism, photographic realism in
  depicting the lowest side of Parisian life, especially adultery
  and prostitution, is represented by Flaubert, Daudet, De Goncourt,
  Zola, etc.--In =Italy=, the amiable Manzoni gave noble expression
  to Christian feeling in his “_Inni Sacri_,” and in his masterly
  romance “_Promessi Sposi_;” and the famous poet Silvio Pellico,
  in his “_La mia Prigioni_,” affords a noble example of the
  sustaining power of true religion during ten years’ rigorous
  imprisonment in an Austrian dungeon. The most gifted of modern
  Italian poets, Giacomo Leopardi, sank into despairing pessimism,
  which expressed itself in the domain of religion in biting
  satire and savage irony. Among the poets of the present who,
  with glowing patriotism, not only yearned for the deliverance
  and unity of Italy, but also lived to see these accomplished,
  and have since given expression, though from different political
  and religious standpoints, to the desire for the reconciliation
  of the free united kingdom with the irreconcilable church, the
  most distinguished are Aleardi, Carducci, Imbriani, Guercini,
  Cavalotti.--In =Spain=, Caecilia Böhl von Faber, although
  the daughter of a German father, and educated in Germany,
  introduced, under the name Fernan Caballero, the modern romance
  in a thoroughly national Spanish style, and in a purely moral and
  catholic Christian spirit. In the =Flemish Provinces=, Hendrik
  Conscience, the able novelist, has described Flemish village
  life in a spirit fully in sympathy with Christianity.--=England=
  had in Lord Byron a poet of the first rank, who more than any
  other poet had experience in himself of the convulsions and
  contradictions of his age. In powerful and impressive tones he
  sets forth the unreconciled disharmonies of nature and of human
  life. Incurable pain, despair, weariness of life, and hatred
  of mankind, without hope, yet without desire for reconciliation,
  enthusiastic admiration of the ancient world, passionate love of
  liberty and titanic pride in human might mingle with scenes of
  grumbling, misery, and profligacy. On the other hand, the rich
  and mostly solid English novel literature is prevailingly
  inspired by a Christian spirit.

  § 174.8. =Popular Education.=--While the poetic national
  literature for the most part found entrance only among the
  cultured and adult circles, this age, almost as fond of
  writing as of reading, produced an enormous quantity of books
  for the people and for children. But only a few succeeded in
  catching the proper tone for the masses and the youth, and
  still fewer supplied their readers with what was genuinely pious.
  Pestalozzi’s “_Lienhard und Gertrud_,” Hebel’s “_Schatzkästlein_,”
  and Tschokke’s “_Goldmacherdorf_,” respected at least the
  Christian feeling of the people, although they did not strengthen
  or foster it. But, on the other hand, in recent years a number of
  writers have appeared, thoroughly popular, and at the same time
  thoroughly Christian, who, as popular poets and novelists, have
  become apostles of Christian views, morals, and customs to the
  people. The most distinguished of these are Jeremiah Gotthelf
  (Albert Bitzius, died 1854), whose “Kate the Grandmother” was
  translated in the _Sunday Magazine_ for 1865, Von Horn, Carl
  Stöber, Wildenhahn, Nathusius, Frommel, Weitbrecht, etc. In the
  Catholic church Albanus Stoltz, died 1883, developed a wonderful
  power of popular composition, which, however, he subsequently put
  at the service of a fanatical ultramontanism, and so sacrificed
  much of its nobility and worth. From the enormous mass of
  children’s books only extremely few attain their aim. In the
  front rank stands the brilliant patriarch of Christian tale
  writing, Von Schubert, died 1860. After him are Barth, the author
  of “Poor Henry,” Stöber, and the Swiss Spyri, and the Catholic
  Christian Schmid, author of the “Easter Eggs.”--The =Public
  Schools=, especially under Dinter (died 1831), member of the
  consistory and schoolboard of Königsberg, were for a long time
  nurseries of the tame, flat, and self-satisfied rationalism of
  the _ancien régime_; but since 1830, and more particularly in
  consequence of the violent agitations of the seminary director
  Diesterweg, who died in 1866, put to silence in 1847, but
  still for his work in connexion with education always highly
  respected, many of the teachers took a higher flight in the
  naturalistic-democratic direction. By word and pen Diesterweg
  carried on a propaganda in favour of a free and liberal education
  for the people. His disciples, wanting his earnest Christian
  spirit, carried out recklessly his radical tendencies, and now
  the Christian faith has no more persistent foes than the teachers
  of the public schools. In A.D. 1870, a Teachers’ Association in
  Vienna gave a vote of 6,000 in favour of radicalism. At a Hamburg
  meeting in A.D. 1872 of 5,100 teachers, progress was shown by
  individuals raising their voices in defence of Christianity,
  which, however, were generally drowned in shrieks and hisses.
  A Teachers’ Evangelical Association held its ninth assembly
  at Hamburg in A.D. 1881 with 1,500 members. Christian opinions
  are now ably represented in schools, educational journals,
  and literature. A burning question at present is whether the
  national school should be preferred to the denominational school.
  Liberals in church and state say it should; conservatives say
  it should not; while both parties think their views supported by
  the experience of the past. The Prussian minister of education,
  Falk, A.D. 1872-1879, firmly insisted upon the development of the
  national system, but his successors Von Puttkamer and Von Gossler
  reverted to the denominational system. The German Evangelical
  School Congress of Hamburg in October, 1882, demanded that both
  elementary and secondary schools should have a confessional
  character.

  § 174.9. =Art.=--The intellectual quickening called forth with
  the opening of the new century imparted new spirit and life to
  the cultivation of the arts. Winckelmann, died A.D. 1768, had
  opened the way to an understanding of pagan classical art, and
  romanticism awakened appreciation of and enthusiasm for mediæval
  Christian art. The greatest masters of =Architecture= were
  Schinckel, Klenze, and Heideloff. The foundation stone of the
  final part of the Cologne cathedral was laid by a Protestant king,
  Frederick William IV., in A.D. 1842, and the work was finished
  by a Protestant builder in A.D. 1880. =Statuary= had three great
  masters, who gave expression to profound Christian ideas in
  bronze and marble, the Italian Canova, the German Dannecker,
  and greatest of all, the Dane Thorwaldsen, whose Christ and the
  Apostles and other works form a main attraction to visitors in
  Copenhagen. Three younger German masters of the art, who have
  heired their fame, are Rauch, Rietschl, and Drake.--In =Painting=
  too a new era now began. A group of gay German artists in Rome,
  with Overbeck at their head, formed a Society in A.D. 1813, and
  mostly became perverts to Romanism. Peter Cornelius, the ablest
  of the school, himself born a Catholic, answered his friends’
  request to place Luther in a picture of the last judgment,
  in hell: “Yes, but with the Bible in his hands and the devils
  trembling before him”; and in a subsequent picture of the
  judgment, he gave the German reformer his place among the saints
  in heaven. His pupil, Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld is well known
  by his “_Bibel in Bildern_.” Ludwig Richter, the Albert Dürer
  of the nineteenth century and creator of the modern woodcut,
  has filled German houses with his artistic and poetic creations,
  which breathe of God, nature, and the family fireside. The
  Frenchman, Gustave Doré of Strassburg, has also illustrated the
  Bible in a manner worthy of ranking alongside of Schnorr, though
  a characteristically French striving for effect is everywhere
  discernible.--=Painted Glass= (§ 104, 14) for church windows
  had during the eighteenth century passed almost wholly out of
  use, but again in the nineteenth came into favour, and was made
  at Dresden, Nuremberg, and Munich. The most eminent artist in
  this department was Ainmiller of Munich, specimens of whose
  workmanship are to be seen in all parts of the world.

  § 174.10. =Music and the Drama.=--In Vienna the three great
  masters of musical composition, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven,
  produced in the department of sacred music some of their noblest
  works. Mendelssohn, in his St. Paul and Elijah and in his Psalms,
  sought to reproduce the power and truth of the simple word of
  God. An early death prevented him giving expression to his ideal
  of Christ in music. The Hungarian virtuoso Liszt sacrifices
  sacred calmness and dignity to theatrical effect. His son-in-law,
  Richard Wagner, inspired by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, a richly
  endowed poet and composer, proclaimed by his followers as the
  Messiah of the music of the future, going back to mediæval legend,
  has produced a _quasi_-Christian musical drama, in which the
  gospel of pessimism takes the place of the gospel of the grace of
  God.--Quite different is the Passion Play of the Bavarian village
  Oberammergau, which is a reproduction of the mediæval mysteries
  (§ 115, 12). It originated in a vow made in 1633 on the occasion
  of a plague which visited the place, and is repeated every
  ten years on the Sundays from the end of May to the middle
  of September. The history of the Saviour’s passion is here
  represented with interludes from Messianic Old Testament passages
  explained by a chorus like that of the classical tragedy, with
  appropriate scenery, drapery, and musical accompaniment. In
  the presence of an immense concourse of strangers for whose
  accommodation a large amphitheatre was been built, almost all the
  villagers, men, women, and children, take part in the performance
  and show rare artistic power. The text of the drama for the
  most part agrees with the gospel narrative, only occasionally
  interspersed with legend, and quite free from ultramontane
  hagiology and mariolatry. The performance of A.D. 1850, and still
  more that of A.D. 1880, attracted crowds of pilgrims and tourists
  to the quiet and remote valley. An independent exhibition,
  falling little behind the original in the artistic character
  of its composition and production, was given, in 1883, on the
  Sundays of July and August in the Tyrolese village of Brixlegg,
  and was visited by similar crowds.


       § 175. INTERCOURSE AND NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCHES.

  Protestants could recognise, as Catholics could not, elements of
truth and beauty in the creeds of their opponents. When a peaceful and
conciliatory spirit was shown by individual Catholic clergymen, it was
the occasion of suspicion and persecution on the part of the old Romish
party. Schemes of union were entertained by the Old Catholics (§ 190),
and negotiations were entered on by the Greek Orthodox church, on
the one hand, and the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, on the
other, but in both cases without any practical result. On the union
negotiations between the different Protestant sects, see § 178;
and on the Prusso-Anglican bishopric of Jerusalem, see § 184, 8.
Of the numerous conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism and
from Catholicism to Protestantism, we can here mention only such as
have excited public interest in some special way.

  § 175.1. =Romanizing Tendencies among Protestants.=--Not only
  in England, where an important high-church party embraced a more
  than half-Catholic Puseyism (§ 202, 2), but even in Protestant
  Germany a Romanizing current set in on many sides. A taste for
  the romantic, artistic, historical (§ 174, 5, 9, 4), as well
  as feudalist-aristocratic and hyper-Lutheran ecclesiastical
  tendencies led the way in this direction. Many sought rest in
  the bosom of the church “where alone salvation is found,” while
  others, too deeply rooted in evangelical truth, bewailed the
  loss of “noble and venerable” institutions in the worship, life,
  and constitution of the church, but were unable to accept the
  various unevangelical accretions which made void the doctrine
  of justification by faith alone. This was the position of Löhe
  of Neuendettelsau, in point of doctrine a strict Lutheran,
  who published a selection of Catholic legends as patterns of
  self-denial for his deaconesses, wished to restore anointing of
  the sick, etc. Some Protestant pastors expressed warm sympathy
  with the Pope during his misfortunes in A.D. 1860, and approved
  of the continuance of the papacy and the pope’s temporal dominion.
  A conference of Catholics (Count Stolberg, Dr. Michelis, etc.)
  and Protestants (Leo, Bindewald, etc.) at Erfurt in A.D. 1860,
  on the basis of a common recognition of the moral advantages of
  the papacy, sought to bring about a union of the churches. Still
  more remarkable is the story told by the Old Catholic professor
  Friedrich. Just before the opening of the Vatican Council,
  certain evangelical pastors of Saxony wrote letters to Bishop
  Martin of Paderborn, which Friedrich himself read, urging that at
  the council permission should be given to priests to marry and to
  give the cup in the communion to the laity, and promising that in
  that case they themselves and many like-minded pastors would join
  the Romish church. That the letters were written and received is
  unquestionable; but it is doubtful whether folly and imbecility
  or a wish to hoax and mystify, directed the pen. The writer or
  writers, as the examination before the consistory of the locality
  proved, are not to be sought among the pastors whose names are
  appended. How far the Protestant ultra-conservative reactionary
  party goes with the ultramontanes and how far it would aid the
  overthrow and undermining of the Protestant state and evangelical
  church, is shown by the conduct of the Privy Councillor and
  Chief Justice Ludwig von Gerlach (§ 176, 1), who, in 1872, in
  the Prussian House of Representatives, took his place among
  the ultramontane party of the centre, hostile to the empire
  and friendly to the Poles, and in his pamphlet “_Kaiser und
  Papst_” of 1872 described the new German empire as an incarnate
  antichrist. Also the Lutheran Guelphs of Hanover are zealous
  supporters of all the demands of the centre in the Prussian
  parliament and in the German Reichstag.

  § 175.2. =The Attitude of Catholicism toward
  Protestantism.=--Every Catholic bishop has still on assuming
  office to take the oath, _Hæreticos pro posse persequar_. The
  Jesuits, restored in A.D. 1814, soon pervaded every section with
  their intolerant spirit. The huge lie that Protestantism is in
  matters of State as well as of church essentially revolutionary,
  while Catholicism is the bulwark of the State against revolution
  and democracy, was affirmed with such audacity that even
  Protestant statesmen believed it. The Roman Jesuit Perrone
  (§ 191, 9) taught the Catholic youth in a controversial Italian
  catechism that “they should feel a creeping horror come over them
  at the mere mention of the word Protestantism, more even than
  when a murderous attack was made upon them, for Protestantism and
  its defenders are in the religious and moral world just the same
  as the plague and plague-stricken are in the physical world, and
  in all lands Protestants are the scum of all that is vile and
  immoral,” etc. In a pastoral of A.D. 1855, Von Ketteler, Bishop
  of Mainz, compared the Germans, who by the Reformation rent
  the unity of the church, to the Jews who crucified the Messiah.
  Romish prelates have vied with one another in their abuse
  of Protestants and Protestantism. In A.D. 1881, Leo XIII.
  speaking of the spread of Russian nihilism, charged Protestant
  missionaries with spreading the dominion of the prince of
  darkness. Prof. Hohoff of Paderborn, in his “Hist. Studies on
  Protestantism and Socialism,” Paderb., 1881, reiterated the
  accusation: “Yes, it is so, Protestantism has begotten atheism,
  materialism, scepticism, nihilism. The Reformation was the
  murderer of all science, the greatest foe of culture and learning,
  and the falsifier of all history.... Melanchthon’s _Loci_ may
  be styled the most unscientific production in the domain of
  dogmatics.... Yes, the Reformation has proved a prime source of
  superstition, a step backward in the history of civilization....
  The Catholic church has been the champion of conscience,
  reason, and freedom.... No one is thoroughly capable of judging
  historical facts without prejudice as the believing Catholic
  Christian.”--But while the vast majority of Catholic writers
  thus abuse Protestantism, others like Seltmann of Eberswald seek
  to win over to the ranks of the Romish church those who can be
  befooled by fair speeches. The “Protestant” correspondents in
  Seltmann’s periodical write under the cloak of anonymity.--In
  Spain the Reformation was long attributed to the Augustinians,
  who were jealous of the Dominicans as the only dispensers of
  indulgences, and to Luther’s desire to marry; but the poet Nuñez
  de Arca in his “_Vision de Fray Martin_,” attributed it to the
  corruption of the church and papacy of its time, and regarded
  with sympathy the spiritual struggles of the reformer. Though as
  a good Catholic he concludes his poem with the ban of the church
  against Luther, he yet describes him as a just and well-deserving
  man.

  § 175.3. =Romish Controversy.=--In the beginning of A.D. 1872
  the Waldensian Professor Sciarelli published as a challenge
  the thesis that the Apostle Peter never set foot in Rome, and
  Pius IX. with childlike simplicity gave his consent to a public
  disputation, which came off at Rome on 9th and 10th February.
  Three Protestant champions, with Sciarelli at their head, were
  confronted by three Catholics, headed by Fabiani, before 125
  auditors admitted by ticket. Both sides claimed the victory; but
  the shorthand reports were more widely read through Italy than
  could be agreeable to the papal court.

  § 175.4. =Roman Catholic Union Schemes.=--While American
  Protestant missionaries strove zealously for the conversion of
  the schismatical Eastern Churches, Rome with equal diligence but
  little success endeavoured to win over these and the orthodox
  Greeks to her own communion. There was great joy over the
  conversion of the =Bulgarians= to Romanism in A.D. 1860.
  Taking advantage of a national movement for the restoration
  of a patriarchate independent of Constantinople (§ 207, 3),
  some French Jesuits succeeded in persuading a small number of
  malcontents to agree to a union with Rome. In 1861 the pope
  consecrated an old Bulgarian priest, Jos. Sokolski, archbishop
  of the united Bulgarian church. Very soon, however, he and almost
  all his followers returned to their allegiance to the Greek
  Orthodox church. Leo XIII. in his _encyclical_ of A.D. 1880, by
  giving conspicuous honour to Cyril and Methodius, and uttering
  kind sentiments about the Christian church in the East, and
  conferring high rank on dignitaries of the Eastern church,
  seeks to smooth the way for a union of the two great churches.

  § 175.5. =Greek Orthodox Union Schemes.=--In A.D. 1867 the
  Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a letter to the Patriarch
  of Constantinople and the whole Eastern church, to open the way
  to a common understanding and union of the churches, sending a
  modern Greek translation of the Book of Common Prayer, and asking
  their assistance at the consecration of an Anglican church at
  Constantinople. The patriarch Gregorius [Gregory] granted this
  request, and answered the letter in a friendly manner, passing
  over the Anglican’s warnings against superstitious additions
  to the doctrine, _e.g._ mariolatry, but characterizing all the
  contrary doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles as “very modern.”
  At the same time vigorous measures were being taken with a
  similar object by members of the Russian and of the Anglican
  churches. In 1870 Professor Overbeck of Halle undertook to act
  as intermediary in these negotiations. He had in 1865 published,
  in answer to the papal encyclical with syllabus of December 8th,
  1864 (§ 185, 2), a tract with the motto _Ex oriente lux_, in
  which he placed the claims of the Orthodox eastern church before
  the Roman Catholic as well as Protestant. On the opening of the
  Vatican Council in 1869 he advocated in a pamphlet the breaking
  up of the papal church and the formation of Catholic national
  churches. In North America Professor Bjerring, of the Catholic
  seminary for priests at Baltimore, took the same position. In
  March, 1871, he went to St. Petersburg, was there ordained as
  an Orthodox priest, and on his return to New York instituted a
  Sunday service in the English language according to the Greek
  rite. Of any further advance in this direction of union nothing
  is known.

  § 175.6. =Old Catholic Union Schemes.=--Döllinger (§ 191, 5) in
  A.D. 1871 was hopeful of a union not only with the Greek, but
  also with the Anglican church, and similar hopes were entertained
  in England and Russia, and distinguished representatives of both
  communions took part in the Old Catholic congresses (§ 190, 1).
  On the invitation of Döllinger, as president of the committee
  commissioned by the Freiburg Congress of A.D. 1874 to treat
  about union with the Anglican church, forty friends of union from
  Germany, England, Denmark, France, Russia, Greece, and America
  met in conference at Bonn. After a lively debate the cleft
  between East and West was bridged over by a compromise treating
  the _filioque_ as an unnecessary addition to the Nicene symbol,
  and asserting that, however desirable a mutual understanding
  on doctrinal questions might be, existing differences in
  constitution, discipline, and worship presented no bar to
  union. The Catholics presented the Anglicans with fourteen
  theses essential to union, in which the anti-Protestant doctrines
  were for the most part toned down, but transubstantiation
  distinctly asserted. Subsequent conferences never got beyond
  these preliminaries. It was, however, agreed that, in case of
  necessity, Anglicans and Old Catholics might dispense the supper
  to one another.

  § 175.7. =Conversions.=--The most famous converts of the century
  were Hurter, the biographer of Innocent III., the Countess Ida
  von Hahn-Hahn, writer of religious romances, Gfroerer [Gfrörer],
  the church historian, the radical Hegelian Daumer, the historian
  of ante-tridentine theology Hugo Lämmer, and Dr. Ed. Preuss, who
  had written against the immaculate conception and for criminal
  conduct had to flee the country. In A.D. 1844 Carl Haas, a
  Protestant pastor, went over to the Romish church, but the two
  new dogmas of Pius IX. led him to study the works of Luther. He
  now returned to the Lutheran church, vindicating his procedure
  in a treatise entitled, “To Rome, and from Rome back again to
  Wittenberg, 1881.” Also the Mecklenburg Lutheran pastor, Dr. A.
  Hager, who, after his conversion, had undertaken the editorship
  of an ultramontane newspaper in Breslau in 1873, was obliged
  in a few years to resign the appointment. His return to the
  evangelical church was being talked about, when he suddenly died
  in 1883, after having received the last sacrament in the Catholic
  church. The climax of abuse of Luther and the Lutheran church was
  reached by the Hanoverian Evers, who had gone over in 1880; in
  all his scandalous and vituperative writings he describes himself
  on the title page as “formerly Lutheran pastor.” His mud-throwing,
  however, was carried so far, that even the ultramontane _Köln.
  Volkszeitung_ was constrained to advise him to write more
  decently.

  § 175.8. The Mortara affair of A.D. 1858 attracted special
  attention. The eight-year old son of the Jew Mortara of Bologna
  was violently taken from his parents to Rome because his
  Christian nurse said that two years before, during a dangerous
  illness, she had baptized him. The church answered the entreaties
  of the parents and the universal outcry by saying that the
  sacrament had an indelible character, and that the pope could not
  change the law. Again in A.D. 1864, the ten-year old Jewish boy,
  Joseph Coën, apprentice weaver in Rome, was decoyed by a priest
  to his cloister and there persuaded to receive baptism. In vain
  his mother, the Jewish community, and even the French ambassador,
  urged his restoration; and when, in A.D. 1870, the temporal power
  of the pope was overthrown, the lad, now sixteen years old, had
  himself become such a fanatical Catholic that he refused to have
  anything to do with his mother as an unbeliever.

  § 175.9. In the Tyrol in A.D. 1830 there were numerous
  conversions from Catholicism to Protestantism (§ 198, 1).
  A Catholic priest in Baden, Henhöfer of Mühlhausen, influenced
  by the writings of Sailer and Boos, went over to the Lutheran
  church in A.D. 1823, and continued down to his death in A.D. 1862
  a vigorous opponent of the prevailing rationalism. Count Leopold
  von Seldnitzsky, formerly Prince-Bishop of Breslau, felt obliged
  in 1840, in consequence of the conscientious objections he had
  to perform his official duties toward church and state during
  the ecclesiastico-political controversies of 1830 (§ 193, 1),
  to resign his appointments. He was subsequently led in A.D. 1863,
  through reading the Scriptures and Luther’s works, after a sore
  struggle, to join the evangelical Church. He devoted all his
  means to the founding of Protestant educational institutions at
  Berlin and Breslau. He died in A.D. 1871, in his eighty-fourth
  year. The proclamation by the Vatican of the dogma of
  infallibility drove many pious and earnest Catholics out of the
  Romish communion. Of these Carl von Richthofen, Canon of Breslau,
  engages our special interest. Son of a pious Lutheran mother, and
  trained up under Gossner’s mild spiritual direction (§ 187, 2),
  his gentle and deeply religious nature had attached itself to
  the Roman Catholic church of his father only under the illusion
  that the Romish doctrine of justification was not wholly
  irreconcilable with the evangelical doctrine. He at first
  submitted to but soon renounced the Vatican decree; was
  excommunicated by Archbishop Förster, voluntarily resigned
  his emoluments; joined the Old Catholics in A.D. 1873, and
  the separated Old Lutherans in A.D. 1875. In the following
  year he died a painful death from the explosion of a petroleum
  lamp.--Upon the whole Rome has made most converts in America
  and England; and she has suffered losses more or less severe
  in France, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Bohemia.

  § 175.10. =The Luther Centenary, A.D. 1883.=--The celebration of
  Luther’s birth was carried out with great enthusiasm throughout
  all Germany, more than a thousand tracts on Luther and the
  Reformation were published, statues were erected, special
  services were held in all Lutheran churches, high schools, and
  universities, and brilliant demonstrations were made at Jena,
  Worms, Wittenberg, and Eisleben. There were founded at Kiel a
  Luther-house, at Worms and at the Wartburg Luther libraries, in
  Leipzig and Berlin Luther churches. At Eisleben a bronze statue
  of the reformer was solemnly unveiled representing his tearing
  the papal bull with his right hand and pressing the Bible to his
  heart with his left. Another noble monument was raised by the
  munificence of the emperor by the issuing during this year of
  the first volume of pastor Knaake’s critical edition of Luther’s
  works. A “German Luther Institute” aims at assisting children
  of the poorer clergy and teachers, and a “Reformation History
  Society” has undertaken the task of issuing popular tracts on the
  persons, events and principles of that and the succeeding period
  based upon original documents. Protestants of all lands, with the
  exception of the English high-church party, contributed liberally;
  the Americans had a copy of the great Luther statue of the Worms
  monument (§ 178, 1) made and erected in Washington. Even in
  Italy the liberal press eulogised Luther, while the ultramontanes
  loaded his memory with unmeasured calumny and reproach. The
  threatened counter-demonstrations of German ultramontanes fell
  quite flat and harmless. The =Zwingli Centenary= of January 1st,
  A.D. 1884, was celebrated with enthusiasm throughout the Reformed
  church, especially in Switzerland. On the other hand, the
  celebration of the five-hundredth anniversary of Wiclif’s death
  on December 31st, 1884, created comparatively little interest.




                   II. Protestantism in General.[526]


                    § 176. RATIONALISM AND PIETISM.

  At the beginning of the century rationalism was generally prevalent,
but philosophy and literature soon weakened its foundations, and the
war of independence moved the hearts of the people toward the faith of
their fathers. Pietism entered the lists against rationalism, and the
Halle controversy of A.D. 1830 marked the crisis of the struggle. The
rationalists were compelled to make appeal to the people by popular
agitators. During A.D. 1840 they managed to found several “free
churches,” which, however, had for the most part but a short and
unprosperous existence. They were more successful in A.D. 1860 with
the _Protestantenverein_ as the instrument of their propaganda (§ 180).

  § 176.1. The old =Rationalism= was attacked by the disciples
  of Hegel and Schelling, and in A.D. 1834 Röhr of Weimar found
  Hase of Jena as keen an opponent as any pietist or orthodox
  controversialist. That recognised leader of the old rationalists
  had coolly attempted to substitute a new and rational form
  of doctrine, worship, and constitution for the antiquated
  formularies of the Reformation, and drew down upon himself the
  rebuke even of those who sympathized with him in his doctrinal
  views.--In A.D. 1817 Claus Harms of Kiel, on the occasion of
  the Reformation centenary, opened an attack upon those who had
  fallen away from the faith of their fathers, by the publication
  of ninety-five new theses, recalling attention to Luther’s almost
  forgotten doctrines. In A.D. 1827 Aug. Hahn in an academical
  discussion at Leipzig maintained that the rationalists should
  be expelled from the church, and Hengstenberg started his
  _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_. The jurist Von Gerlach in
  A.D. 1830 charged Gesenius and Wegscheider of Halle with open
  contempt of Christian truth, and called for State interference.
  In all parts of Germany, amid the opposition of scientific
  theologians and the scorn of philosophers, pietism made way
  against rationalism, so that even men of culture regarded it
  as a reproach to be reckoned among the rationalists. Unbelief,
  however, was widespread among the masses. When Sintenis,
  preacher in Magdeburg in A.D. 1840, declared the worship of
  Christ superstitious, and was reprimanded by the consistory,
  his neighbours, the pastors Uhlich and König, founded the society
  of the “Friends of Light,” whose assembly at Köthen then was
  attended by thousands of clergymen and laymen. In one of these
  assemblies in A.D. 1844, Wislicenus of Halle, by starting the
  question, Whether the Scriptures or the reason is to be regarded
  as the standard of faith? shattered the illusion that rationalism
  still occupied the platform of the church and Scripture. The
  left wing of the school of Schleiermacher took offence at the
  severe measures demanded by Hengstenberg and his party, and
  in 1846 issued in Berlin a manifesto with eighty-eight signatures
  against the paper pope of antiquated Reformation confessions and
  the inquisitorial proceedings of the _Kirchenzeitung_ party, as
  inimical to all liberty of faith and conscience, wishing only to
  maintain firm hold of the truth that Jesus Christ is yesterday,
  to-day, and for ever the one and only ground of salvation. The
  Friends of Light, combining with the German Catholics and the
  Young Hegelians, founded Free churches at Halle, Königsberg,
  and many other places. Their services and sermons void of
  religion, in which the Bible, the living Christ, and latterly
  even the personal God, had no place, but only the naked worship
  of humanity, had temporary vitality imparted them by the
  revolutionary movements of A.D. 1848. This gave the State an
  excuse, long wished for, to interfere, and soon scarcely a trace
  of their churches was to be found.

  § 176.2. =Pietism= had not been wholly driven out of the
  evangelical church during the period of ecclesiastical
  impoverishment, but, purified from many eccentric excesses,
  and seeking refuge and support for the most part by attaching
  itself to the community of the Moravian Brethren, it had, even
  in Württemberg, established itself independently and in an
  essentially theosophical-chiliastic spirit. There too a kind
  of spiritualism was introduced by the physician and poet Justin
  Kerner of Weinsberg, and the philosopher Eschenmayer of Tübingen,
  with spirit revelations from above and below. Amid the religious
  movements of the beginning of the century Pietism gained a
  decided advantage. It took the form of a protest against the
  rationalism prevailing among the clergy. The earnest and devout
  sought spiritual nourishment at conventicles and so-called
  _Stunden_ addressed by laymen, mostly of the working class,
  well acquainted with Scripture and works in practical divinity.
  Persecuted by the irreligious mob, the rationalist clergy,
  and sometimes by the authorities, they by-and-by secured
  representatives among the younger clergy and in the university
  chairs, and carried on vigorous missions at home and abroad.
  This pietism was distinctly evangelical and Protestant. It did
  not oppose but endeavoured simply to restore the orthodoxy of
  the church confession. Yet it had many of the characteristics
  of the earlier pietism: over-estimation of the invisible to
  the disparagement of the visible church, of sanctification
  over justification, a tendency to chiliasm, etc.--Of no less
  importance in awakening the religious life throughout Germany,
  and especially in Switzerland, was the missionary activity of
  Madame de Krüdener of Riga. This lady, after many years of a
  gay life, forsook the world, and began in A.D. 1814 her travels
  through Europe, preaching repentance, proclaiming the gospel
  message in the prisons, the foolishness of the cross to the
  wise of this world, and to kings and princes the majesty of
  Christ as King of kings. Wherever she went she made careless
  sinners tremble, and drew around her crowds of the anxious and
  spiritually burdened of every sort and station. Honoured by
  some as a saint, prophetess, and wonder-worker, ridiculed by
  others as a fool, persecuted as a dangerous fanatic or deceiver,
  driven from one country to another, she died in the Crimea in
  A.D. 1824.[527]

  § 176.3. =The Königsberg Religious Movement,
  A.D. 1835-1842.=--The pious theosophist, J. H. Schönherr of
  Königsberg, starting from the two primitive substances, fire
  and water, developed a system of theosophy in which he solved
  the riddles of the theogony and cosmogony, of sin and redemption,
  and harmonized revelation with the results of natural science.
  At first influenced by these views, but from A.D. 1819 expressly
  dissenting from them, J. W. Ebel, pastor in the same city,
  gathered round him a group of earnest Christian men and women,
  Counts Kanitz and Finkenstein and their wives, Von Tippelskirch,
  afterwards preacher to the embassy at Rome, the theological
  professor H. Olshausen, the pastor Dr. Diestel, and the medical
  doctor Sachs. After some years Olshausen and Tippelskirch
  withdrew, and dissensions arose which gave opportunity to
  the ecclesiastical authorities to order an investigation. Ebel
  was charged with founding a sect in which impure practices were
  encouraged. He was suspended in A.D. 1835, and at the instigation
  of the consistory a criminal process was entered upon against him.
  Dr. Sachs, who had been expelled from the society, was the chief
  and almost only witness, but vague rumours were rife about mystic
  rites and midnight orgies. Ebel and Diestel were deposed in
  A.D. 1839, and pronounced incapable of holding any public office;
  and as a sect founder Ebel was sentenced to imprisonment in the
  common jail. On appeal to the court of Berlin, the deposition was
  confirmed, but all the rest of the sentence was quashed, and the
  parties were pronounced capable of holding any public offices
  except those of a spiritual kind. Two reasons were alleged for
  deposition:

    1. That Ebel, though not from the pulpit or in the public
       instruction of the young, yet in private religious teaching,
       had inculcated his theosophical views.

    2. That both of them as married men had given expression to
       opinions injurious to the purity of married life.

  In general they were charged with spreading a doctrine which was
  in conflict with the principles of Christianity, and making such
  use of sexual relations as was fitted to awaken evil thoughts
  in the minds of hearers. Ebel was pronounced guiltless of
  sectarianism.--Kanitz wrote a book in defence, which represents
  Ebel and Diestel as martyrs to their pure Christian piety in
  an age hostile to every pietistic movement; whereas Von Wegnern,
  followed by Hepworth Dixon, in a romancing and frivolous style,
  lightly give currency to evil surmisings without offering any
  solid basis of proof. The whole affair still waits for a patient
  and unprejudiced investigation.[528]

  § 176.4. =The Bender Controversy.=--At the Luther centenary
  festival of A.D. 1883, Prof. Bender of Bonn declared that in
  the confessional writings of the Reformation evangelical truth
  had been obscured by Romish scholasticism, introduced by subtle
  jurists and sophistical theologians. This called forth vigorous
  opposition, in which two of his colleagues, 38 theological
  students, 59 members of the Rhenish synod, took part.
  General-Superintendent Baur, also, in a new year’s address,
  inveighed against Bender’s statements. On the other hand,
  170 students of Bonn, 32 of these theological students, gave a
  grand ovation to the “brave vindicator of academic freedom.”
  The Rhenish and Westphalian synods bewailed the offence given by
  Bender’s address, and protested against its hard and unfounded
  attacks upon the confessional writings. At the Westphalian synod,
  Prof. Mangold said that the faculty was as much offended at the
  address as the church had been, but that its author, when he
  found how his words had created such feeling, sought in every
  way to repress the agitation, and had intended only to pass a
  scientific judgment on ecclesiastical and theological developments.


           § 177. EVANGELICAL UNION AND LUTHERAN SEPARATION.

  From A.D. 1817 Prussia favoured and furthered the scheme for union
between the two evangelical churches, and over this question a split
arose in the camp of pietism. On the one hand were the confessionalists,
determined to maintain what was distinctive in their symbols, and on the
other, those who would sacrifice almost anything for union. For the most
part both churches cordially seconded the efforts of the royal head of
the church; only in Silesia did a Lutheran minority refuse to give way,
which still maintains a separate existence.

  § 177.1. =The Evangelical Union.=--Circumstances favoured
  this movement. Both in the Lutheran and in the Reformed
  church comparatively little stress was laid upon distinctive
  confessional doctrines, and pietism and rationalism, for
  different reasons, had taught the relative unimportance of dogma.
  And so a general accord was given to the king’s proposal, at
  the Reformation centenary of A.D. 1817, to fortify the Protestant
  church by means of a =Union= of Lutherans and Calvinists. The
  new Book of Common Order of A.D. 1822, in the preparation of
  which the pious king, Frederick William III., had himself taken
  part, was indeed condemned by many as too high-church, even
  Catholicizing in its tendency. A revised edition in A.D. 1829,
  giving a wider choice of formularies, was legally authorized,
  and the union became an accomplished fact. There now existed in
  Prussia an evangelical national church with a common government
  and liturgy, embracing within it three different sections:
  a Lutheran, and a Reformed, which held to their distinctive
  doctrines, though not regarding these as a cause of separation,
  and a real union party, which completely abandoned the points of
  difference. But more and more the union became identified with
  doctrinal indifferentism and slighting of all church symbols,
  and those in whom the church feeling still prevailed were driven
  into opposition to the union (§ 193). The example of Prussia
  in sacking the union of the two churches was followed by Nassau,
  Baden, Rhenish Bavaria, Anhalt, and to some extent in Hesse
  (§§ 194, 196).

  § 177.2. =The Lutheran Separation.=--Though the union denied
  that there was any passing over from one church to another, it
  practically declared the distinctive doctrines to be unessential,
  and so assumed the standpoint of the Reformed church. Steffens
  (§ 174, 3), the friend of Scheibel of Breslau, who had been
  deprived of his professorship in A.D. 1832 for his determined
  opposition to the union, and died in exile in 1843 (§ 195, 2),
  headed a reaction in favour of old Lutheranism. Several suspended
  clergymen in Silesia held a synod at Breslau in A.D. 1835,
  to organize a Lutheran party, but the civil authorities bore
  so heavily upon them that most of them emigrated to America
  and Australia. Guericke of Halle, secretly ordained pastor,
  ministered in his own house to a small company of Lutheran
  separatists, was deprived of his professorship in A.D. 1835,
  and only restored in A.D. 1840, after he had apologised for his
  conduct. From A.D. 1838, the laws were modified by Frederick
  William IV., imprisoned clergymen were liberated in A.D. 1840,
  and a Lutheran church of Prussia independent of the national
  church was constituted by a general synod at Breslau in A.D. 1841,
  which received recognition by royal favour in A.D. 1845. The
  affairs are administered by a supreme council resident in
  Breslau, presided over by the distinguished jurist Huschke. Other
  separations were prevented by timely concessions on the part of
  the national church. The separatists claim 50,000 members, with
  fifty pastors and seven superintendents.

  § 177.3. =The Separation within the Separation.=--Differences
  arose among the separate Lutherans, especially over the question
  of the visible church. The majority, headed by Huschke, defined
  the visible church as an organism of various offices and orders
  embracing even unbelievers, which is to be sifted by the divine
  judgment. To it belongs the office of church government, which
  is a _jus divinum_, and only in respect of outward form a _jus
  humanum_. The opposition understood visibility of the preaching
  of the word and dispensation of sacraments, and held that
  unbelievers belonged as little to the visible as to the invisible
  church. The distribution of orders and offices is a merely human
  arrangement without divine appointment, individual members are
  quite independent of one another, the church recognises no other
  government than that of the unfettered preaching of the word, and
  each pastor rules in his own congregation. Diedrich of Jabel and
  seven other pastors complained of the papistical assumptions of
  the supreme council, and at a general synod in A.D. 1860 refused
  to recognise the authority of that council, or of a majority of
  synods, and in A.D. 1861, along with their congregations, they
  formally seceded and constituted the so called Immanuel Synod.


                   § 178. EVANGELICAL CONFEDERATION.

  The union had only added a third denomination to the two previously
existing, and was the means of even further dissension and separation.
Thus the interests of Protestantism were endangered in presence of the
unbelief within her own borders and the machinations of the ultramontane
Catholics without. An attempt was therefore made in A.D. 1840 to combine
the scattered Protestant forces, by means of confederation, for common
work and conflict with common foes.

  § 178.1. =The Gustavus Adolphus Society.=--In A.D. 1832, on the
  two hundredth anniversary of the birth of the saviour of German
  Protestantism, on the motion of Superintendent Grossman of
  Leipzig, a society was formed for the help of needy Protestant
  churches, especially in Catholic districts. At first almost
  confined to Saxony, it soon spread over Germany, till only
  Bavaria down to A.D. 1849, and Austria down to A.D. 1860, were
  excluded by civil enactment from its operations. The masses
  were attracted by the simplicity of its basis, which was simply
  opposition to Catholicism, and the demagogical Friends of Light
  soon found supremacy in its councils. Because of opposition to
  the expulsion of Rupp, in A.D. 1846, as an apostate from the
  principle of protestantism, great numbers with church leanings
  seceded, and attempted to form a rival union in A.D. 1847. After
  recovering from the convulsions of A.D. 1848, under the wise
  guidance of Zimmermann of Darmstadt, the society regained a solid
  position. In A.D. 1883 it had 1,779 branches, besides 392 women’s
  and 11 students’ unions, and a revenue for the year of about
  £43,000.--The same feeling led to the erection of the =Luther
  Monument at Worms=. This work of genius, designed by Rietschel,
  and completed after his death in A.D. 1857 by his pupils, and
  inaugurated on 25th June, A.D. 1868, represents all the chief
  episodes in the Reformation history. It was erected at a cost
  of more than £20,000, raised by voluntary contributions, and
  the scheme proved so popular that there was a surplus of £2,000,
  which was devoted to the founding of bursaries for theological
  students.

  § 178.2. =The Eisenach Conference.=--The other German states
  borrowed the idea of confederation from Prussia and Württemberg.
  It took practical shape in the meetings of deputies at Eisenach,
  begun in A.D. 1852, and was held for a time yearly, and
  afterwards every second year, to consult together on matters of
  worship, discipline and constitution. Beyond ventilating such
  questions the conference yielded no result.

  § 178.3. =The Evangelical Alliance.=--An attempt was made in
  England, on the motion of Dr. Chalmers (§ 202, 7), at a yet more
  comprehensive confederation of all Protestant churches of all
  lands against the encroachments of popery and puseyism (§ 202, 2).
  After several preliminary meetings the first session of the
  =Evangelical Alliance= was held in London in August, A.D. 1846.
  Its object was the fraternizing of all evangelical Christians on
  the basis of agreement upon the fundamental truths of salvation,
  the vindication and spread of this common faith, and contention
  for liberty of conscience and religious toleration. Nine articles
  were laid down as terms of membership: Belief in the inspiration
  of Scripture, in the Trinity, in the divinity of Christ,
  in original sin, in justification by faith alone, in the
  obligatoriness of the two sacraments, in the resurrection of the
  body, in the last judgment, and in the eternal blessedness of the
  righteous and the eternal condemnation of the ungodly. It could
  thus include Baptists, but not Quakers. In A.D. 1855 it held its
  ninth meeting at the great Paris Industrial Exhibition as a sort
  of church exhibition, the representatives of different churches
  reporting on the condition of their several denominations. The
  tenth meeting, of A.D. 1857, was held in Berlin. The council of
  the Alliance, presided over by Sir Culling Eardley, presented
  an address to King Frederick William IV., in which it was said
  that they aimed a blow not only against the sadduceanism, but
  also against the pharisaism of the German evangelical church.
  The confessional Lutherans, who had opposed the Alliance,
  regarded this latter reference as directed against them. The
  king, however, received the deputation most graciously, while
  declaring that he entertained the brightest hopes for the future
  of the church, and urged cordial brotherly love among Christians.
  Though many distinguished confessionalists were members of
  the Alliance none of them put in an appearance. The members of
  the “Protestantenverein” (§ 180) would not take part because
  the articles were too orthodox. On the other hand, numerous
  representatives of pietism, unionism, Melanchthonianism, as well
  as Baptists, Methodists, and Moravians, crowded in from all parts,
  and were supported by the leading liberals in church and state.
  While there was endless talk about the oneness and differences
  of the children of God, about the universal priesthood, about the
  superiority of the present meeting over the œcumenical councils
  of the ancient church, about the want of spiritual life in
  the churches, even where the theology of the confessions was
  professed, etc., with denunciations of half-Catholic Lutheranism
  and its sacramentarianism and officialism, and many a true
  and admirable statement of what the church’s needs are, Merle
  d’Aubigné introduced discord by the hearty welcome which
  he accorded his friend Bunsen, which was intensified by the
  passionate manner in which Krummacher reported upon it. The
  gracious royal reception of the members of the Alliance, at which
  Krummacher gave expression to his excited feelings in the words,
  “Your Majesty, we would all fall not at your feet, but on your
  neck!” was described by his brother, Dr. F. W. Krummacher, as a
  sensible prelude to the solemn scenes of the last judgment. Sir
  Culling Eardley declared, “There is no more the North Sea.” Lord
  Shaftesbury said in London that with the Berlin Assembly a new
  era had begun in the world’s history; and others who had returned
  from it extolled it as a second Pentecost.

  § 178.4. =The Evangelical Church Alliance.=--After the revolution
  of A.D. 1848, the most distinguished theologians, clergymen and
  laymen well-affected toward the church, sought to bring about
  a confederation of the Lutheran, Reformed, United, and Moravian
  churches. When they held their second assembly at Wittenberg,
  A.D. 1849, many of the strict Lutherans had already withdrawn,
  especially those of Silesia. The Lutheran congress, held shortly
  before at Leipzig under the presidency of Harless, had pronounced
  the confederation unsatisfactory. The political reaction in
  favour of the church had also taken away the occasion for such
  a confederation. Yet the yearly deliberations of this council
  on matters of practical church life did good service. An attempt
  made at the Berlin meeting of A.D. 1853 to have the _Augustana_
  adopted as the church confession awakened keen opposition. At
  the Stuttgart meeting of A.D. 1857 there were violent debates
  on foreign missions and evangelical Catholicity between the
  representatives of confessional Lutheranism who had hitherto
  maintained connection with the confederation and the unionist
  majority. The Lutherans now withdrew. The attempt made at
  the Berlin October assembly of A.D. 1871, amid the excitement
  produced by the glorious issue of the Franco-Prussian War and the
  founding of the new German empire with a Protestant prince, to
  draw into the confederation confessional Lutherans and adherents
  of the “Protestantenverein,” in order to form a grand German
  Protestant national church, miscarried, and a meeting of
  the confederation in the old style met again at Halle in the
  following year. But it was now found that its day was past.

  § 178.5. =The Evangelical League.=--At a meeting of the Prussian
  evangelical middle party in autumn, 1886, certain members,
  “constrained by grief at the surrender of arms by the Prussian
  government in the _Kulturkampf_,” gathered together for private
  conference, and resolved in defence of the threatened interests
  of the evangelical church to found an “Evangelical League” out
  of the various theological and ecclesiastical parties. Prominent
  party leaders on both sides being admitted, a number of moderate
  representatives of all schools were invited to a consultative
  gathering at Erfurt. On January 15th, 1887, a call to join
  the membership of the league was issued. It was signed by
  distinguished men of the middle party, such as Beyschlag, Riehm
  of Halle, etc., moderate representatives of confessionalism and
  the positive union, such as Kawerau of Kiel, Fricke of Leipzig,
  Witte, Warneck, etc., and liberal theologians like Lipsius and
  Nippold of Jena, etc.; and it soon received the addition of
  about 250 names. It recognised Jesus Christ, as the only begotten
  Son of God, as the only means of salvation, and professed the
  fundamental doctrines of the Reformation. It represented the
  task of the League as twofold: on the one hand the defending
  at all points the interests of the evangelical church against
  the advancing pretensions of Rome, and, on the other hand, the
  strengthening of the communal consciousness of the Christian
  evangelical church against the cramping influence of party,
  as well as in opposition to indifferentism and materialism. For
  the accomplishment of this task the league organized itself under
  the control of a central board with subordinate branches over all
  Germany, each having a committee for representing its interests
  in the press, and with annual general assemblies of all the
  members for common consultation and promulgating of decrees.


         § 179. LUTHERANISM, MELANCHTHONIANISM, AND CALVINISM.

  Widespread as the favourable reception of the Prussian union had
been, there were still a number of Lutheran states in which the Reformed
church had scarcely any adherents, _e.g._ Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover,
Mecklenburg, and Schleswig-Holstein; and the same might be said of the
Baltic Provinces and of the three Scandinavian kingdoms. Also in Austria,
France, and Russia the two denominations kept apart; and in Poland, the
union of A.D. 1828 was dissolved in A.D. 1849 (§ 206, 3). The Lutheran
confessional reaction in Prussia afforded stimulus to those who had
thus stood apart. In all lands, amid the conflict with rationalism, the
confessional spirit both of Lutheran and Reformed became more and more
pronounced.

  § 179.1. =Lutheranism within the Union.=--After the Prussian
  State church had been undermined by the revolution of A.D. 1848,
  an unsuccessful attempt was made to have a pure Lutheran
  confessional church set up in its place. At the October assembly
  in Berlin, in A.D. 1871, an ineffectual effort was made by the
  United Lutherans to co-operate with those who were unionists
  on principle. During the agitation caused by the May Laws
  (§ 197, 5) and the Sydow proceedings (§ 180, 4), the first general
  evangelical Lutheran conference was held in August, A.D. 1873, in
  Berlin. It assumed a moderate conciliatory tone toward the union,
  pronounced the efforts of the “Protestantenverein” (§ 180) an
  apostasy from the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, bewailed
  the issuing of the May Laws, protested against their principles,
  but acknowledged the duty of obedience, and concluded an address
  to the emperor with a petition on behalf of a democratic church
  constitution and civil marriage.--The literary organs of the
  United Lutherans are the “_Evang. Kirchenzeitung_,” edited by
  Hengstenberg, and now by Zöckler, and the “_Allgem. konserv.
  Monatsschrift für die christl. Deutschl._,” by Von Nathusius.

  § 179.2. =Lutheranism outside of the Union.=--A general Lutheran
  conference was held under the presidency of Harless, in July,
  A.D. 1868, at which the sentiments of Kliefoth, denouncing a union
  under a common church government without agreement about doctrine
  and sacraments, met with almost universal acceptance. At the
  Leipzig gathering of A.D. 1870, Luthardt urged the duty of firmly
  maintaining doctrinal unity in the Lutheran church. The assembly
  of the following year agreed to recognise the emperor as head
  of the church only in so far as he did not interfere with the
  dispensation of word and sacrament, admitted the legality of
  a merely civil marriage but maintained that despisers of the
  ecclesiastical ordinance should be subjected to discipline, that
  communion fellowship is to be allowed neither to Reformed nor
  unionists if fixed residents, but to unionists faithful to the
  confession if temporary residents, even without expressly joining
  their party; and also with reference to the October assembly of
  the previous year the union of the two Protestant churches of
  Germany under a mixed system of church government was condemned.
  The third general conference of Nüremburg [Nuremberg], in
  A.D. 1879, dealt with the questions: Whether the church should
  be under State control or free? Whether the schools should
  be denominational or not? and in both cases decided in favour
  of the latter alternative.--Its literary organ is Luthardt’s
  “_Allg. Luth. Kirchenzeitung_.”

  § 179.3. =Melancthonianism [Melanchthonianism] and
  Calvinism.=--The Reformed church of Germany has maintained a
  position midway between Lutheranism and Calvinism very similar to
  the later Melanchthonianism. Ebrard indeed sought to prove that
  strict predestinarianism was only an excrescence of the Reformed
  system, whereas Schweitzer, purely in the interests of science
  (§ 182, 9, 16), has shown that it is its all-conditioning nerve
  and centre, to which it owes its wonderful vitality, force, and
  consistency. Heppe of Marburg went still further than Ebrard
  in his attempt to combine Lutheranism and Calvinism in a
  =Melancthonian [Melanchthonian] church= (§ 182, 16), by seeking
  to prove that the original evangelical church of Germany was
  Melanchthonian, that after Luther’s death the fanatics, more
  Lutheran than Luther, founded the so-called Lutheran church
  and completed it by issuing the Formula of Concord; that the
  Calvinizing of the Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt was
  only a reaction against hyper- or pseudo-Lutheranism, and that
  the restoration of the original Melanchthonianism, and the modern
  union movement were only the completion of that restoration.
  Schenkel’s earlier contributions to Reformation history moved
  in a similar direction. Ebrard also, in A.D. 1851, founded a
  “_Ref. Kirchenzeitung_.”--But even the genuine strict =Calvinism=
  had zealous adherents during this century, not only in Scotland
  (§ 202, 7) and the Netherlands (§ 200, 2), but also in Germany,
  especially in the Wupperthal. G. D. Krummacher, from A.D. 1816
  pastor in Elberfeld, and his nephew F. W. Krummacher of Barmen,
  were long its chief representatives. When Prussia sought in
  A.D. 1835 to force the union in the Wupperthal, and threatened
  the opposing Reformed pastors with deposition, the revolt here
  proved almost as serious as that of the Lutherans in Silesia. The
  pastors, with the majority of their people agreed at last to the
  union only in so far as it was in accordance with the Reformed
  mode of worship. But a portion, embracing their most important
  members, stood apart and refused all conciliation. The royal
  Toleration Act of A.D. 1847 allowed them to form an independent
  congregation at Elberfeld with Dr. Kohlbrügge as their minister.
  This divine, formerly Lutheran pastor at Amsterdam, was driven
  out owing to a contest with a rationalising colleague, and
  afterwards, through study of Calvin’s writings, became an ardent
  Calvinist. This body, under the name of the Dutch Reformed
  church, constituted the one anti-unionist, strictly Calvinistic
  denomination in Prussia.--The De Cock movement (§ 200, 2), out
  of which in A.D. 1830 the separate “Chr. Ref. Church of Holland”
  sprang, spread over the German frontiers and led to the founding
  there of the “Old Ref. Church of East Frisia and Bentheim,” which
  has now nine congregations and seven pastors.--At the meeting
  of the Evangelical Alliance in New York in A.D. 1873, the
  Presbyterians present resolved to convoke an œcumenical Reformed
  council. A conference in London in A.D. 1875 brought to maturity
  the idea of a Pan-Presbyterian assembly. The council is to meet
  every third year; the members recognise the supreme authority
  of the Old and New Testament in matters of faith and practice,
  and accept the consensus of all the Reformed confessions.
  The first “=General Presbyterian Council=” met in Edinburgh
  from 3rd to 10th July, A.D. 1877, about 300 delegates being
  present. The proceedings consisted in unmeasured glorification
  of presbyterianism “drawn from the whole Scripture, from the
  seventy elders of the Pentateuch to the twenty-four elders
  of the Apocalypse.” The second council met at Philadelphia in
  A.D. 1880, and boasted that it represented forty millions of
  Presbyterians. It appointed a committee to draw up a consensus
  of the confessions of all Reformed churches. The third council of
  305 members met at Belfast in A.D. 1884, and after a long debate
  declined, by a great majority, to adopt a strictly formulated
  consensus of doctrine as uncalled for and undesirable, and by the
  reception of the Cumberland Presbyterians they even surrendered
  the Westminster Confession (§ 155, 1) as the only symbol
  qualifying for membership of the council. The fourth council met
  in London in A.D. 1887.--An œcumenical Methodist congress was
  held in London in A.D. 1881, attended by 400 delegates.


                    § 180. THE “PROTESTANTENVEREIN.”

  Rationalists of all descriptions, adherents of Baur’s school, as well
as disciples of Hegel and Schleiermacher of the left wing, kept far off
from every evangelical union. But the common negation of the tendencies
characterizing the evangelical confederations and the common endeavour
after a free, democratic, non-confessional organization of the German
Protestant church, awakened in them a sense of the need of combination
and co-operation. While in North Germany this feeling was powerfully
expressed from A.D. 1854, in the able literary organ the “_Protest.
Kirchenzeitung_,” in South Germany, with Heidelberg as a centre and Dean
Zittel as chief agitator, local “_Protestantenvereine_” were formed,
which combined in a united organization in the Assembly of Frankfort,
A.D. 1863. After long debates the northern and southern societies
were joined in one. In June, A.D. 1865, the first general Protestant
assembly was held at Eisenach, and the nature, motive, and end of the
associations were defined. To these assemblies convened from year to
year members of the society crowded from all parts of Germany in order
to encourage one another to persevere in spreading their views by word
and pen, and to take steps towards the founding of branch associations
for disseminating among the people a Christianity which renounces the
miraculous and sets aside the doctrines of the church.

  § 180.1. =The Protestant Assembly.=--The first general
  German Protestant Assembly, composed of 400 clerical and lay
  notabilities, met at Eisenach in A.D. 1865, under the presidency
  of the jurist Bluntschli of Heidelberg and the chief court
  preacher Schwarz of Gotha. A peculiar lustre was given to
  the meeting by the presence of Rothe of Heidelberg. Of special
  importance was Schwarz’s address on “The Limits of Doctrinal
  Freedom in Protestantism,” which he sought not in the confession,
  not in the authority of the letter of Scripture, not even
  in certain so called fundamental articles, but in the one
  religious moral truth of Christianity, the gospel of love
  and the divine fatherhood as Christ taught it, expounded it in
  his life and sealed it by his death. In Berlin, Osnabrück, and
  Leipzig, the churches were refused for services according to the
  _Protestantenverein_. In A.D. 1868 fifteen heads of families in
  Heidelberg petitioned the ecclesiastical council to grant them
  the use of one of the city churches where a believing clergyman
  might conduct service in the old orthodox fashion. This request
  was refused by fifty votes against four. Baumgarten denounced
  this intolerance, and declared that unless repudiated by the
  union it would be a most serious stain upon its reputation.
  In A.D. 1877 he publicly withdrew from the society.

  § 180.2. =The “_Protestantenverein_” Propaganda.=--The views
  of the union were spread by popular lectures and articles in
  newspapers and magazines. The “_Protestanten-Bibel_,” edited
  by Schmidt and Holtzendorff in A.D. 1872, of which an English
  translation has been published, giving the results of New
  Testament criticism, “laid the axe at the root of the dogmatics
  and confessionalism,” and proved that “we are still Christians
  though our conception of Christianity diverges in many points
  from that of the second century, and we proclaim a Christianity
  without miracles and in accordance with the modern theory of
  the universe.” The success of such efforts to spread the broad
  theology has been greatly over-estimated. Enthusiastic partisans
  of the union claimed to have the whole evangelical world at their
  back, while Holtzendorff boasted that they had all thoughtful
  Germans with them.

  § 180.3. =Sufferings Endured.=--In many instances members of
  the society were disciplined, suspended and deposed. In October,
  A.D. 1880, =Beesenmeyer= of Mannheim, on his appointment to
  Osnabrück, was examined by the consistory. He confessed an
  economic but not an essential Trinity, the sinlessness and
  perfect godliness but not the divinity of Christ, the atoning
  power of Christ’s death but not the doctrine of vicarious
  satisfaction. He was pronounced unorthodox, and so unfit to hold
  office. =Schroeder=, a pastor in the consistory of Wiesbaden in
  A.D. 1871, on his refusing to use the Apostles’ Creed at baptism
  and confirmation, was deposed, but on appealing to the minister
  of worship, Dr. Falk, he was restored in the beginning of
  A.D. 1874. The Stettin consistory declined to ordain Dr. =Hanne=
  on account of his work “_Der ideale u. d. geschichtl. Christus_,”
  and an appeal to the superior court and another to the king were
  unsuccessful. Several members of the church protested against
  the call of Dr. =Ziegler= to Liegnitz in A.D. 1873, on account
  of his trial discourse and a previous lecture on the authority
  of the Bible, and the consistory refused to sustain the call.
  The Supreme Church Council, however, when appealed to, declared
  itself satisfied with Ziegler’s promise to take unconditionally
  the ordination vow, which requires acceptance of the fundamental
  doctrines of the gospel and not the peculiar theological system
  of the symbols.

  § 180.4. The conflicts in =Berlin= were specially sharp.
  In A.D. 1872 the aged pastor of the so called New Church,
  Dr. =Sydow=, delivered a lecture on the miraculous birth of
  Jesus, in which he declared that he was the legitimate son
  of Joseph and Mary. His colleague, Dr. =Lisco=, son of the
  well-known commentator, spoke of legendary elements in the
  Apostles’ Creed, and denied its authority. Lisco was reprimanded
  and cautioned by the consistory. Sydow was deposed. He appealed,
  together with twenty-six clergymen of the province of Brandenburg,
  and twelve Berlin pastors, to the Supreme Church Council. The
  Jena theologians also presented a largely signed petition to
  Dr. Falk against the procedure of the consistory, while the Weimar
  and Württemberg clergy sent a petition in favour of maintaining
  strict discipline. The superior court reversed the sentence, on
  the ground that the lecture was not given in the exercise of his
  office, and severely reprimanded Sydow for giving serious offence
  by its public delivery. At a Berlin provincial synod in A.D. 1877,
  an attack was made by pastor =Rhode= on creed subscription.
  =Hossbach=, preaching in a vacant church, declared that he
  repudiated the confessional doctrine of the divinity of Christ,
  regarded the life of Jesus in the gospels as a congeries of
  myths, etc. Some loudly protested and others as eagerly pressed
  for his settlement. The consistory accepted Rhode’s retractation
  and annulled Hossbach’s call. The Supreme Church Council supported
  the consistory, and issued a strict order to its president to
  suffer no departure from the confession. The congregation next
  chose Dr. =Schramm=, a pronounced adherent of the same party, who
  was also rejected. In A.D. 1879 =Werner=, biographer of Boniface,
  a more moderate disciple of the same school, holding a sort of
  Arian position, received the appointment. When, in A.D. 1880,
  the Supreme Church Council demanded of Werner a clear statement
  of his belief regarding Scripture, the divinity and resurrection
  of Christ, and the Apostles Creed, and on receiving his reply
  summoned him to a conference at Berlin, he resigned his office.

  § 180.5. The conflicts in Schleswig Holstein also caused
  considerable excitement. Pastor =Kühl= of Oldensworth had
  published an article at Easter, A.D. 1880, entitled, “The Lord
  is Risen indeed,” in which the resurrection was made purely
  spiritual. He was charged with violating his ordination vow,
  sectaries pointed to his paper as proof of their theory that
  the state church was the apocalyptic Babylon, and petitions from
  115 ministers and 2,500 laymen were presented against him to
  the consistory of Kiel. The consistory exhorted Kühl to be more
  careful and his opponents to be more patient. In the same year,
  however, he published a paper in which he denied that the order
  of nature was set aside by miracles. He was now advised to give
  up writing and confine himself to his pastoral work. A pamphlet
  by Decker on “The Old Faith and the New,” was answered by =Lühr=,
  and his mode of dealing with the ordination vow was of such a
  kind as to lead pastor Paulsen to speak of it as a “chloroforming
  of his conscience.”


                § 181. DISPUTES ABOUT FORMS OF WORSHIP.

  During the eighteenth century the services of the evangelical church
had become thoroughly corrupted and disordered under the influence
of the “Illumination,” and were quite incapable of answering to the
Christian needs and ecclesiastical tastes of the nineteenth century.
Whenever there was a revival in favour of the faith of their fathers,
a movement was made in the direction of improved forms of worship. The
Rationalists and Friends of Light, however, prevented progress except
in a few states. Even the official Eisenach Conference did no more than
prepare the way and indicate how action might afterwards be taken.

  § 181.1. =The Hymnbook.=--Traces of the vandalism of the
  Illumination were to be seen in all the hymnbooks. The noble poet
  Ernst Moritz Arndt was the first to enter the lists as a restorer;
  and various attempts were made by Von Elsner, Von Raumer, Bunsen,
  Stier, Knapp, Daniel, Harms, etc., to make collections of sacred
  songs answerable to the revived Christian sentiment of the people.
  These came to be largely used, not in the public services, but
  in family worship, and prepared the way for official revisal of
  the books for church use. The Eisenach Conference of A.D. 1853
  resolved to issue 150 classical hymns with the old melodies as
  an appendix to the old collection and a pattern for further work.
  Only with difficulty was the resolution passed to make A.D. 1750
  the _terminus ad quem_ in the choice of pieces. Wackernagel
  insisted on a strict adherence to the original text and retired
  from the committee when this was not agreed to. Only in a few
  states has the Eisenach collection been introduced; _e.g._ in
  Bavaria, where it has been incorporated in its new hymnbook.

  § 181.2. =The Book of Chorales.=--In A.D. 1814, Frederick
  William III. of Prussia sought to secure greater prominence
  to the liturgy in the church service. In A.D. 1817, Natorp of
  Münster expressed himself strongly as to the need of restoring
  the chorale to its former position, and he was followed by the
  jurist Thibaut, whose work on “The Purity of Tone” has been
  translated into English. The reform of the chorale was carried
  out most vigorously in Württemberg, but it was in Bavaria that
  the old chorale in its primitive simplicity was most widely
  introduced.

  § 181.3. =The Liturgy.=--Under the reign of the Illuminists the
  liturgy had suffered even more than the hymns. The Lutherans now
  went back to the old Reformation models, and liturgical services,
  with musical performances, became popular in Berlin. Conferences
  held at Dresden did much for liturgical reform, and the able
  works and collections of Schöberlein supplied abundant materials
  for the practical carrying out of the movement.

  § 181.4. =The Holy Scriptures.=--The Calw Bible in its fifth
  edition adopted somewhat advanced views on inspiration, the canon
  and authenticity, while maintaining generally the standpoint
  of the most reverent and pious students of scripture. Bunsen’s
  commentary assumed a “mediating” position, and the “Protestant
  Bible” on the New Testament, translated into English, that of
  the advanced school. Besser’s expositions of the New Testament
  books, of which we have in English those on John’s gospel, had
  an unexampled popularity. The Eisenach Conference undertook
  a revision of Luther’s translation of the Bible. The revised
  New Testament was published in A.D. 1870, and accepted by some
  Bible societies. The much more difficult task of Old Testament
  revision was entrusted to a committee of distinguished university
  theologians, which concluded its labours in A.D. 1881. A “proof”
  Bible was issued in A.D. 1883, and the final corrected rendering
  in A.D. 1886. A whole legion of pamphlets were now issued
  from all quarters. Some bitterly opposing any change in the
  Luther-text, others severely criticising the work, so that the
  whole movement seems now at a standstill.[529]--In England, in
  May, 1885, the work of revision of the English version of the
  Bible, undertaken by order of convocation, was completed after
  fifteen years’ labour, and issued jointly by the two universities
  of Oxford and Cambridge. The revised New Testament, prepared
  four years previously, had been telegraphed in short sections to
  America by the representative of the _New York Herald_, so that
  the complete work appeared there rather earlier than in England.
  But in the case of the Old Testament revision such freebooting
  industry was prevented by the strict and careful reserve of all
  concerned in the work. The revised New Testament had meanwhile
  never been introduced into the public services; whether the
  completed Bible will ever succeed in overcoming this prejudice
  remains to be seen.[530]


                 § 182. PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN GERMANY.

  The real founder of modern Protestant theology, the Origen of the
nineteenth century, is Schleiermacher. His influence was so powerful
and manysided that it extended not merely to his own school, but
also in almost all directions, even to the Catholic church, embracing
destructive and constructive tendencies such as appeared before
in Origen and Erigena. Alongside of the vulgar rationalism, which
still had notable representatives, De Wette founded the new school
of historico-critical rationalism, and Neander that of pietistic
supernaturalism, which soon overshadowed the two older schools of
rational and supra-rational supernaturalism. On the basis of Schelling’s
and Hegel’s philosophy Daub founded the school of speculative theology
with an evangelical tendency; but after Hegel’s death it split into
a right and left wing. As the former could not maintain its position,
its adherents by-and-by went over to other schools; and the latter,
setting aside speculation and dogmatics, applied itself to the critical
investigation of the early history of Christianity, and founded the
school of Baur at Tübingen. Schleiermacher’s school also split into a
right and left wing. Each of them took the union as its standard; but
the right, which claimed to be the “German” and the “Modern” theology,
wished a union under a consensus of the confessions, and sought to
effect an accommodation between the old faith and the modern liberalism;
whereas the left wished union without a confession, and unconditioned
toleration of “free science.” This latter tendency, however, secured
greater prominence and importance from A.D. 1854, through combination
with the representatives of the historico-critical and the younger
generation of the Baurian school, from which originated the “free
Protestant” theology. On the other hand, under the influence of pietism,
there has arisen since A.D. 1830, especially in the universities
of Erlangen, Leipzig, Rostock, and Dorpat, a Lutheran confessional
school, which seeks to develop a Lutheran system of theology of the
type of Gerhard and Bengel. A similar tendency has also shown itself
in the Reformed church. The most recent theological school is that
founded by Ritschl, resting on a Lutheran basis but regarded by the
confessionalists as rather allied to the “free Protestant” theology,
on account of its free treatment of certain fundamental doctrines of
Lutheranism.--Theological contributions from Scandinavia, England,
and Holland are largely indebted to German theology.

  § 182.1. =Schleiermacher, A.D. 1768-1834.=--Thoroughly grounded
  in philosophy and deeply imbued with the pious feeling of the
  Moravians among whom he was trained, Schleiermacher began his
  career in A.D. 1807 as professor and university preacher at Halle,
  but, to escape French domination, went in the same year to Berlin,
  where by speech and writing he sought to arouse German patriotism.
  There he was appointed preacher in A.D. 1809, and professor
  in A.D. 1810, and continued to hold these offices till his
  death in A.D. 1834. In A.D. 1799 he published five “_Reden
  über d. Religion_.” In these it was not biblical and still
  less ecclesiastical Christianity which he sought with glowing
  eloquence to address to the hearts of the German people, but
  Spinozist pantheism. The fundamental idea of his life, that God,
  “the absolute unity,” cannot be reached in thought nor grasped
  by will, but only embraced in feeling as immediate consciousness,
  and hence that feeling is the proper seat of religion, appears
  already in his early productions as the centre of his system. In
  the following year, A.D. 1800, he set forth his ethical theory
  in five “Monologues:” every man should in his own way represent
  humanity in a special blending of its elements. The study and
  translation of Plato, which occupied him now for several years,
  exercised a powerful influence upon him. He approached more and
  more towards positive Christianity. In a Christmas Address in
  A.D. 1803 on the model of Plato’s Symposium, he represents Christ
  as the divine object of all faith. In A.D. 1811 he published his
  “Short Outline of Theological Study,” which has been translated
  into English, a masterly sketch of theological encyclopædia. In
  A.D. 1821 he produced his great masterpiece, “_Der Chr. Glaube_,”
  which makes feeling the seat of all religion as immediate
  consciousness of absolute dependence, perfectly expressed in
  Jesus Christ, whose life redeems the world. The task of dogmatics
  is to give scientific expression to the Christian consciousness
  as seen the life of the redeemed; it has not to prove,
  but only to work out and exhibit in relation to the whole
  spiritual life what is already present as a fact of experience.
  Thus dogmatics and philosophy are quite distinct. He proves
  the evangelical Protestant character of the doctrines thus
  developed by quotations from the consensus of both confessions.
  Notwithstanding his protest, many of his contemporaries still
  found remnants of Spinozist pantheism. On certain points too,
  he failed to satisfy the claims of orthodoxy; _e.g._ in his
  Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity, his theory of election, his
  doctrine of the canon, and his account of the beginning and
  close of our Lord’s life, the birth and the ascension.[531]

  § 182.2. =The Older Rationalistic Theology.=--The older,
  so-called vulgar rationalism, was characterized by the
  self-sufficiency with which it rejected all advances from
  philosophy and theology, science and national literature. The
  new school of historico-critical rationalism availed itself
  of every aid in the direction of scientific investigation. The
  father of the vulgar rationalism of this age was =Röhr= of Weimar,
  who exercised his ingenuity in proving how one holding such
  views might still hold office in the church. To this school also
  belonged =Paulus= of Heidelberg, described by Marheineke as one
  who believes he thinks and thinks he believes but was incapable
  of either; =Wegscheider= of Halle, who in his “_Institutions
  theol. Christ. dogmaticæ_” repudiates miracles; =Bretschneider=
  of Gotha, who began as a supernaturalist and afterwards went over
  to extreme rationalism; and =Ammon= of Dresden, who afterwards
  passed over to rational supernaturalism.

  § 182.3. The founder of =Historico-critical Rationalism= was
  =De Wette=; a contemporary of Schleiermacher in Berlin University,
  but deprived of office in A.D. 1819 for sending a letter of
  condolence to the mother of Sands, which was regarded as an
  apology for his crime. From A.D. 1822 till his death in A.D. 1849
  he continued to work unweariedly in Basel. His theological
  position had its starting point in the philosophy of his friend
  Fries, which he faithfully adhered to down to the end of his life.
  His friendship with Schleiermacher had also a powerful influence
  upon him. He too placed religion essentially in feeling,
  which, however, he associated much more closely with knowledge
  and will. In the church doctrines he recognised an important
  symbolical expression of religious truths, and so by the out and
  out rationalist he was all along sneered at as a mystic. But his
  chief strength lay in the sharp critical treatment which he gave
  to the biblical canon and the history of the O.T. and N.T. His
  commentaries on the whole of the N.T. are of permanent value, and
  contain his latest thoughts, when he had approached most nearly
  to positive Christianity. His literary career began in A.D. 1806
  with a critical examination of the books of Chronicles. He also
  wrote on the Psalms, on Jewish history, on Jewish archæology,
  and made a new translation of the Bible. His Introductions to
  the O.T. and N.T. have been translated into English.--=Winer=
  of Leipzig is best known by his “Grammar of New Testament Greek,”
  first published in A.D. 1822, of which several English and
  American translations have appeared, the latest and best that of
  Dr. Moulton, made in A.D. 1870, from the sixth German edition. He
  also edited an admirable “_Bibl. Reallexicon_,” and wrote a work
  on symbolics which has been translated into English under the
  title “A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the
  Various Communities of Christendom” (Edin., 1873).--=Gesenius=
  of Halle, who died A.D. 1842, has won a high reputation by
  his grammatical and lexicographical services and as author of
  a commentary on Isaiah--=Hupfeld= of Marburg and Halle, who died
  A.D. 1866, best known by his work in four vols. on the Psalms,
  in his critical attitude toward the O.T., belonged to the same
  party.--=Hitzig= of Zürich and Heidelberg, who died A.D. 1875,
  far outstripped all the rest in genius and subtlety of mind and
  critical acuteness. He wrote commentaries on most of the prophets
  and critical investigations into the O.T. history.--=Ewald= of
  Göttingen, A.D. 1803-1875, whose hand was against every man and
  every man’s hand against him, held the position of recognised
  dictator in the domain of Hebrew grammar, and uttered oracles as
  an infallible expounder of the biblical books. In his _Journal
  for Biblical Science_, he held an annual _auto da fe_ of all
  the biblico-theological literature of the preceding year;
  and, assuming a place alongside of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he
  pronounced in every preface a prophetic burden against the
  theological, ecclesiastical, or political ill doers of his time.
  His exegetical writings on the poetical and prophetical books
  of the O.T., his “History of Israel down to the Post-Apostolic
  Age,” and a condensed reproduction of his “Bible Doctrine of
  God,” under the title: “Revelation, its Nature and Record” and
  “Old and New Testament Theology,” have all appeared in English
  translations, and exhibit everywhere traces of brilliant genius
  and suggestive originality.[532]

  § 182.4. =Supernaturalism= of the older type (§ 171, 8) was
  now represented by Storr, Reinhard, Planck, Knapp, and Stäudlin.
  In Württemberg Storr’s school maintained its pre-eminence
  down to A.D. 1830. Neander, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg may
  be described as the founders and most powerful enunciators
  of the more recent =Pietistic Supernaturalism=. Powerfully
  influenced by Schleiermacher, his colleague in Berlin, =Neander=,
  A.D. 1789-1850, exercised an influence such as no other
  theological teacher had exerted since Luther and Melanchthon.
  Adopting Schleiermacher’s standpoint, he regarded religion as
  a matter of feeling: _Pectus est quod theologum facit_. By his
  subjective pectoral theology he became the father of modern
  scientific pietism, but it incapacitated him from understanding
  the longing of the age for the restoration of a firm objective
  basis for the faith. He was adverse to the Hegelian philosophy
  no less than to confessionalism. Neander was so completely a
  pectoralist, that even his criticism was dominated by feeling,
  as seen in his vacillations on questions of N.T. authenticity
  and historicity. His “Church History,” of which we have
  admirable English translations, was an epoch-making work, and
  his historical monographs were the result of careful original
  research.[533]--=Tholuck=, A.D. 1799-1877, from A.D. 1826
  professor at Halle, at first devoted to oriental studies,
  roused to practical interests by Baron von Kottwitz of Berlin,
  gave himself with all his wide culture by preaching, lecturing
  and conversing to lead his students to Christ. His scientific
  theology was latitudinarian, but had the warmth and freshness
  of immediate contact with the living Saviour. His most important
  works are apologetical and exegetical. In his “Preludes to
  the History of Rationalism” he gives curious glimpses into the
  scandalous lives of students in the seventeenth century; and he
  afterwards confessed that these studies had helped to draw him
  into close sympathy with confessionalism. While always lax in his
  views of authenticity, he came to adopt a very decided position
  in regard to revelation and inspiration.--=Hengstenberg=,
  A.D. 1802-1869, from A.D. 1826 professor in Berlin, had quite
  another sort of development. Rendered determined by innumerable
  controversies, in none of which he abated a single hair’s breadth,
  he looked askance at science as a gift of the Danaides, and set
  forth in opposition to rationalism and naturalism a system of
  theology unmodified by all the theories of modern times. Born in
  the Reformed church and in his understanding of Scripture always
  more Calvinist than Lutheran, rationalising only upon miracles
  that seemed to detract from the dignity of God, and in his
  later years inclined to the Romish doctrine of justification, he
  may nevertheless claim to be classed among the confessionalists
  within the union. He deserves the credit of having given a great
  impulse to O.T. studies and a powerful defence of O.T. books,
  though often abandoning the position of an apologist for that
  of an advocate. His “Christology of the Old Testament,” in
  four vols., “Genuineness of the Pentateuch and Daniel,” three
  vols., “Egypt and the Books of Moses,” commentaries on Psalms,
  Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, the Gospel of John, Revelation, and his
  “History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” have all
  been translated into English.

  § 182.5. The so called =Rational Supernaturalism= admits the
  supernatural revelation in holy scripture, and puts reason
  alongside of it as an equally legitimate source of religious
  knowledge, and maintains the rationality of the contents of
  revelation. Its chief representative was =Baumgarten-Crusius=
  of Jena. Of a similar tendency, but more influenced by æsthetic
  culture and refined feeling, and latterly inclining more and
  more to the standpoint of “free Protestantism,” =Carl Hase=,
  after seven years’ work in Tübingen, opened his Jena career in
  A.D. 1830, which he closed by resigning his professorship in
  A.D. 1883, after sixty years’ labour in the theological chair.
  In his “Life of Jesus,” first published A.D. 1829, he represents
  Christ as the ideal man, sinless but not free from error, endowed
  with the fulness of love and the power of pure humanity, as
  having truly risen and become the author of a new life in the
  kingdom of God, of which the very essence is most purely and
  profoundly expressed in the gospel of the disciple who lay upon
  the Master’s heart. The latest revision of this work, issued
  in A.D. 1876 under the title “_Geschichte Jesu_,” treats the
  fourth gospel as non-Johnannine in authorship and mythical in its
  contents, and explains the resurrection by the theory of a swoon
  or a vision. In his “_Hutterus Redivivus_,” A.D. 1828, twelfth
  edition 1883, he seeks to set forth the Lutheran dogmatic as
  Hutter might have done had he lived in these days. This led to
  the publication of controversial pamphlets in A.D. 1834-1837,
  which dealt the deathblow to the _Rationalismus Vulgaris_. His
  “Church History,” distinguished by its admirable little sketches
  of leading personalities, was published in A.D. 1834, and the
  seventh edition of A.D. 1854 has been translated into English.

  § 182.6. =Speculative Theology.=--Its founder was =Daub=,
  professor at Heidelberg from A.D. 1794 till his death in
  A.D. 1836. Occupying and writing from the philosophical
  standpoints of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling successively, he
  published in A.D. 1816 “Judas Iscariot,” an elaborate discussion
  of the nature of evil, but passed over in A.D. 1833, with his
  treatise on dogmatics, to the Hegelian position. He exerted
  great influence as a professor, but his writings proved to most
  unintelligible.--=Marheineke= of Berlin in the first edition
  of his “Dogmatics” occupied the standpoint of Schelling, but in
  the second set forth Lutheran orthodoxy in accordance with the
  formulæ of the Hegelian system.--After Hegel’s death in A.D. 1831
  his older pupils =Rosenkranz= and =Göschel= sought to enlist his
  philosophy in the service of orthodoxy. =Richter= was the first
  to give offence, by his “Doctrine of the Last Things,” in which
  he denounced the doctrine of immortality in the sense of personal
  existence after death. =Strauss=, A.D. 1808-1874, represented
  the “Life of Jesus,” in his work of A.D. 1835, as the product
  of unintentional romancing, and in his “_Glaubenslehre_” of
  A.D. 1840, sought to prove that all Christian doctrines are
  put an end to by modern science, and openly taught pantheism
  as the residuum of Christianity. =Bruno Bauer=, after passing
  from the right to the left Hegelian wing, described the gospels
  as the product of conscious fraud, and =Ludwig Feuerbach=,
  in his “Essence of Christianity,” A.D. 1841, set forth in all
  its nakedness the new gospel of self-adoration. The breach
  between the two parties in the school was now complete. Whatever
  Rosenkranz and Schaller from the centre, and Göschel and Gabler
  from the right, did to vindicate the honour of the system,
  they could not possibly restore the for ever shattered illusion
  that it was fundamentally Christian. Those of the right fell
  back into the camps of “the German theology” and the Lutheran
  confessionalism; while in the latest times the left has no
  prominent theological representative but Biedermann of Zürich.

  § 182.7. =The Tübingen School.=--Strauss was only the advanced
  skirmisher of a school which was proceeding under an able leader
  to subject the history of early Christianity to a searching
  examination. =Fred. Chr. Baur= of Tübingen, A.D. 1792-1860,
  almost unequalled among his contemporaries in acuteness,
  diligence, and learning, a pupil of Schleiermacher and Hegel,
  devoted himself mainly to historical research about the
  beginnings of Christianity. In this department he proceeded to
  reject almost everything that had previously been believed. He
  denied the genuineness of all the New Testament writings, with
  the exception of Revelation and the Epistles to the Romans,
  Galatians, and Corinthians; treating the rest as forgeries of
  the second century, resulting from a bitter struggle between
  the Petrine and Pauline parties. This scheme was set forth in
  a rudimentary form in the treatise on “The So-called Pastoral
  Epistles of the Apostle Paul,” A.D. 1835. His works, “Paul, the
  Apostle,” and the “History of the First Three Centuries,” have
  been translated into English. He had as collaborateurs in this
  work, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, etc. =Ritschl=,
  who was at first an adherent of the school, made important
  concessions to the right, and in the second edition of his
  great work, “_Die Entstehung d. alt-kath. Kirche_,” of A.D. 1857,
  announced himself as an opponent. =Hilgenfeld= of Jena, too,
  marked out new lines for himself in New Testament Introduction
  and in the estimate of early church doctrine, modifying in
  various ways the positions of Baur. The labours of this school
  and its opponents have done signal service in the cause of
  science.

  § 182.8. =Strauss=, who had meanwhile occupied himself with the
  studies of Von Hutten, Reimarus, and Lessing’s “Nathan,” feeling
  that the researches of the Tübingen school had antiquated his
  “Life of Jesus,” and stimulated by Renan’s “Life of Jesus,”
  written with French elegance and vivacity, in which he described
  Christ as an amiable hero of a Galilæan village story, undertook
  in 1864 a semi-jubilee reproduction of his work, addressed to
  “the German people.” This was followed by a severe controversial
  pamphlet, “The Half and the Whole,” in which he lashed the
  halting attempts of Schenkel as well as the uncompromising
  conservatism of Hengstenberg. He now pointed out cases of
  intentional romancing in the gospel narratives; the resurrection
  rests upon subjective visions of Christ’s disciples. His
  “Lectures on Voltaire” appeared in A.D. 1870, and in A.D. 1872
  the most radical of all his books, “The Old and the New Faith,”
  which makes Christianity only a modified Judaism, the history
  of the resurrection mere “humbug,” and the whole gospel story
  the result of the “hallucinations” of the early Christians. The
  question whether “we” are still Christians he answers openly
  and honourably in the negative. He has also surmounted the
  standpoint of pantheism. The religion of the nineteenth century
  is _pancosmism_, its gospel the results of natural science
  with Darwin’s discoveries as its bible, its devotional works
  the national classics, its places of worship the concert rooms,
  theatres, museums, etc. The most violent attacks on this book
  came from the _Protestantenverein_. Strauss had said, “If
  the old faith is absurd, then the modernized edition of the
  ‘_Protestantenverein_’ and the school of Jena is doubly, trebly
  so. The old faith only contradicts reason, not itself; the
  new contradicts itself at every point, and how can it then
  be reconciled with reason?”[534]

  § 182.9. =The Mediating Theology.=--This tendency originated
  from the right wing of the school of Schleiermacher, still
  influenced more or less by the pectoralism of Neander. It adopted
  in dogmatics a more positive and in criticism a more conservative
  manner. It earnestly sought to promote the interests of the
  union not merely as a combination for church government, but as
  a communion under a confessional consensus. Its chief theological
  organs were the “_Studien und Kritiken_,” started in A.D. 1828,
  edited by Ullmann and Umbreit in Heidelberg, afterwards by
  Riehm and Köstlin in Halle, and the “_Jahrbücher für deutsche
  Theologie_” of Dorner and Leibner, A.D. 1856-1878.--Although the
  mediating theology sought to sink all confessional differences,
  denominational descent was more or less traceable in most of its
  adherents. Its leading representatives from the =Reformed church=
  were: =Alexander Schweizer=, who most faithfully preserved the
  critical tendency of Schleiermacher, and, in a style far abler
  and subtler than any other modern theologian, expounded the
  Reformed system of doctrine in its rigid logical consistency.
  In his own system he gives a scientific exposition of the
  evangelical faith from the unionist standpoint, with many pious
  reflections on Scripture and the confession as well as results of
  Christian experience, based upon the threefold manifestation of
  God set forth without miracle in the physical order of the world,
  in the moral order of the world, and in the historical economy
  of the kingdom of God.--=Sack=, one of the oldest and most
  positive of Schleiermacher’s pupils, professor at Bonn, then
  superintendent at Magdeburg, wrote on apologetics and polemics.
  =Hagenbach= of Basel, A.D. 1801-1874, is well-known by his
  “Theological Encyclopædia and Methodology,” “History of the
  Reformation,” and “History of the Church in the Eighteenth
  and Nineteenth Centuries,” all of which are translated into
  English.--=John Peter Lange= of Bonn, A.D. 1802-1884, a man
  of genius, imaginative, poetic, and speculative, with strictly
  positive tendencies, widely known by his “Life of Christ” and the
  commentary on Old and New Testament, edited and contributed to by
  him.--=Dr. Philip Schaff= may also be named as the transplanter
  of German theology of the Neander-Tholuck type to the American
  soil. Born in Switzerland, he accepted a call as professor to the
  theological seminary of the German Reformed church at Mercersburg
  in 1843. He soon fell under suspicion of heresy, but was
  acquitted by the Synod of New York in 1845. In 1869 he accepted
  a call to a professorship in the richly endowed Presbyterian
  Union Theological Seminary of New York. Writing first in German
  and afterwards in English, his works treat of almost all the
  branches of theological science, especially in history and
  exegesis. He is also president of several societies engaged
  in active Christian work.

  § 182.10. Among those belonging originally to the =Lutheran
  church= were Schleiermacher’s successor in Berlin, =Twesten=,
  whose dogmatic treatise did not extend beyond the doctrine of
  God, a faithful adherent of Schleiermacher’s right wing on the
  Lutheran side; =Nitzsch=, professor in Bonn A.D. 1822-1847, and
  afterwards of Berlin till his death in A.D. 1868, best known by
  his “System of Christian Doctrine,” and his Protestant reply to
  Möhler’s “Symbolism,” a profound thinker with a noble Christian
  personality, and one of the most influential among the consensus
  theologians. =Julius Müller= of Halle, A.D. 1801-1878, if we
  except his theory of an ante-temporal fall, occupied the common
  doctrinal platform of the confessional unionists. His chief work,
  “The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” is a masterpiece of profound
  thinking and original research. =Ullmann=, A.D. 1796-1865,
  professor in Halle and Heidelberg, a noble and peace-loving
  character, distinguished himself in the domain of history by his
  monograph on “Gregory Nazianzen,” his “Reformers before the
  Reformation,” and most of all by his beautiful apologetical
  treatise on the “Sinlessness of Jesus.”--=Isaac Aug. Dorner=,
  A.D. 1809-1884, born and educated in Württemberg, latterly
  professor in Berlin, applied himself mainly to the elaborating
  of Christian doctrine, and gave to the world, in his “Doctrine of
  the Person of Christ,” in A.D. 1839, a work of careful historical
  research and theological speculation. The fundamental ideas of
  his Christology are the theory favoured by the “German” theology
  generally of the necessity of the incarnation even apart from sin
  (which Müller strongly opposed), and the notion of the archetypal
  Christ, the God-Man, as the collective sum of humanity, in whom
  “are gathered the patterns of all several individualities.” His
  “System of Christian Doctrine” formed the copestone of an almost
  fifty years’ academical career. Christ’s virgin birth is admitted
  as the condition of the essential union in Him of divinity and
  humanity; but the incarnation of the Logos extends through the
  whole earthly life of the Redeemer; it is first completed in
  his exaltation by means of his resurrection; it was therefore
  an operation of the Logos, as principle of all divine movement,
  _extra carnem_. His “System of Christian Ethics” was edited
  after his death by his son.[535]--=Richard Rothe=, A.D. 1799-1867,
  appointed in A.D. 1823 chaplain to the Prussian embassy at Rome,
  where he became intimately acquainted with Bunsen. In A.D. 1828
  he was made ephorus at the preachers’ seminary of Wittenberg,
  and afterwards professor in Bonn and Heidelberg. Rothe was one
  of the most profound thinkers of the century, equalled by none
  of his contemporaries in the grasp, depth, and originality of
  his speculation. Though influenced by Schleiermacher, Neander,
  and Hegel, he for a long time withdrew like an anchoret from the
  strife of theologians and philosophers, and took up a position
  alongside of Oetinger in the chamber of the theosophists. His
  mental and spiritual constitution had indeed much in common with
  that great mystic. In his first important work, “_Die Anfänge
  der chr. Kirche_,” he gave expression to the idea that in its
  perfected form the church becomes merged into the state. The same
  thought is elaborated in his “Theological Ethics,” a work which
  in depth, originality, and conclusiveness of reasoning is almost
  unapproached, and is full of the most profound Christian views
  in spite of its many heterodoxies. In his later years he took
  part in the ecclesiastical conflicts in Baden (§ 196, 3) with
  the _Protestantenverein_ (§ 180, 1), and entered the arena of
  public ecclesiastical life.[536]--=Beyschlag= of Halle, in his
  “_Christologie d. N. T._,” A.D. 1866, carried out Schleiermacher’s
  idea of Christ as only man, not God and man but the ideal of
  man, not of two natures but only one, the archetypal human, which,
  however, as such is divine, because the complete representation
  of the divine nature in the human. From this standpoint, too,
  he vindicates the authenticity of John’s Gospel, and from Romans
  ix.-xi. works out a “Pauline Theodicy.”--=Hans Lassen Martensen=,
  A.D. 1808-1884, professor at Copenhagen, Bishop of Zealand
  and primate of Denmark, with high speculative endowments and
  a considerable tincture of theosophical mysticism, has become
  through his “Christian Dogmatics,” “Christian Ethics,” in three
  vols., etc., of a thoroughly Lutheran type, one of the best known
  theologians of the century.

  § 182.11. Among =Old Testament exegetes= the most distinguished
  are: =Umbreit=, A.D. 1795-1860, of Heidelberg, who wrote from
  the supernaturalist standpoint, influenced by Schleiermacher
  and Herder, commentaries on Solomon’s writings and those of the
  prophets, and on Job; =Bertheau= of Göttingen, of Ewald’s school,
  wrote historico-critical and philological commentaries on the
  historical books; and =Dillmann=, Hengstenberg’s successor in
  Berlin, specially distinguished for his knowledge of the Ethiopic
  language and literature, has written critical commentaries on
  the Pentateuch and Job.--Among =New Testament exegetes= we may
  mention: =Lücke= of Göttingen, known by his commentary on John’s
  writings; =Bleek=, the able New Testament critic and commentator
  on the Epistle to the Hebrews; =Meyer=, A.D. 1800-1873, most
  distinguished of all, whose “Critical and Exegetical Commentary
  on the New Testament,” begun in A.D. 1832, in which he was
  aided by Huther, Lunemann, and Düsterdieck, is well-known in its
  English edition as the most complete exegetical handbook to the
  New Testament; =Weiss= of Kiel and Berlin, author of treatises
  on the doctrinal systems of Peter and of John, “The Biblical
  Theology of the New Testament,” “Life of Christ,” “Introduction
  to New Testament,” revises and rewrites commentaries on Mark,
  Luke, John, and Romans, in the last edition of the Meyer
  series.--A laborious student in the domain of New Testament
  textual criticism was =Constant. von Tischendorff [Tischendorf]=
  of Leipzig, A.D. 1815-1874, who ransacked all the libraries
  of Europe and the East in the prosecution of his work. The
  publication of several ancient codices, _e.g._ the _Cod.
  Sinaiticus_, a present from the Sinaitic monks to the czar on
  the thousandth anniversary of the Russian empire in A.D. 1862,
  the _Cod. Vaticanus N.T._, a new edition of the LXX., the most
  complete collection of New Testament apocrypha and pseudepigraphs,
  and finally a whole series of editions of the New Testament (from
  A.D. 1841-1873 there appeared twenty-four editions, of which the
  _Editio Octava Major_ of 1872 is the most complete in critical
  apparatus), are the rich and ripe fruits of his researches.
  A second edition, compared throughout with the recensions of
  Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, was published by =Von Gebhardt=,
  and a third volume of Prolegomena was added by C. R. Gregory.
  As a theologian he attached himself, especially in later years,
  to the Lutheranism of his Leipzig colleagues, and on questions
  of criticism and introduction took up a strictly conservative
  position as seen in his well known tract, “When were our Gospels
  written?”

  § 182.12. Among the university teachers of his time =John Tob.
  Beck=, A.D. 1804-1878, assumed a position all his own. After
  a pastorate of ten years he began in A.D. 1836 his academical
  career in Basel, and went in A.D. 1843 to Tübingen, where he
  opposed to the teaching of Baur’s school a purely biblical and
  positive theology, with a success that exceeded all expectations.
  A Württemberger by birth, nature, and training, he quite ignored
  the history of the church and its dogmas as well as modern
  criticism, and set forth a system of theology drawn from a
  theosophical realistic study of the Bible. He took little
  interest in the excited movements of his age for home and foreign
  missions, union, confederation, and alliances, in questions about
  liturgies, constitution, discipline, and confessions, in all
  which he saw only the form of godliness without the power. Better
  times could be hoped for only as the result of the immediate
  interposition of God. His “Pastoral Theology” and “Biblical
  Psychology” have been translated into English.

  § 182.13. =The Lutheran Confessional Theology.=--=Sartorius=,
  A.D. 1797-1859, from A.D. 1822 professor in Dorpat, then from
  A.D. 1835 general superintendent at Königsberg, made fresh and
  vigorous attacks upon rationalism, and supported the union as
  preserving “the true mean” of Lutheranism. He is best known by
  his “Doctrine of Divine Love.” =Rudelbach=,--a Dane by birth and
  finally settled in Copenhagen, occupying the same ground, became
  a violent opponent of the union.--=Guericke= of Halle, beginning
  as a pietist, passed through the union into a rigorous Lutheran,
  and joined Rudelbach in editing the journal afterwards conducted
  by Luthardt of Leipzig.--Alongside of these older representatives
  of Lutheran orthodoxy there arose a =second generation= which
  from A.D. 1840 has fallen into several groups. Their divergencies
  were mainly on two points:

    1. On the place and significance of the clerical order, some
       viewing it as based on the general priesthood of believers
       and resting on the call of the congregation for the orderly
       administration of the means of grace, others regarding it
       as a divine institution, yet without adopting the Romanizing
       and Anglican theory of apostolic succession; and

    2. On the more important question of biblical prophecy, where
       one party maintained the spiritualistic, widely favoured
       since the time of Jerome, and another party, attaching
       itself to Crusius and Bengel, insisted upon a realistic
       interpretation.

  At the head of the =first group=, which maintained the old
  Protestant theory of church and office and looked askance
  at chiliastic theories, supporting the old doctrines by all
  available materials from modern science, stands =Harless=,
  A.D. 1806-1879, professor in Erlangen and Leipzig, the chief
  ecclesiastical commissioner in Dresden, and finally at Munich.
  His theological reputation rests upon his “Commentary on
  Ephesians,” A.D. 1835, his “Christian Ethics,” A.D. 1842.
  Alongside of him =Thomasius= of Erlangen, A.D. 1802-1875, wrought
  in a similar direction.--=Keil=, A.D. 1807-1888, from A.D. 1833
  professor in Dorpat, since A.D. 1858 living retired in Leipzig,
  of all Hengstenberg’s students has most faithfully preserved
  his master’s exegetical and critical conservatism. He began
  in A.D. 1861 in connexion with Delitzsch his “Old Testament
  Commentary” on strictly conservative lines. We have an English
  translation of that work, and also of his “Introduction to the
  Old Testament” and his “Old Testament Archæology.”--=Philippi=,
  A.D. 1809-1882, son of Jewish parents, during his academic
  career in Dorpat, A.D. 1841-1852, exercised a powerful influence
  in securing for strict Lutheranism a very widespread ascendency
  among the clergy of Livonia. From A.D. 1852 till his death in
  A.D. 1882 he resided in Rostock. As exegete and dogmatist, he
  has, like a John Gerhard and Quenstedt of the nineteenth century,
  reproduced the Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century,
  unmodified by the developments of modern thought. He is known to
  English readers by his “Commentary on Romans.” His chief work is
  “_Kirchl. Glaubenslehre_,” in six vols.--Alongside of him, and
  scarcely less important, stands =Theodosius Harnack=, who went
  from Dorpat in A.D. 1853 to Erlangen, but returned to Dorpat
  in A.D. 1866, and retired in A.D. 1873. He has written upon
  the worship of the church of the post-apostolic age, on Luther’s
  theology, and practical theology.

  § 182.14. At the head of the =second group=, characterized
  by a decided biblical realism and inclined to a biblical
  chiliasm, stands =Von Hofmann= of Erlangen, A.D. 1810-1877, whose
  “_Weissagung und Erfüllung_,” 1841, represents the very antipodes
  of Hengstenberg’s view of the Old Testament, placing history and
  prophecy in vital relation to one another, and studying prophecy
  in its historical setting. In his “_Schriftbeweis_” we have
  an entirely new system of doctrine drawn from Scripture, the
  doctrine of the atonement being set forth in quite a different
  form from that generally approved, but vindicated by its author
  against Philippi as “a new way of teaching old truth.” In his
  commentary on the New Testament, he takes up a conservative
  position on questions of criticism and introduction.--=Franz
  Delitzsch=, in Rostock, A.D. 1846, Erlangen, A.D. 1850,
  in Leipzig since A.D. 1867, more intimately acquainted with
  rabbinical literature than any other Christian theologian, became
  an enthusiastic adherent of Hofmann’s position. His theology,
  however, has a more decidedly theosophical tendency, while
  his critical attitude is more liberal. He is well known by his
  “Biblical Psychology,” commentary on Psalms, Isaiah, Solomon’s
  writings, Job, Hebrews, and a new commentary on Genesis in
  which he accepts many of the positions of the advanced school
  of biblical criticism.--=Luthardt= of Leipzig in the domain of
  New Testament exegesis and dogmatics works from the standpoint of
  Hofmann. His “Commentary on John’s Gospel,” “Authorship of Fourth
  Gospel,” and “Apologetical Lectures on the Fundamental, Saving
  and Moral Truths of Christianity,” are well known.--Hofmann’s
  conception of Old Testament doctrine is admirably carried out
  by =Oehler=, A.D. 1812-1872, with learning and speculative
  power, in his “Theology of the Old Testament,” and in various
  important monographs on Old Testament doctrines.--The most
  important representatives of the =third group=, which strongly
  emphasizes the extreme Lutheran theory of the church and office,
  are =Kliefoth= of Schwerin, liturgist and biblical commentator;
  and =Vilmar=, who opened his academic career at Marburg, in
  1856, with a controversial programme entitled “The Theology
  of Facts against the Theology of Rhetoric.” Vilmar’s lectures,
  able, though sketchy and incomplete, were published after his
  death in A.D. 1868 by some of his disciples. To the same school
  belonged =Von Zezschwitz= of Erlangen, A.D. 1825-1886, whose
  “_Catechetics_” is a treasury of solid learning.

  § 182.15. Among Lutheran theologians taking little or nothing to
  do with these controversial questions, =Kahnis=, A.D. 1814-1888,
  from A.D. 1850 professor at Leipzig, occupied a strict Lutheran
  confessional standpoint, diverging only in the adoption of a
  subordinationist doctrine on the person of Christ, a Sabellian
  theory of the Trinity, and a theory of the Lord’s supper in
  some points differing from that of the strict Lutherans. His
  historical sketches are vigorous and lively.--=Zöckler= of
  Giessen and Greifswald has made important contributions to
  church history, exegesis, and dogmatics, and especially to the
  theory and history of natural theology. In 1886 he began the
  publication of a short biblical commentary contributed to by the
  most distinguished positive theologians, he himself editing the
  New Testament and Strack the Old Testament. It is to be in twelve
  vols., and is being translated into English.--=Von Oetingen=
  of Dorpat has devoted himself to social problems and moral
  statistics.--=Frank= of Erlangen has proved a powerful apologist
  for old Lutheranism, and in his “System of Christian Evidence”
  has introduced a new branch of theology, in which the subjective
  Christian certitude which the believer has with his faith is
  made the basis of the scientific exposition of the truth set
  forth in his “System of Christian Truth,” a thoughtful and
  speculative treatise on doctrine, followed by “The System
  of Christian Morals” as the conclusion of his theological
  work.--Lutheran theology had also zealous representatives in
  several distinguished jurists: =Göschel=, president of the
  consistory of Magdeburg, who wrote against Strauss, sought
  to derive profound Christian teaching from Goethe and Dante,
  and wrote on the last things, and on man in respect of body,
  soul, and spirit; =Stahl=, A.D. 1802-1861, professor of law at
  Erlangen and Berlin, leader since A.D. 1849 of the high-church
  aristocratic reactionary party in the Prussian chamber, supported
  his views by reference to the Scripture doctrine of the divine
  origin of magisterial authority.

  § 182.16. As zealous representatives of =Reformed
  Confessionalism= who set aside the dogma of predestination
  and so show no antagonism to the union, may be named: =Heppe=,
  opponent of Vilmar in Marburg, who devoted much of his career
  as a historian to the undermining of Lutheranism, then wrought
  upon the histories of provincial churches, of Catholic mysticism
  and pietism, etc.; and =Ebrard=, A.D. 1818-1887, a brilliant
  believing theologian who combated rationalism and Catholicism,
  professor from A.D. 1847 of Reformed theology at Erlangen, known
  by his “Gospel History: a Compendium of Critical Investigations
  in Support of the Historical Church of the Four Gospels,” his
  “Apologetics,” in 3 vols., “Commentary on Hebrews,” etc.

  § 182.17. =The Free Protestant Theology.=--This school originated
  in the left wing of Schleiermacher’s following, and has as its
  literary organs, Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_ and the _Jahrbücher
  für prot. Theologie_.--The distinguished statesman, =Von Bunsen=,
  A.D. 1791-1860, ambassador at Rome and afterwards at London, at
  first stood at the head of the revival of the church interests
  and life; but in his “Church of the Future,” conceived a
  constitutional idea on a democratic basis, for which he sought
  support in historical studies on the Ignatian age, etc., and
  the historical refutation of the orthodox Christology and
  trinitarianism. His elaborate work on “Egypt’s Place in the
  World’s History,” full of arbitrary criticism, negative and
  positive, on the chronological and historical data of the
  Old Testament, seeks to show that, by restoring the Egyptian
  chronology, we for the first time make the Bible history fit
  into general history. “The Signs of the Times” comprise glowing
  philippics against the hierarchical pretensions of Papists
  and even more dangerous Lutherans, insists on Scripture being
  translated out of the Semitic into the Japhetic mode of speech,
  to which end he devoted his last great works, “God in History”
  and his “Bible Commentary,” the latter finished after his
  death by Kamphausen and Holtzmann.--=Schenkel=, A.D. 1813-1885,
  professor at Heidelberg from A.D. 1851 till his resignation in
  A.D. 1884, from the right wing of the mediating school, through
  unionism and Melanchthonianism advanced to the standpoint of his
  “_Charakterbild Jesu_,” which strips Christ of all supernatural
  features, yet proclaims him the redeemer of the world, and
  strives to save his resurrection as a historical and saving
  truth, and explains his appearances after the resurrection as
  “real manifestations of the personality living and glorified
  after death.” In later years he sought to draw yet more
  closely to positive Christianity. =Keim= of Zürich and Giessen,
  A.D. 1825-1878, the ablest of all recent historians of the
  life of Jesus, and with all his radicalism preserving some
  conservative tendencies, is best known by his “Jesus of Nazareth,”
  in six vols.--=Holtzmann= of Heidelberg and Strassburg, passed
  from the mediating school over to that of Tübingen, from which in
  important points he has now departed.--To the same rank belongs
  =Hausrath= of Heidelberg, whose “History of the New Testament
  Times” is well known. Under the pseudonym of George Taylor he
  has composed several highly successful historical romances.--The
  organs of this school are Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_, and since
  1875 the Jena “_Jahrbücher für protest. Theologie_.”

  § 182.18. =In the Old Testament Department= a liberal critical
  school has arisen which has reversed the old relation of “the law
  and the prophets,” treating the origin of the law as post-exilian,
  and as in not coming at the beginning, but at the end of the
  Jewish history. =Reuss=, whose “History of the New Testament
  Books” marked an epoch in New Testament introduction, was the
  first who moved in this direction, in his lectures begun at
  Strassburg in A.D. 1834, the results of which are given us in
  his “History of the Theology of the Apostolic Age” and in his
  “History of the Canon.” Meanwhile =Vatke= of Berlin had, in
  A.D. 1835, undertaken to prove that the patriarchal religion was
  pure Semitic nature worship, and that the prophets were the first
  to raise it into a monotheistic Jehovism. Little success attended
  his efforts. Greater results were obtained by Reuss’ two pupils,
  =Graf= in A.D. 1866, and =Kayser= in A.D. 1874. The most brilliant
  exposition of this theory was given by =Julius Wellhausen=
  of Greifswald, transferred in A.D. 1882 to the Philosophical
  Faculty of Halle, in his “History of Israel.” In his “Prolegomena
  to History of Israel,” and article “Israel” in “_Encyclopædia
  Britannica_,” he gives expression with clearness and force to
  his radical negative criticism, and develops a purely naturalist
  conception of the Old Testament. Professor Kuenen of Leyden
  transplanted these views to the Netherlands, and Robertson Smith
  has introduced them into Scotland and England, while in Germany
  they are taught by a number of the younger teachers, Stade in
  Giessen, Merx in Heidelberg, Smend in Basel, etc. And now at last
  in A.D. 1882 the venerable master of the school, =Edward Reuss=,
  has himself in his “_Geschichte d. h. Schr. d. A. Test._” given a
  brilliant and in many points modified exposition of these radical
  theories. The history of Israel, according to him, divides itself
  into the four successive periods of the heroes, of the prophets,
  of the priests, and of the scribes, characterized respectively
  by individualism, idealism, formalism, and traditionalism. Even
  before the close of prophetism the priestly influence began
  to assert itself, but it was only in the post-exilian period
  under the domination of the priests that the construction and
  codification of the law began to make impression on the Jewish
  people. So too in the age of the kings there existed a Levitical
  tradition about rites and worship, which traced back its first
  outlines to the time of Moses, though at this period there could
  have been no written official codex of any kind. In regard to
  Moses, we are to think not only of his person as historical,
  but also of his career as that of a man inspired by the
  divine spirit and recognised as such by his contemporaries and
  fellow-countrymen.--Also =Wellhausen=, who has hitherto concerned
  himself only with the critical introduction to the Old Testament
  books, not with their historical or theological interpretation,
  supplied this defect to some extent by his “Prolegomena to the
  History of Israel.” He admits that much of the history of Israel
  related in the Old Testament is credible. He even goes so far as
  to allow that this history was a preparation and forerunner of
  Christianity, but without miracle and prophecy, and without any
  immediate interposition of God in the affairs of Israel.

  § 182.19. Among the most distinguished free-thinking =dogmatists=
  of recent times, =Biedermann= of Zürich, A.D. 1819-1885,
  has occupied the most advanced position. His principal work,
  “_Christliche Dogmatik_,” A.D. 1869, defined God and the origin
  of the world as the self-development of the Absolute Idea
  according to the Hegelian scheme, recognises in the person of
  Christ the first realization of the Christian principle of the
  divine sonship in a personal life, then proceeds with free
  exposition of the Scripture and church doctrines, and combats
  openly the doctrines of the church and through them also those
  of Scripture, as setting religion purely in the domain of the
  imagination.--=Lipsius= of Leipzig, Kiel, and Jena, in his
  earliest treatise on the Pauline Doctrine of Justification in
  A.D. 1853, held the position of the mediating theology, but under
  the influence of Kant, Hegel, and Baur has been led to adopt
  the standpoint of the “Free Protestant” school. His history of
  gnosticism and his researches in early apocryphal literature
  are important contributions to our knowledge of primitive
  Christianity. His “_Lehrbuch d. ev. prot. Dogmatik_,” 1876,
  2nd ed., 1879, on the basis of Kant and Schleiermacher, fixing
  the limits of science with the former, and maintaining with the
  latter the necessity of religious faith and life, not rejecting
  metaphysics generally, but only its speculations on God and
  divine things lying quite outside of human experience, seeks
  from the common faith of the Christian church of all ages, as
  it is expressed in the Scriptures and in the confessions, by
  the application of the freest subjective criticism of the letter
  of revelation, to secure a theory of the world in harmony with
  modern views.--=Pfleiderer=, Twesten’s successor in Berlin,
  in his “Paulinism,” “Influence of Paul on Development of
  Christianity” and “History of the Philosophy of Religion,”
  occupies more the Hegelian speculative standpoint than that
  of Kantian criticism.

  § 182.20. =Ritschl and his School.=--=Ritschl=, 1822-1889, from
  A.D. 1846 in Bonn, from A.D. 1864 in Göttingen, on his withdrawal
  from the Tübingen party, applied himself to dogmatic studies
  and founded a school, the adherents of which, divided into
  right and left wings, have secured quite a number of academical
  appointments. After the completion of his great dogmatic work
  on “Justification and Reconciliation,” Ritschl resumed his
  historical studies in a “History of Pietism,” which he traces
  back through the persecuted anabaptists of the Reformation age
  to the Tertiaries of the Franciscan order and the mysticism
  of St. Bernard. He earnestly maintains his adherence to the
  confessions of the Lutheran church, and regards it as the task
  of his life to disentangle the pure Lutheran doctrine from the
  accretions of scholastic metaphysics. Even more decidedly than
  Schleiermacher, he banishes all philosophy from the domain of
  theology. The grand significance of Kant’s doctrine of knowledge,
  with its assertion of the incomprehensibility of all transcendent
  truth except the ethical postulates of God, freedom and
  immortality, as set forth in a more profound manner by Lotze,
  is indeed admitted, but only as a methodological basis of all
  religious inquiries, and with determined rejection of every
  material support from Kant’s construction of religion within the
  limits of the pure reason. Ritschl rather pronounces in favour
  of the formal principle of Protestantism, and declares distinctly
  that all religious truth must be drawn directly from Scripture,
  primarily from the New Testament as the witness of the early
  church uncorrupted by the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysic, but
  also secondarily from the Old Testament as the record of the
  content of revelation made to the religious community of Israel.
  The truthfulness of the biblical, especially of the New Testament,
  system of truth, rests, however, not on any theory of inspiration,
  but on its being an authentic statement of the early church of
  the doctrine of Christ, inasmuch as to this witness the necessary
  degree of _fides humana_ belongs. Ritschl’s Christology rests on
  the witness of Christ to himself in the synoptists, through which
  he proclaims himself the one prophet who in the divine purpose
  of grace for mankind has received perfect consecration, sent by
  God into the world to represent the founding of the kingdom of
  God on earth foreshadowed in the Old Testament revelation; but
  no attempt is made to explain how Christ became possessed of
  the secrets of the divine decree. To him, as the first and only
  begotten Son of God, standing in essential union with the Father,
  belongs the attribute of deity and the right of worship. But of
  an eternal pre-existence of Christ we can speak only in so far
  as this is meant of the eternal gracious purpose of God to redeem
  the world through him by means of the complete unfolding of the
  kingdom of God in the fellowship of love. Whatever goes beyond
  this in the fourth gospel, its Johannine authenticity not being
  otherwise contested, as well as in Paul’s epistles and in the
  Epistle to the Hebrews, resulted from the necessity felt by their
  writers for assigning a sufficient reason for the assumption of
  such incomparable glory on the part of Christ. As the archetype
  of humanity destined for the kingdom of God, Christ is the
  original object of the divine love, so that the love of God to
  the members of his kingdom comes to them only through him. And
  as the earthly founding, so also the heavenly completion, of
  the kingdom of God is assigned to Christ, and hence after his
  resurrection all power was given to him, of the transcendent
  exercise of which, however, we can know nothing. The universality
  of human sin is admitted by Ritschl as a fact of experience,
  but he despairs of reaching any dogmatic statement as to the
  origin of sin through the temptation of a superhuman evil
  power. But that sin is inherited and as original guilt is
  under the condemnation of God, is not taught or pre-supposed
  by the teaching either of Christ or of the apostles. Redemption
  (reconciliation and justification) consists in the forgiveness of
  sins, by which the guilt that estranges from God is removed and
  the sinner is restored into the fellowship of the kingdom of God.
  Forgiveness, however, is not given on condition of the vicarious
  penal sufferings of Christ, whose sufferings and death are of
  significance rather because his life and works were a complete
  fulfilment of his calling, and witnessed to as such by God’s
  raising him from the dead. Justification secures the reception
  of the penitent sinner into the fellowship of the kingdom of
  God, preached and perfectly developed by Christ, and the sonship
  enjoyed in its membership, prefigured in Christ himself, which
  contains in itself the desire as well as the capacity to do good
  works out of love to God.--The school of Ritschl is represented
  in Göttingen by its founder and by =Schultz= and =Wendt=,
  in Marburg by =Herrmann=, in Bonn by =Bender=, in Giessen by
  =Gottschick= and =Kattenbusch=, in Strassburg by =Lobstein=,
  in Basel by =Kaftan=, formerly of Berlin.[537]

  § 182.21. Opponents and critics of the school of Ritschl,
  especially from the confessional Lutheran ranks, have appeared in
  considerable numbers. Luthardt of Leipzig in A.D. 1878 opened the
  campaign against Ritschilianism, followed by Bestmann, charging
  it with undermining Christianity. The Hanoverian synod of
  A.D. 1882 decided by a large majority that the scientific results
  of theological science must be ruled by the confessions of the
  evangelical church. The chief theme at the following Hanoverian
  Pentecost Conference was the “Incarnation of the Son of God,” the
  discussion being led by Professor Dieckhoff of Rostock, against
  whom no voice was raised in favour of the views of Ritschl.
  Not long after, Professor Fricke of Leipzig published a lecture
  given by him at the Meissen Conference, on the Present Relations
  of Metaphysics and Theology, followed by utterances of Kübel of
  Tübingen, Grau of Königsberg, Kreibig and H. Schmidt at Berlin,
  all unfavourable to Ritschl’s theology.--The main objections
  are, according to =Bestmann=: idolatry of Kant, depreciation
  of the religious factor in Christianity in favour of the ethical
  by laying out a moral foreground without providing a dogmatic
  background, reducing the objective fundamental truths of the
  confession into subjective ethical ideas, etc.; according to
  =Luthardt=: Ritschl’s position that it does not matter so much
  what the facts of the Christian faith are in themselves, as what
  they mean for us, makes his whole dogmatic system hang in the
  air, if in Christianity we have to do not with what God, Christ,
  the resurrection are, but only what significance we attach to
  them, Christianity is stript of all importance, the significance
  of a thing must have its foundation in the thing itself, etc.;
  according to =Dieckhoff=: Ritschl on his accepting the divinity
  of Christ lays down the rule that the special content of what is
  meant by the term divinity must be transferable to the believer,
  and so for Ritschl, Christ is a mere man who in his person was
  the first to represent a relation to God which is destined for
  all men in like measure, etc.; according to =Fricke=: new Kantian
  scepticism with regard to ideals and transcendentals, reducing
  religious elements to moral, with Ritschl’s removal of all
  metaphysical facts the chief verities of our Christian faith
  are taken away, at least in the scientific form in which we have
  them, _e.g._ the doctrine of the Trinity, our Christology, our
  theory of satisfaction, in place of which comes the Catholic
  _justitia infusa_, etc.; according to =Münchmayer=: “the object
  of justification with Ritschl is not the individual but the
  community, it is no act of God upon the individual but an eternal
  purpose of God for the community, its effect on the individual
  is not objective divine forgiveness of guilt but a subjective act
  of incorporation of the individual into the redeemed community;
  Christ and his work are not the ground of justification,
  but only the means of revealing the eternal justifying will
  of God, and therefore finally a continuation of the historical
  work of Christ by means of his church takes the place of the
  personal intercession of the exalted Redeemer for the penitent
  sinner.” Kreibig and Schmidt express themselves in a similar
  manner.--Ritschl has not himself undertaken any reply, but
  his disciples have sought to remove what they regard as
  misunderstandings, and generally to vindicate the system of
  their master.

  § 182.22. =Writers on Constitutional Law and History.=--The most
  distinguished writers on the constitutional law of the church
  are Eichhorn and Dove of Göttingen, Jacobsen of Königsberg,
  Wasserschleben of Giessen, Richter and Hinschius of Berlin,
  Friedberg of Leipzig, who belong to the unionist party; while
  Bickell of Marburg, Mejer of Göttingen and Hanover, Von Scheuerl
  of Erlangen, and Sohm of Strassburg belong to the confessional
  Lutherans.--Of ecclesiastical historians (§ 5, 4, 5) the number
  is so great that we cannot even enumerate their names.--The
  “_Theologische Literaturzeitung_” of Schürer and Harnack
  is a liberal scientific journal, distinguished for its fair
  criticisms by writers whose names are given.


                         § 183. HOME MISSIONS.

  In regard to home mission work, the Protestant church long lagged
behind the Catholic, which had wrought vigorously through its monkish
orders. England first entered with zeal into the field, especially
dissenters and members of the low church party, and subsequently also
the high church ritualistic party (§ 202, 1, 3), which now takes an
active interest in this work. Germany, in view of the scanty means at
the disposal of the pietists and the church party, made noble efforts.
In other continental countries, but especially in North America, much
was done for home missions. Soon the whole Protestant world began
to organize benevolent and evangelistic institutions. The laborious
Wichern, in A.D. 1849, went through all Germany to arouse interest
in home missions, and started a yearly congress on the subject in
Wittenberg. Till his death in A.D. 1881, Wichern continued to direct
this congress and further the interests which it represented.

  § 183.1. =Institutions.=--The earliest charity school was that
  founded at Düsselthal by Count Recke-Volmarstein, in A.D. 1816,
  followed by Zeller’s at Beuggen in A.D. 1820. One of the most
  famous of these institutions was the =Rauhe Haus= of Wichern,
  at Horn, near Hamburg, A.D. 1833.[538] Fliedner’s Deaconess
  Institute at Kaiserswerth is the pride of the evangelical church.
  It has now 190 branches, with 625 sisters, in the four continents.
  There are many independent institutions modelled upon it in
  Germany, England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and France.
  In A.D. 1881 there were in Germany 31, and in the cities of other
  lands 22, principal deaconess institutions of this German order,
  with 4,751 sisters and 1,491 fields of labour outside of the
  institution. The original institute of Kaiserswerth comprises
  a hospital with 600 patients, a refuge for fallen women and
  liberated prisoners, an orphanage for girls, a seminary for
  governesses, and a home for female imbeciles.[539] Löhe founded
  the deaconess institute of =Neuendettelsau=, on strict Lutheran
  principles, with hospital, girls’ school, and asylum for imbecile
  children. In France a most successful institution was founded by
  pastor Bost of Laforce, in A.D. 1848, for foundlings, imbeciles,
  and epileptics. In England, George Müller, a poor German student
  of Halle, a pupil of Tholuck, beginning in A.D. 1832, founded at
  Bristol five richly endowed orphanages after the pattern of that
  of A. H. Francke, in which thousands of destitute street children
  have been educated, and for this and other purposes has spent
  nearly £1,000,000 without ever asking any one for a contribution,
  acting on the belief that “the God of Elijah still lives.”
  The London City Mission employs 600 missionaries. In New York,
  since A.D. 1855, about 60,000 street children have been placed,
  by the Society for Poor Children, in Christian families, and
  21 Industrial schools are maintained with 10,000 scholars.--Tract
  Societies in London, Hamburg, Berlin, etc., send out millions
  of tracts for Christian instruction and awakening. The Society
  for North Germany successfully pursues a similar work; the Calw
  Publication Society circulates Christian text-books with woodcuts
  at a remarkably small price. In Berlin the Evangelical Book
  Society issues reprints of the older tracts on practical divinity.
  Christian women, like the English Quakeress Elizabeth Fry, the
  noble Amalie Sieveking of Hamburg, Miss Florence Nightingale, the
  heroine of the Crimean war, and the brave Maria Simon of Dresden,
  who organized the female nursing corps of the wars of 1866,
  1870, 1871, helped on the work of home missions in all lands,
  especially in the departments of tending the poor and the sick.

  § 183.2. The =Order of St. John=, secularized in A.D. 1810,
  was reorganized by Frederick William IV. in A.D. 1852 into
  an association for the care of the sick and poor. Under a
  grand-master it has 350 members and 1,500 associates. Its
  revenues are formed from entrance fees and annual contributions.
  It has thirty hospitals. In A.D. 1861 it founded a hospital for
  men in Beyrout during the persecution of Christians in Syria, and
  in A.D. 1868 gave aid during the famine that followed the typhus
  epidemic in East Prussia, and did noble service in the wars of
  A.D. 1864, 1866, and 1870.

  § 183.3. =The Itinerant Preacher Gustav Werner in
  Württemberg.=--Abandoning his charge in A.D. 1840, Werner began
  his itinerant labours, and during the year formed more than a
  hundred groups of adherents over all Württemberg. His preaching
  was allegorical and eschatological, and avoided the doctrines of
  satisfaction and justification. On his repudiating the Augsburg
  Confession, the church boards refused to recognise him, and
  he went hither and thither preaching a Christian communism. In
  A.D. 1842 he bought a site in Reutlingen, built a house, and
  founded a school for eighty children. In order to develop his
  views of carrying on industrial arts on a Christian basis, he
  bought, in A.D. 1850, the paper factory at Reutlingen for £4,000,
  and subsequently transferred it to Dettingen on a larger scale,
  at an outlay of £20,000. By A.D. 1862 he had established no less
  than twenty-two branches, in which manufacturing was carried
  on, with institutions of all kinds for education, pastoral work,
  rescuing the lost and raising the fallen. Each member lives and
  works for the whole; none receives wages; surplus income goes
  to increase the number and extent of the institutions. Vast
  multitudes of sunken and destitute families have been by these
  means restored to respectable social positions and to a moral
  religious life.

  § 183.4. =Bible Societies.=--The Bible societies constitute
  an independent branch of the home mission. Modern efforts to
  circulate Scripture began in England. As a necessary adjunct to
  missionary societies, the great British and Foreign Bible Society
  was founded in London in A.D. 1804, embracing all Protestant
  sects, excepting the Quakers. It circulates Bibles without note
  or comment. The Apocryphal controversy of A.D. 1825-1827 resulted
  in the society resolving not to print the Apocrypha in its
  issues. In consequence of this decision, fifty German societies,
  including the present society of Berlin, seceded. The New York
  Association, founded in A.D. 1817, is in thorough accord with
  the London society. The Baden Missionary Society revived the
  discussion in A.D. 1852 by making it the subject of essay
  for a prize, which was won by the learned work of Keerl, who,
  along with the stricter Lutherans, condemned the Apocrypha.
  The other side was taken by Stier and Hengstenberg, and most
  of the consistories advised adherence to the old practice,
  as all misunderstanding was prevented by Luther’s preface and
  the prohibition against using passages from the Apocrypha as
  sermon texts.--Bible societies altogether have issued during
  the century 180,000,000 Bibles and New Testaments in 324
  different languages.[540]


                        § 184. FOREIGN MISSIONS.

  Protestant zeal for missions to the heathen has gone on advancing
since the end of last century (§ 172, 5). Missionary societies increase
from year to year. In A.D. 1883 there were seventy independent societies
with innumerable branches, which contribute annually about £1,500,000,
or five times as much as the Romish church, and maintain 2,000 mission
stations, 2,940 European and American missionaries, and 1,000 ordained
native pastors and 25,000 native teachers and assistants, having under
their care 2,214,000 converts from heathenism. In missionary enterprise
England holds the first place, next comes America, and then Germany.
Among Protestant sects the Methodists and Baptists are most zealous
in the cause of missions, and the Moravian Brethren have wrought
most successfully in this department. The missions also did much to
prepare the way for the suppression of the slave trade by the European
powers in A.D. 1830, and the emancipation of all slaves in the British
possessions in A.D. 1834, at a cost of £20,000,000. The noble English
philanthropist, William Wilberforce, unweariedly laboured for these
ends.--Also in England, Germany, Russia, and France new associations
were formed for missions to the Jews, and the work was carried on with
admirable patience, though the visible results were very small.

  § 184.1. =Missionary Societies.=--The great American Missionary
  Society was founded at Boston in A.D. 1810, the English Wesleyan
  in A.D. 1814, the American Methodist in A.D. 1819, the American
  Episcopal in A.D. 1820, and the Society of Paris in A.D. 1824.
  The new German societies were on confessional lines: that of
  Basel in A.D. 1816, of Berlin in A.D. 1823, the Rhenish with the
  mission seminary at Barmen in A.D. 1829, the North German, on
  the basis of the Augsburg Confession, in A.D. 1836. The Dresden
  Society, which resumed the old Lutheran work in the East Indies
  (§ 167, 9), founded a seminary at Leipzig in A.D. 1849, in order
  to get the benefit of the university. Lutheran societies, mostly
  affiliated with that of Leipzig, were started in Sweden, Denmark,
  Norway, Russia, Bavaria, Hanover, Mecklenburg, Hesse, and America.
  The Neuendettelsau Institute wrought through the Iowa Synod among
  the North American Indians, and through the Immanuel Synod among
  the aborigines of Australia. The Hermannsburg Institute under
  Harms prosecuted mission work with great zeal. In A.D. 1853,
  Harms sent out in his own mission ship eight missionaries and as
  many Christian colonists. It has been objected to this mission,
  that endeavours after social elevation and industrial training
  have driven to the background the main question of individual
  conversion.--The advanced liberal school in Switzerland and
  Germany sought in A.D. 1883 to start a mission on their own
  particular lines. They do not propose any opposition to existing
  agencies, and intend to make their first experiment among the
  civilized races of India and Japan.

  § 184.2. =Europe and America.=--The Swedish mission in Lapland
  (§ 160, 7) was resumed in A.D. 1825 by Stockfleth. The Moravians
  carried on their work among the Eskimos in Greenland, which had
  now become a wholly Christian country, and also in Labrador,
  which was almost in the same condition. The chaplain of the
  Hudson Bay Company, J. West, founded a successful mission in
  that territory in A.D. 1822. Among the natives and negro slaves
  in the British possessions, the United States, and West Indies,
  Moravians, Methodists, Baptists, and Anglican Episcopalians
  patiently and successfully carried on the work. Among the natives
  and bush negroes, descendants of runaway slaves, in Guiana, the
  Moravians did a noble work.--Catholic South America remained
  closed against Protestant missions. But the ardent zeal of
  Capt. Allen Gardiner led him to choose the inhospitable shores of
  Patagonia as a field of labour. He landed there in A.D. 1850 with
  five missionaries, but in the following year their corpses only
  were found. The work, however, was started anew in A.D. 1856, and
  prosecuted with success under the direction of an Anglican bishop.

  § 184.3. =Africa.=--The Moravians have laboured among the
  Hottentots, the Berlin missionaries among the wild Corannas,
  and the French Evangelical Society among the Bechuanas. Hahn
  of Livonia is the apostle of the Hereros. On the East Coast the
  London Missionary Society has wrought among the warlike Kaffirs,
  and other British societies are labouring in Natal among the
  Zulus. On the West Coast the English colony of Sierra Leone was
  founded for the settling and Christianizing of liberated slaves,
  and farther south is Liberia, a similar American colony; both in
  a flourishing condition, under the care of Methodists, Baptists,
  and Anglican Episcopalians. The Basel missionaries labour on the
  Gold Coast, Baptists in Old Calabar, and the American and North
  German Societies on the Gaboon River.--The London missionaries
  won Radama of Madagascar to Christianity in A.D. 1818, but his
  successor Ranavalona instituted a bloody persecution of the
  Christians in A.D. 1835, during which David Jones, the apostle
  of the Malagassy, suffered martyrdom in A.D. 1843. In the island
  of Mauritius, where there is an Anglican bishop, many Malagassy
  Christians found refuge. After the queen’s death in A.D. 1861,
  her Christian son Radama II. recalled the Christian exiles
  and the missionaries. He soon became the victim of a palace
  revolution. His wife and successor Rosaherina continued a heathen
  till her death in A.D. 1868, but put no obstacle in the way of
  the gospel. But her cousin Ranavalona II. overthrew the idol
  worship, was baptized in A.D. 1869, and in the following year
  burned the national idols. Protestantism now made rapid strides,
  till interrupted by French Jesuit intrigues, which have been
  favoured by the recent French occupation.

  § 184.4. Livingstone and Stanley have made marvellous
  contributions to our geographical knowledge of =Central Africa=
  and to Christian missions there. The Scottish missionary, David
  Livingstone, factory boy, afterwards physician and minister,
  wrought, A.D. 1840-1849, under the London Missionary Society in
  South Africa, and then entered on his life work of exploration
  in Central Africa. During his third exploring journey into the
  interior in A.D. 1865 as a British consul, he was not heard of
  for a whole year. H. M. Stanley, of the _New York Herald_, was
  sent in A.D. 1871, and found him in Ujiji on Lake Tanganyiká.
  Livingstone died of dysentery on the southern bank of this lake
  in A.D. 1873. Still more important was Stanley’s second journey,
  A.D. 1874-1877, which yielded the most brilliant scientific
  results, and was epoch-making in the history of African missions.
  He got the greatest potentate in those regions, King Mtesa of
  Uganda, who had been converted by the Arabs to Mohammedanism, to
  adopt Christianity and permit a Christian church to be built in
  his city. Stanley’s letters from Africa roused missionary fervour
  throughout England. The Church Missionary Society in A.D. 1877
  set up a mission station in the capital, and put a steamer
  on the Victoria Nyanza. The church services were regularly
  attended, education and the work of civilization zealously
  prosecuted, Sunday labour and the slave trade prohibited, etc.
  French Jesuits entered in A.D. 1879, insinuating suspicions
  of the English missionaries into the ear of the king, and the
  machinations of the Arab slave-dealers made their position
  dangerous. Missionaries arrived by way of Egypt with flattering
  recommendations from the English foreign secretary in the name
  of the queen. But the traders, by means of an Arabic translation
  of a letter purporting to be from the English consul at Zanzibar,
  cast suspicion on the document as a forgery, and represented its
  bearers as in the pay of the hostile Egyptians. Mtesa’s wrath
  knew no bounds, and only his favour for the missionary physician
  saved the mission and led him to send an embassy of three chiefs
  and two missionaries to England in June, A.D. 1879, to discover
  the actual truth. His anger meanwhile cooled, and the work of
  the mission was resumed. He was preparing to put an utter end
  to the national heathenism, when suddenly a report spread that
  the greatest of all the Lubaris or inferior deities, that of
  the Nyanza Lake, had become incarnate in an old woman, in order
  to heal the king and restore the ancient religion. The whole
  populace was in an uproar; Mtesa, under threat of deposition,
  restored heathenism, with human sacrifice, man stealing, and the
  slave trade. Then the Lubari excitement cooled down. Mtesa, moved
  by a dream, declared himself again a Mohammedan, and converted
  the Christian church into a mosque. The English missionaries,
  stripped of all means, starved, and subjected to all sorts of
  privations, did not flinch. At last, in January, A.D. 1881,
  the embassy, sent eighteen months before to England, reached
  home again, and, by the story of their reception, caused a
  revulsion of feeling in favour of the English mission, which
  again flourished under the protection of the king. But Mtesa died
  in 1884. His son and successor, Mwanga, a suspicious, peevish
  young despot, addicted to all forms of vice, began again the
  most cruel persecution, of which Bishop Hannington, sent out
  from England, with fifty companions, were the victims. Only
  four escaped.

  § 184.5. =Asia.=--The most important mission field in
  Asia is =India=. The old Lutheran mission there had great
  difficulties to contend against: the system of caste distinctions,
  the proud self-sufficiency of the pantheistic Brahmans, the
  politico-commercial interests of the East India Company, etc.
  The Leipzig Society has sixteen stations among the Tamuls, and
  alongside are English, American, and German missionaries of
  every school. The Gossner Society works among the Kohls of Chota
  Nagpore, where a rival mission has been started by the puseyite
  bishop of Calcutta, Dr. Milman, to which, in A.D. 1868, six
  of the twelve German missionaries and twelve of the thirty-six
  chapels were transferred. The Basel missionaries labour in Canara
  and Malabar. The military revolt in Northern India in A.D. 1857
  interrupted missionary operations for two years; but the work was
  afterwards resumed with great vigour. The Christian benevolence
  shown during the famine of A.D. 1878, in which three millions
  perished, made a great impression in favour of the Protestant
  church. In the preceding years throughout all India only between
  5,000 and 10, 000 souls were annually added; but in A.D. 1878 the
  number of new converts rose to 100,000, and in A.D. 1879 there
  were 44,000.--The island of =Ceylon= was, under Portuguese and
  Dutch rule, in great part nominally Christianized; but when
  compulsion was removed under British rule, this sham profession
  was at an end. Multitudes fell back into heathenism, and in the
  first ten years of the British dominion 900 new idol temples
  were erected. From A.D. 1812 Baptist, Methodist, and Anglican
  missionaries have toiled with small appearance of fruit. In
  =Farther India= the American missionaries have wrought since
  A.D. 1813. Judson and his heroic wife did noble work among the
  Karens and the Burmans. Also in Malacca, Singapore, and Siam
  the Protestant missions have had brilliant success. The work in
  Sumatra has been retarded by the opposition of the Malays and
  deadly malarial fever. The preaching of the gospel was eminently
  successful in =Java=, where since A.D. 1814 Baptist missionaries
  and agents of the London Society have wrought heroically.
  In Celebes the Dutch missionaries found twenty Christian
  congregations of old standing, greatly deteriorated for want
  of pastoral care, but still using the Heidelberg Catechism. At
  Banjermassin, in A.D. 1835 the Rhenish Society founded their
  first station in Borneo, and wrought not unsuccessfully among
  the heathen Dyaks. But in A.D. 1859 a rebellion of the Mohammedan
  residents led to the expulsion of the Dutch and the murder of all
  Christians. Only a few of the missionaries escaped martyrdom, and
  subsequently settled in Sumatra.

  § 184.6. The work in =China= began in A.D. 1807, when the London
  Missionary Society settled Morrison in Canton, where he began the
  study of the language and the translation of the Bible. Gutzlaff
  of Pomerania, in A.D. 1826, conceived the plan of evangelizing
  China through the Chinese converts, but, though he continued his
  efforts till his death in A.D. 1854, the scheme failed through
  the unworthiness of many of the professors. The war against the
  opium traffic, A.D. 1839-1842, opened five ports to the mission,
  and led to the transference of Hongkong to the English. The
  Chinese mission now made rapid strides; but the interior was
  still untouched. The conflict between the governor of Canton
  and the English, French, and Americans, and the chastisement
  administered to the Chinese in A.D. 1857, led the emperor, in
  A.D. 1858, to make a treaty with the three powers and also with
  Russia, by which the whole land was opened up for trade and
  missions, and full toleration granted to Christianity. Popular
  hatred of strangers, and especially of missionaries, however,
  occasioned frequently bloody encounters, and in A.D. 1870 there
  was a furious outburst directed against the French missionaries.
  During a terrible famine in North China, in A.D. 1878, when more
  than five millions perished, the heroic and self-sacrificing
  conduct of the missionaries brought them into high favour.
  Throughout China there are now 320 organized Christian
  congregations with 50,000 adherents under 238 foreign
  missionaries.--After seclusion for three centuries, =Japan=,
  about the same time as China, was opened by treaty to European
  and American commerce, notwithstanding the opposition of the
  old feudal nobility, the so-called Daimios. In A.D. 1871 the
  mikado’s government succeeded in overcoming completely the power
  of the daimios and setting aside the shiogun or military vizier,
  who had exercised supreme executive power. European customs were
  introduced, but the rigorous enactments against native converts
  to Christianity were still enforced. A cruel persecution
  of native Christians was carried on in A.D. 1867, but the
  Protestant missionaries continued to work unweariedly, preparing
  dictionaries and reading books. The Buddhist priests sought
  to get up a rival mission to send agents to America and Europe,
  whereas many of the leading newspapers expressed the opinion that
  Japan must soon put Christianity in the place of Buddhism as the
  state religion.

  § 184.7. =Polynesia and Australia.=--The flourishing Protestant
  church of Tahiti, the largest and finest of the Society Islands
  (§ 172, 5), suffered from the appearance of two French Jesuits
  in A.D. 1836. When Queen Pomare compelled them to withdraw,
  the French government, resenting this as an indignity to
  their nation, sent a fleet to attack the defenceless people,
  proclaimed a French protectorate, and introduced not only
  Catholic missionaries, but European vices. Amid much persecution,
  however, the Protestants held their own. In December, 1880,
  Pomare V. resigned, and the Society Islands became a dependency
  of France.--In the south-east groups great opposition was shown,
  but in the north-west Christianity made rapid progress. The
  island of Raiatea was the centre of the South Sea missions. There
  from A.D. 1819 John Williams, the apostle of the South Seas,
  wrought till he met a martyr’s death in A.D. 1839. He went from
  place to place in a mission ship built by his own hands. The
  Harvey Group were Christianized in A.D. 1821, and the Navigator
  Group in A.D. 1830. The French took the Marquesas Islands in
  A.D. 1838, and introduced Catholic missionaries. The attempt
  to evangelize the New Hebrides led to the death of Williams
  and two of his companions. Missionaries of the London Society,
  A.D. 1797-1799, had failed in the Friendly Islands through the
  savage character of the natives, but in A.D. 1822 the Methodists
  made a successful start. The gospel was carried thence to Fiji,
  which is now under British rule. Both groups have become almost
  wholly Christianized. The =Sandwich Islands= form a third mission
  centre, wrought by the American board. Kamehameha I. gladly
  adopted the elements of Christian civilization, though rejecting
  Christianity: while his successor Kamehameha II. in A.D. 1829
  abolished tabu and overthrew the idol temples. In A.D. 1851
  Christianity was adopted as the national religion. The work was
  more difficult in =New Zealand=, where the Church Missionary
  Society, represented by Samuel Marsden, the apostle of New
  Zealand, began operations in A.D. 1814. For ten years the
  position of the missionaries was most hazardous; yet they held
  on, and the conversion of the most bloodthirsty of the chiefs
  did much to advance their cause. In New Guinea the London Society
  has been making steady progress. Among the stolid natives of the
  continent of New Holland, the so called Papuans, the labours of
  the Moravians since A.D. 1849 have not yielded much fruit. Since
  A.D. 1875 the German-Australian Immanuel Synod, supported by
  Neuendettelsau, has laboured for the conversion of the heathen
  in the inland districts.

  § 184.8. =Missions to the Jews.=--In A.D. 1809 the London Society
  for Promoting Christianity among the Jews (§ 172, 5) was formed
  by a union of all denominations, but soon passed into the hands
  of the Anglicans. By the circulation of the Scriptures and
  tracts, and by the sending out of missionaries, mostly Jewish
  converts, the work was persevered in amid many discouragements.
  In A.D. 1818 Poland was opened to its missionaries, and there
  some 600 Jews were baptized. The society carried on its operations
  also in Germany, Holland, France, and Turkey. The work in Poland
  was interrupted by the Crimean war, and was not resumed till
  A.D. 1875. In Bessarabia Faltin has laboured successfully among
  the Jews since A.D. 1860. He was joined in the work in A.D. 1867
  by the converted Rabbi Gurland, who had studied theology at Halle
  and Berlin. In A.D. 1871 Gurland accepted a call to similar work
  in Courland and Lithuania, and since A.D. 1876 has been Lutheran
  pastor at Mitau. In A.D. 1841 the evangelical bishopric of
  St. James was founded in Jerusalem by the English and Prussian
  governments conjointly, presentations to be made alternately, but
  the ordination to be according to the Anglican rite. The first
  bishop was Alexander, a Jewish convert. He died in A.D. 1845 and
  was succeeded by the zealous missionary Gobat, elected by the
  Prussian government. He died in A.D. 1879 and was succeeded
  by Barclay, who died in A.D. 1881. It was now again Prussia’s
  turn to make an appointment. The English demand to have Lutheran
  ministers ordained successively deacon, presbyter, and bishop
  had given offence, and so no new appointment has been made. In
  June 1886 the English-Prussian compact was formally cancelled
  and a proposal made to found an independent Prussian Evangelical
  bishopric.

  § 184.9. =Missions among the Eastern Churches.=--In A.D. 1815
  the Church Missionary Society founded a missionary emporium in
  the island of Malta, as a tract depôt for the evangelizing the
  East; and in A.D. 1846 the Malta Protestant College was erected
  for training native missionaries, teachers, physicians, etc., for
  work in the various oriental countries. In the Ionian islands, in
  Constantinople, and in Greece, British and American missionaries
  began operations in A.D. 1819 by erecting schools and circulating
  the scriptures. At first the orthodox clergy were favourable, but
  as the work progressed they became actively hostile, and only two
  mission schools in Syra and Athens were allowed to continue. In
  Syria the Americans made Beyrout their head quarters in A.D. 1824,
  but the work was interrupted by the Turco-Egyptian conflicts.
  Subsequently, however, it flourished more and more, and, before
  the Syrian massacre of A.D. 1860 (§ 207, 2), there were nine
  prosperous stations in Syria. The founding of the Jerusalem
  bishopric in A.D. 1841, and the issuing of the Hatti-Humayun
  in A.D. 1856 (§ 207, 2), induced the Church Missionary Society
  to make more vigorous efforts which, however, were afterwards
  abandoned for want of success. Down to the outbreak of the
  persecution of Syrian Christians in A.D. 1860, this society
  had five flourishing stations. From A.D. 1831 the Americans
  had wrought zealously and successfully among the Armenians in
  Constantinople and neighbourhood, but in A.D. 1845 the Armenian
  patriarch excited a violent persecution which threatened
  the utter overthrow of the work. The British ambassador,
  Sir Stratford de Redcliffe, however, insisted upon the Porte
  recognising the rights of the Protestant Armenians as an
  independent religious denomination, and since then the missions
  have prospered. Among the Nestorians in Turkey and Persia the
  Americans, with Dr. Grant at their head, began operations in
  A.D. 1834; but through Jesuit intrigues the suspicions of the
  Kurds and Turks were excited, and in A.D. 1843 and 1846 a war
  of extermination was waged against the mountain Nestorians,
  which annihilated the Protestant missions among them. Operations,
  however, have been recommenced with encouraging success. Among
  the deeply degraded Copts in Egypt, and extending from them into
  Abyssinia, the Moravians had been working without any apparent
  result from A.D. 1752 to A.D. 1783. In A.D. 1826 the Church
  Missionary Society, under German missionaries trained at Basel
  (Gobat, Irenberg, Krapf [Krapff], etc.), took up the work, till
  it was stopped by the government in A.D. 1837. In A.D. 1855
  the Basel missionaries began again to work in Abyssinia with
  the approval of King Theodore. This state of things soon changed.
  Theodore’s ambition was to conquer Egypt and overthrow Islam.
  But when in A.D. 1863 this scheme only called forth threats from
  London and Paris, he gave loose rein to his natural ferocity
  and put the English consul and the German missionaries in chains.
  By means of an armed expedition in A.D. 1868, England compelled
  the liberation of the prisoners, and Theodore put an end to his
  own life. After the withdrawal of the English the country was
  desolated by civil wars, and at the close of these troubles in
  A.D. 1878 the mission resumed its operations.




                      III. Catholicism in General.


            § 185. THE PAPACY AND THE STATES OF THE CHURCH.

  The papacy, humiliated but not destroyed by Napoleon I., was in
A.D. 1814 by the aid of princes of all creeds restored to the full
possession of its temporal and spiritual authority, and amid many
difficulties it reasserted for the most part successfully its
hierarchical claims in the Catholic states and in those whose
Protestantism and Catholicism were alike tolerated. Many severe
blows indeed were dealt to the papacy even in the Roman states by
revolutionary movements, yet political reaction generally by-and-by put
the church in a position as good if not better than it had before. But
while on this side the Alps, especially since the outbreak of A.D. 1848,
ultramontanism gained one victory after another in its own domain, in
Italy, it suffered one humiliation after another; and while the Vatican
Council, which put the crown upon its idolatrous assumptions (§ 189, 3),
was still sitting, the whole pride of its temporal sovereignty was
shattered: the States of the Church were struck out of the number of the
European powers, and Rome became the capital and residence of the prince
of Sardinia as king of United Italy. But reverence for the pope now
reached a height among catholic nations which it had never anywhere
attained before.

  § 185.1. =The First Four Popes of the Century.=--Napoleon as
  First Consul of the French Republic, in A.D. 1801 concluded a
  concordat with =Pius VII.=, A.D. 1800-1823, who under Austrian
  protection was elected pope at Venice, whereby the pope was
  restored to his temporal and spiritual rights, but was obliged
  to abandon his hierarchical claims over the church of France
  (§ 203, 1). He crowned the consul emperor of the French at Paris
  in A.D. 1804, but when he persisted in the assertion of his
  hierarchical principles, Napoleon in A.D. 1808 entered the papal
  territories, and in May, A.D. 1809, formally repudiated the
  donation of “his predecessor” Charlemagne. The pope treated the
  offered payment of two million francs as an insult, threatened
  the emperor with the ban, and in July, A.D. 1809, was imprisoned
  at Savona, and in A.D. 1812 was taken to Fontainebleau. He
  refused for a time to give canonical institution to the bishops
  nominated by the emperor, and though at last he yielded and
  agreed to reside in France, he soon withdrew his concession,
  and the complications of A.D. 1813 constrained the emperor, on
  February 14th, to set free the pope and the Papal States. In May
  the pope again entered Rome. One of his first official acts was
  the restoration of the Jesuits by the bull _Sollicitudo omnium_,
  as by the unanimous request of all Christendom. The Congregation
  of the Index was again set up, and during the course of the year
  737 charges of heresy were heard before the tribunal of the holy
  office. All sales of church property were pronounced void, and
  1,800 monasteries and 600 nunneries were reclaimed. In A.D. 1815
  the pope formally protested against the decision of the Vienna
  Congress, especially against the overthrow of the spiritual
  principalities in the German empire (§ 192, 1). Equally fruitless
  was his demand for the restoration of Avignon (§ 165, 15).
  In A.D. 1816 he condemned the Bible societies as a plague to
  Christendom, and renewed the prohibition of Bible translations.
  His diplomatic schemes were determined by his able secretary
  Cardinal Consalvi, who not only at the Vienna Congress, but also
  subsequently by several concordats secured the fullest possible
  expression to the interests and claims of the curia.--His
  successor was =Leo XII.=, A.D. 1823-1829, who, more strict in
  his civil administration than his predecessor, condemned Bible
  societies, renewed the Inquisition prosecutions, for the sake
  of gain celebrated the jubilee in A.D. 1825, ordered prayers
  for uprooting of heresy, rebuilt the Ghetto wall of Rome,
  overturned during the French rule (§ 95, 3), which marked off
  the Jews’ quarter, till Pius IX. again threw it down in A.D. 1846.
  After the eight months’ reign of =Pius VIII.=, A.D. 1829-1830,
  =Gregory XVI.=, A.D. 1831-1846, ascended the papal throne, and
  sought amid troubles at home and abroad to exalt to its utmost
  pitch the hierarchical idea. In A.D. 1832 he issued an encyclical,
  in which he declared irreconcilable war against modern science
  as well as against freedom of conscience and the press, and his
  whole pontificate was a consistent carrying out of this principle.
  He encountered incessant opposition from liberal and revolutionary
  movements in his own territory, restrained only by Austrian
  and French military interference, A.D. 1832-1838, and from the
  rejection of his hierarchical schemes by Spain, Portugal, Prussia,
  and Russia.[541]

  § 185.2. =Pius IX., A.D. 1846-1878.=--Count Mastai Feretti in
  his fifty-fourth year succeeded Gregory on 16th June, and took
  the name of Pius IX. While in ecclesiastical matters he seemed
  willing to hold by the old paths and distinctly declared against
  Bible societies, he favoured reform in civil administration
  and encouraged the hopes of the liberals who longed for the
  independence and unity of Italy. But this only awakened the
  thunder storm which soon burst upon his own head. The far
  resounding cry of the jubilee days, “_Evviva Pio Nono!_” ended
  in the pope’s flight to Gaeta in November, 1848; and in February,
  1849, the Roman Republic was proclaimed. The French Republic,
  however, owing to the threatening attitude of Austria, hastened
  to take Rome and restore the temporal power of the pope. Amid the
  convulsions of Italy, Pius could not return to Rome till April,
  1850, where he was maintained by French and Austrian bayonets.
  Abandoning his liberal views, the pope now put himself more and
  more under the influence of the Jesuits, and his absolutist and
  reactionary politics were directed by Card. Antonelli. From his
  exile at Gaeta he had asked the opinion of the bishops of the
  whole church regarding the immaculate conception of the blessed
  Virgin, to whose protection he believed that he owed his safety.
  The opinions of 576 were favourable, resting on Bible proofs:
  Genesis iii. 15, Song of Sol. iv. 7, 12, and Luke i. 28; but some
  French and German bishops were strongly opposed. The question was
  now submitted for further consideration to various congregations,
  and finally the consenting bishops were invited to Rome to settle
  the terms of the doctrinal definition of the new dogma. After
  four secret sessions it was acknowledged by acclamation, and
  on 8th December, 1854 (§ 104, 7), the pope read in the Sixtine
  chapel the bull _Ineffabilis_ and placed a brilliant diadem
  on the head of the image of the queen of heaven. The disciples
  of St. Thomas listened in silence to this aspersion of their
  master’s orthodoxy; no heed was paid to two isolated individual
  voices that protested; the bishops of all Catholic lands
  proclaimed the new dogma, the theologians vindicated it, and the
  spectacle-loving people rejoiced in the pompous Mary-festival.
  The pope’s next great performance was the encyclical, _Quanta
  cura_, of December 8th, 1864, and the accompanying syllabus
  cataloguing in eighty-four propositions all the errors of the
  day, by which not only the antichristian and anti-ecclesiastical
  tendencies, but also claims for freedom of belief and worship,
  liberty of the press and science, the state’s independence of the
  church, the equality of the laity and clergy in civil matters, in
  short all the principles of modern political and social life, were
  condemned as heretical. Three years later the centenary of Peter
  (§ 16, 1) brought five hundred bishops to Rome, with other clergy
  and laymen from all lands. The enthusiasm for the papal chair
  was such that the pope was encouraged to convoke an œcumenical
  council. The jubilee of his consecration as priest in A.D. 1869
  brought him congratulatory addresses signed by one and a half
  millions, filled the papal coffers, attracted an immense number
  of visitors to Rome, and secured to all the votaries gathered
  there a complete indulgence. On the Vatican Council which met
  during that same year, see § 189.[542]

  § 185.3. =The Overthrow of the Papal States.=--In the Peace of
  Villafranca of 1859, which put an end to the short Austro-French
  war in Italy, a confederation was arranged of all the Italian
  princes under the honorary presidency of the pope for drawing up
  the future constitution of Italy. During the war the Austrians
  had vacated Bologna, but the French remained in Rome to protect
  the pope. The revolution now broke out in Romagna. Victor Emanuel,
  king of Sardinia, was proclaimed dictator for the time over that
  part of the Papal States and a provisional government was set
  up. In vain did the pope remind Christendom in an encyclical
  of the necessity of maintaining his temporal power, in vain
  did he thunder his _excommunicatio major_ against all who would
  contribute to its overthrow. A pamphlet war against the temporal
  power now began, and About’s letters in the _Moniteur_ described
  with bitter scorn the incapacity of the papal government. In his
  pamphlet, “_Le Pope et le Congrès_,” Laguéronnière proposed to
  restrict the pope’s sovereignty to Rome and its neighbourhood,
  levy a tax for the support of the papal court on all Catholic
  nations, and leave Rome undisturbed by political troubles. On
  December 31st, 1859, Napoleon III. exhorted the pope to yield
  to the logic of facts and to surrender the provinces that refused
  any longer to be his. The pope then issued a rescript in which
  he declared that he could never give up what belonged not to
  him but to the church. The popular vote in Romagna went almost
  unanimously for annexation to Sardinia, and this, in spite of
  the papal ban, was done. A revolution broke out in Umbria and
  the March of Ancona, and Victor Emanuel without more ado attached
  these states also to his dominion in A.D. 1860, so that only
  Rome and the Campagna were retained by the pope, and even these
  only by means of French support. At the September convention of
  A.D. 1864 Italy undertook to maintain the papal domain intact,
  to permit the organization of an independent papal army, and to
  contribute to the papal treasury; while France was to quit Roman
  territory within at the latest two years. The pope submitted
  to what he could not prevent, but still insisted upon his most
  extreme claims, answered every attempt at conciliation with
  his stereotyped _non possumus_, and in A.D. 1866 proclaimed
  St. Catherine of Siena (§ 112, 4) patron of the “city.” When
  the last of the French troops took ship in A.D. 1866 the radical
  party thought the time had come for freeing Italy from papal rule,
  and roused the whole land by public proclamation. Garibaldi again
  put himself at the head of the movement. The Papal State was
  soon encircled by bands of volunteers, and insurrections broke
  out even within Rome itself. Napoleon pronounced this a breach
  of the September convention, and in A.D. 1867 the volunteers
  were utterly routed by the French at Mentana. The French guarded
  Civita Vecchia and fortified Rome. But in August, 1870, their own
  national exigencies demanded the withdrawal of the French troops,
  and after the battle of Sedan the Italians to a man insisted
  on having Rome as their capital, and Victor Emanuel acquiesced.
  The pope sought help far and near from Catholic and non-Catholic
  powers, but he received only the echo of his own words, _non
  possumus_. After a four hours’ cannonade a breach was made in the
  walls of the eternal city, the white flag appeared on St. Angelo,
  and amid the shouts of the populace the Italian troops entered
  on September 20th, 1870. A plebiscite in the papal dominions gave
  133,681 votes in favour of annexation and 1,507 against; in Rome
  alone there were 40,785 for and only 46 against. The king now
  issued the decree of incorporation; Rome became capital of united
  Italy and the Quirinal the royal residence.

  § 185.4. =The Prisoner of the Vatican, A.D. 1870-1878.=--The
  dethroned papal king could only protest and utter denunciations.
  No result followed from the adoption of St. Joseph as guardian
  and patron of the church, nor from the solemn consecration of the
  whole world to the most sacred heart of Jesus, at the jubilee of
  June 16th, A.D. 1875. The measures of A.D. 1871, by which Cavour
  sought to realize his ideal of a “free church in a free state,”
  were pronounced absurd, cunning, deceitful, and an outrage on
  the apostles Peter and Paul. By these measures the rights and
  privileges of a sovereign for all time had been conferred on the
  pope: the holiness and inviolability of his person, a body-guard,
  a post and telegraph bureau, free ambassadorial communication
  with foreign powers, the _ex-territoriality_ of his palace of
  the Vatican, embracing fifteen large saloons, 11,500 rooms,
  236 stairs, 218 corridors, two chapels, several museums, archives,
  libraries, large beautiful gardens, etc., as also of the Lateran
  and the summer palace of Castle Gandolpho, with all appurtenances,
  also an annual income, free from all burdens and taxes, of three
  and a quarter million francs, equal to the former amount of
  his revenue, together with unrestricted liberty in the exercise
  of all ecclesiastical rights of sovereignty and primacy, and
  the renunciation of all state interference in the disposal of
  bishoprics and benefices. The right of the inferior clergy to
  exercise the _appellatio ab abusu_ to a civil tribunal was set
  aside, and of all civil rights only that of the royal _exequatur_
  in the election of bishops, _i.e._ the mere right of investing
  the nominee of the curia in the possession of the revenues of
  his office, was retained.--To the end of his life Pius every year
  returned the dotation as an insult and injury, and “the starving
  holy father in prison, who has not where to lay his head,”
  received three or four times more in Peter’s pence contributed
  by all Catholic Christendom. Playing the _rôle_ of a prisoner
  he never passed beyond the precincts of the Vatican. He reached
  the semi-jubilee of his papal coronation in A.D. 1871, being
  the first pope who falsified the old saying, _Annos Petri non
  videbit_. He rejected the offer of a golden throne and the
  title of “the great,” but he accepted a Parisian lady’s gift of
  a golden crown of thorns. In support of the prison myth, straws
  from the papal cell were sold in Belgium for half a franc per
  stalk, and for the same price photographs of the pope behind
  an iron grating. As once on a time the legend arose about the
  disciple whom Jesus loved that he would not die, so was it
  once said about the pope; and on his eighty-third birthday, in
  A.D. 1874, a Roman Jesuit paper, eulogising the moral purity of
  his life, put the words in his mouth, “Which of you convinceth
  me of sin?” But he himself by constantly renewed rescripts,
  encyclicals, briefs, allocutions to the cardinals and to numerous
  deputations from far and near, unweariedly fanned the flame of
  enthusiasm and fanaticism throughout papal Christendom, and
  thundered threatening prophecies not only against the Italian,
  but also against foreign states, for with most of them he lived
  in open war. A collection of his “Speeches delivered at the
  Vatican” was published in 1874, commented on by Gladstone in
  the _Contemporary Review_ for January, 1875, who gives abundant
  quotations showing papal assumptions, maledictions, abuse and
  misunderstanding of the Scriptures with which they abound. On
  the fiftieth anniversary of the pope’s episcopal consecration,
  in June, 1877, crowds from all lands assembled to offer their
  congratulations, with costly presents and Peter’s pence amounting
  to sixteen and a half million francs. He died February 8th, 1878,
  in the eighty-sixth year of his age and thirty-second of his
  pontificate. His heirs claimed the unpaid dotations of twenty
  million lire, but were refused by the courts of law.[543]--His
  secretary Antonelli, descended from an old brigand family,
  who from the time of his stay at Gaeta was his evil demon,
  predeceased him in A.D. 1876. Though the son of a poor herdsman
  and woodcutter, he left more than a hundred million lire. His
  natural daughter, to the great annoyance of the Vatican, sought,
  but without success, in the courts of justice to make good her
  claims against her father’s greedy brothers.

  § 185.5. =Leo XIII.=--After only two days’ conclave the
  Cardinal-archbishop of Perugia, Joachim Pecci, born in A.D. 1810,
  was proclaimed on February 20th, 1878, as Leo XIII. In autograph
  letters he intimated his accession to the German and Russian
  emperors, but not to the king of Italy, and expressed his
  wish for a good mutual understanding. To the government of the
  Swiss Cantons he declared his hope that their ancient friendly
  relations might be restored. At Easter, 1878, he issued an
  encyclical to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops,
  in which he required of them that they should earnestly entreat
  the mediation of the “immaculate queen of heaven” and the
  intercession of St. Joseph, “the heavenly shield of the church,”
  and also failed not to make prominent the infallibility of
  the apostolic chair, and to condemn all the errors condemned
  by his predecessors, emphasizing the necessity of restoring the
  temporal power of the pope, and confirming and renewing all the
  protests of his predecessor Pius IX., of sacred memory, against
  the overthrow of the Papal States. On the first anniversary of
  his elevation he proclaimed a universal jubilee, with the promise
  of a complete indulgence. He still persisted in the prison
  myth of his predecessor, and like him sent back the profferred
  contribution of his “jailor.” In the conflicts with foreign
  powers inherited from Pius, as well as in his own, he has
  employed generally moderate and conciliatory language.--He has
  not hesitated to take the first step toward a good understanding
  with his opponents, for which, while persistently maintaining
  the ancient principles of the papal chair, he makes certain
  concessions in regard to subordinate matters, always with
  the design and expectation of seeing them outweighed on the
  other side by the conservation of all the other hierarchical
  pretensions of the curial system. It was, however, only in
  the middle of A.D. 1885 that it became evident that the pope
  had determined, without allowing any misunderstanding to arise
  between himself and his cardinals, to break through the trammels
  of the irreconcilable zealots in the college. And indeed after
  the conclusion of the German _Kulturkampf_ (§ 197, 13, 15),
  brought about by these means, in an allocution with reference
  thereto addressed to the cardinals in May, 1887, he gave an
  unexpected expression to his wish and longing in regard to an
  understanding with the government on the Italian question, which
  involved an utter renunciation of his predecessor’s dogged _Non
  possumus_, the attitude hitherto unfalteringly maintained. “Would
  that peaceful counsels,” says he, “embracing all our peoples
  should prevail in Italy also, and that at last once that unhappy
  difference might be overcome without loss of privilege to the
  holy see!” Such harmony, indeed, is only possible when the pope
  “is subjected to no authority and enjoys perfect freedom,” which
  would cause no loss to Italy, “but would only secure its lasting
  peace and safety.” That he counts upon the good offices of the
  German emperor for the effecting of this longed-for restoration
  of such a _modus vivendi_ with the Italian government, he
  has clearly indicated in his preliminary communications to the
  Prussian centre exhorting to peace (§ 197, 14). The _Moniteur
  de Rome_ (§ 188, 1), however, interpreted the words of the pope
  thus: “Italy would lose nothing materially or politically, if
  it gave a small corner of its territory to the pope, where he
  might enjoy actual sovereignty as a guarantee of his spiritual
  independence.”--On Leo’s contributions to theological science
  see § 191, 12; on his attitude to Protestantism and the Eastern
  Church, see § 175, 2, 4. He expressed himself against the
  freemasons in an encyclical of A.D. 1884 with even greater
  severity than Pius. Consequently the Roman Inquisition issued
  an instruction to all bishops throughout the Catholic world
  requiring them to enjoin their clergy in the pulpit and the
  confessional to make it known that all freemasons are _eo ipso_
  excommunicated, and by Catholic associations of every sort,
  especially by the spread of the third order of St. Francis
  (§ 186, 2), the injunction was carried out. At the same time a
  year’s reprieve was given to the freemasons, during which the
  Roman heresy laws, which required their children, wives, and
  relatives to denounce them to all clergy and laymen, were to be
  suspended. Should the guilty, however, allow this day of grace
  to pass, these laws were to be again fully enforced, and then it
  would be only for the pope to absolve them from their terrible sin.


                § 186. VARIOUS ORDERS AND ASSOCIATIONS.

  The order of the Jesuits restored in A.D. 1814 by Pius VII.
impregnated all other orders with its spirit, gained commanding
influence over Pius IX., made the bishops its agents, and turned the
whole Catholic church into a Jesuit institution. An immense number
of societies arose aiming at the accomplishment of home mission work,
inspired by the Jesuit spirit and carrying out unquestioningly the
ultramontane ideas of their leaders. Also zeal for foreign missions
on old Jesuit lines revived, and the enthusiasm for martyrdom was due
mainly to the same cause.

  § 186.1. =The Society of Jesus and Related Orders.=--After the
  suppression of their order by Clement XIV. the Jesuits found
  refuge mainly among the =Redemptorists= (§ 165, 2), whose
  headquarters were at Vienna, from which they spread through
  Austria and Bavaria, finding entrance also into Switzerland,
  France, Belgium, and Holland, and after 1848 into Catholic
  Prussia, as well as into Hesse and Nassau. The =Congregation
  of the Sacred Heart= was founded by ex-Jesuits in Belgium
  in A.D. 1794, and soon spread in Austria and Bavaria.--The
  =restored Jesuit order= was met with a storm of opposition from
  the liberals. The July revolution of A.D. 1830 drove the Jesuits
  from France, and when they sought to re-establish themselves,
  Gregory XVI., under pressure of the government, insisted that
  their general should abolish the French institutions in A.D. 1845.
  An important branch of the order had settled in Catholic
  Switzerland, but the unfavourable issue of the Separated Cantons’
  War of 1847 drove its members out of that refuge. The revolution
  of 1848 threatened the order with extinction, but the papal
  restoration of A.D. 1850 re-introduced it into most Catholic
  countries. Since then the sons of Loyola have renewed their
  youth like the eagle. They have forced their way into all lands,
  even in those on both sides of the ocean that had by legislative
  enactments been closed against them, spreading ultramontane views
  among Catholics, converting Protestants, and disseminating their
  principles in schools and colleges. Even Pius IX., under whose
  auspices Aug. Theiner had been allowed, in A.D. 1853, in his
  “History of the Pontificate of Clement XIV.” to bring against
  them the heavy artillery drawn from “the secret archives of the
  Vatican,” again handed over to them the management of public
  instruction, and surrendered himself even more and more to their
  influence, so that at last he saw only by their eyes, heard only
  with their ears, and resolved only according to their will.[544]
  The founding of the Italian kingdom under the Prince of Sardinia
  in A.D. 1860 led to their expulsion from all Italy, with the
  exception of Venice and the remnants of the Papal States. When,
  in A.D. 1866, Venice also became an Italian province, they
  migrated thence into the Tyrol and other Austrian provinces,
  where they enjoyed the blessings of the concordat (§ 198, 2).
  Spain, too, on the expulsion of Queen Isabella in A.D. 1868, and
  even Mexico and several of the States of Central and Southern
  America, drove out the disciples of Loyola. On the other hand,
  they made brilliant progress in Germany, especially in Rhenish
  Hesse and the Catholic provinces of Prussia. But under the
  new German empire the Reichstag, in A.D. 1872, passed a law
  suppressing the Jesuits and all similar orders throughout the
  empire (§ 197, 4). They were also formally expelled from France
  in A.D. 1880 (§ 203, 6). Still, however, in A.D. 1881 the order
  numbered 11,000 members in five provinces, and according to
  Bismarck’s calculation in A.D. 1872 their property amounted to
  280 million thalers. In A.D. 1853 John Beckx of Belgium was made
  general. He retired in A.D. 1884 at the age of ninety, Anderlady,
  a Swiss, having been appointed in A.D. 1883 his colleague and
  successor.--The hope which was at first widely entertained
  that Leo XIII. would emancipate himself from the domination of
  the order seems more and more to be proved a vain delusion. In
  July, 1886, he issued, on the occasion of a new edition of the
  institutions of the order, a letter to Anderlady, in which he,
  in the most extravagant manner, speaks of the order as having
  performed the most signal services “to the church and society,”
  and confirms anew everything that his predecessors had said and
  done in its favour, while expressly and formally he recalls anew
  anything that any of them had said and done against it.

  § 186.2. =Other Orders and Congregations.=--After the storms of
  the revolution religious orders rapidly recovered lost ground.
  France decreed, on November 2nd, 1789, the abolition of all
  orders, and cloisters and in 1802, under Napoleon’s auspices,
  they were also suppressed in the German empire and the friendly
  princes indemnified with their goods. Yet on grounds of utility
  Napoleon restored the Lazarists, as well as the Sisters of Mercy,
  whose scattered remnants he collected in A.D. 1807 in Paris into
  a general chapter, under the presidency of the empress-mother.
  But new cloisters in great numbers were erected specially in
  Belgium and France (in opposition to the law of 1789, which was
  unrepealed), in Austria, Bavaria, Prussia, Rhenish Hesse, etc.,
  as also in England and America. In 1849 there were in Prussia
  fifty monastic institutes; in 1872 there were 967. In Cologne one
  in every 215, in Aachen one in every 110, in Münster one in every
  sixty-one, in Paderborn one in every thirty-three, was a Catholic
  priest or member of an order. In Bavaria, between 1831 and 1873
  the number of cloisters rose from 43 to 628, all, with the
  exception of some old Benedictine monasteries, inspired and
  dominated by the Jesuits. Even the Dominicans, originally such
  determined opponents, are now pervaded by the Jesuit spirit. The
  restoration of the =Trappist order= (§ 156, 8) deserves special
  mention. On their expulsion from La Trappe in A.D. 1791 the
  brothers found an asylum in the Canton Freiburg, and when driven
  thence by the French invasion of A.D. 1798, Paul I. obtained from
  the czar permission for them to settle in White Russia, Poland,
  and Lithuania. But expelled from these regions again in A.D. 1800
  they wandered through Europe and America, till after Napoleon’s
  defeat they purchased back the monastery of La Trappe, and made
  it the centre of a group of new settlements throughout France
  and beyond it.--Besides regular orders there were also numerous
  =congregations= or religious societies with communal life
  according to a definite but not perpetually binding rule, and
  without the obligation of seclusion, as well as =brotherhoods=
  and =sisterhoods= without any such rule, which after the
  restoration of A.D. 1814 in France and after A.D. 1848 in Germany,
  were formed for the purposes of prayer, charity, education,
  and such like. From France many of these spread into the Rhine
  Provinces and Westphalia.--In Spain and Portugal (§ 205, 1, 5)
  all orders were repeatedly abolished, subsequently also in
  Sardinia and even in all Italy (§ 204, 1, 2), and also in several
  Romish American states (§ 209, 1, 2), as also in Prussia and
  Hesse (§ 197, 8, 15). Finally the third French Republic has
  enforced existing laws against all orders and congregations not
  authorized by the State (§ 203, 6).--On the 700th anniversary of
  the birth of St. Francis, in September, 1882, Leo XIII. issued an
  encyclical declaring the institute of the Franciscan Tertiaries
  (§ 98, 11) alone capable of saving human society from all the
  political and social dangers of the present and future, which had
  some success at least in Italy.

  Of what inhuman barbarity the superiors of cloisters are still
  capable is shown _instar omnium_ in the horrible treatment of the
  nun =Barbara Ubryk=, who, avowedly on account of a breach of her
  vow of chastity, was confined since A.D. 1848 in the cloister of
  the Carmelite nuns at Cracow in a dark, narrow cell beside the
  sewer of the convent, without fire, bed, chair, or table. It was
  only in A.D. 1869, in consequence of an anonymous communication
  to the law officers, that she was freed from her prison in a
  semi-animal condition, quite naked, starved, and covered with
  filth, and consigned to an asylum. The populace of Cracow,
  infuriated at such conduct, could be restrained from demolishing
  all the cloisters only by the aid of the military.

  § 186.3. =The Pius Verein.=--A society under the name of the Pius
  Verein was started at Mainz in October, 1848, to further Catholic
  interests, advocating the church’s independence of the State,
  the right of the clergy to direct education, etc. At the annual
  meetings its leading members boasted in grossly exaggerated terms
  of what had been accomplished and recklessly prophesied of what
  would yet be achieved. At the twenty-eighth general assembly
  at Bonn in A.D. 1881, with an attendance of 1,100, the same
  confident tone was maintained. Windhorst reminded the Prussian
  government of the purchase of the Sibylline books, and declared
  that each case of breaking off negotiations raised the price
  of the peace. Not a tittle of the ultramontane claims would be
  surrendered. The watchword is the complete restoration of the
  _status quo ante_. Baron von Loë, president of the Canisius
  Verein, concluded his triumphant speech with the summons to
  raise the membership of the union from 80,000 to 800,000, yea
  to 8,000,000; then would the time be near when Germany should
  become again a Catholic land and the church again the leader of
  the people. At the assembly at Düsseldorf in A.D. 1883, Windhorst
  declared, amid the enthusiastic applause of all present, that
  after the absolute abrogation of the May laws the centre would
  not rest till education was again committed unreservedly to the
  church. In the assembly at Münster in A.D. 1885, he extolled
  the pope (notwithstanding all confiscation and imprisoning for
  the time being) as the governor and lord of the whole world.
  The thirty-third assembly at Breslau in A.D. 1886, with special
  emphasis, demanded the recall of all orders, including that of
  the Jesuits.

  § 186.4. =The various German unions= gradually fell under
  ultramontane influences. The Borromeo Society circulated Catholic
  books inculcating ultramontane views in politics and religion.
  The Boniface Union, founded by Martin, Bishop of Paderborn,
  aided needy Catholic congregations in Protestant districts. Other
  unions were devoted to foreign missions, to work among Germans in
  foreign lands, etc. In all the universities such societies were
  formed. In Bavaria patriot peasant associations were set on foot,
  as a standing army in the conflict of the ultramontane hierarchy
  with the new German empire. For the same purpose Bishop Ketteler
  founded in A.D. 1871 the Mainz Catholic Union, which in A.D. 1814
  had 90,000 members. The Görres Society of 1876 (§ 188, 1) and
  the Canisius Society of 1879 (§ 151, 1) were meant to promote
  education on ultramontane lines.--In =Italy= such societies
  have striven for the restoration of the temporal power and the
  supremacy of the church over the State. The unions of =France=
  were confederated in A.D. 1870, and this general association
  holds an annual congress. The several unions were called
  “_œuvres_.” The _Œuvre du Vœu National_, _e.g._, had the task
  of restoring penitent France to the “sacred heart of Jesus”
  (§ 188, 12); the _Œuvre Pontifical_ made collections of Peter’s
  pence and for persecuted priests; the _Œuvre de Jesus-Ouvrier_
  had to do with the working classes, etc.

  § 186.5. The knowledge of the omnipotence of =capital= in
  these days led to various proposals for turning it to account
  in the interests of Catholicism. The Catholic Bank schemes of
  the Belgian Langrand-Dumonceau in 1872 and the Munich bank were
  pure swindles; and that of Adele Spitzeder 1869-1872, pronounced
  “holy” by the clergy and ultramontane press, collapsed with
  a deficit of eight and a quarter million florins.--Archbishop
  Purcell of Cincinnati invited church members to avoid risk to
  bank with him. He invested in land, advanced money for building
  churches, cloisters, schools, etc., and in A.D. 1878 found
  himself bankrupt with liabilities amounting to five million
  dollars. He then offered to resign his office, but the pope
  refused and gave him a coadjutor, whereupon the archbishop
  retired into a cloister where he died in his eighty-third year.
  In the _Union Générale_ of Paris, founded in 1876, which came
  to a crash in 1882, the French aristocracy, the higher clergy
  and members of orders lost hundreds of millions of francs.

  § 186.6. =The Catholic Missions.=--The impulse given to Catholic
  interests after 1848 was seen in the zeal with which missions
  in Catholic lands, like the Protestant Methodist revival and
  camp-meetings (§ 208, 1), began to be prosecuted. An attempt was
  thus made to gather in the masses, who had been estranged from
  the church during the storms of the revolution. The Jesuits and
  Redemptorists were prominent in this work. In bands of six they
  visited stations, staying for three weeks, hearing confessions,
  addressing meetings three times a day, and concluding by a
  general communion.

  § 186.7. Besides the Propaganda (§ 156, 9), fourteen societies in
  Rome, three in Paris, thirty in the whole of Catholic Christendom,
  are devoted to the dissemination of Catholicism among =Heretics=
  and =Heathens=. The Lyons Association for the spread of the faith,
  instituted in 1822, has a revenue of from four to six million
  francs. Specially famous is the =Picpus Society=, so called from
  the street in Paris where it has its headquarters. Its founder
  was the deacon Coudrin, a pupil of the seminary for priests
  at Poictiers [Poitiers] broken up in A.D. 1789. Amid the evils
  done to the church and the priests by the Revolution, in his
  hiding-place he heard a divine call to found a society for the
  purpose of training the youth in Catholic principles, educating
  priests, and bringing the gospel to the heathen “by atoning for
  excesses, crimes, and sins of all kinds by an unceasing day and
  night devotion of the most holy sacrament of the altar.” Such a
  society he actually founded in A.D. 1805, and Pius VII. confirmed
  it in A.D. 1817. The founder died in A.D. 1837, after his
  society had spread over all the five continents. Its chief aim
  henceforth was missions to the heathen. While the Picpus society,
  as well as the other seminaries and monkish orders, sent forth
  crowds of missionaries, other societies devoted themselves to
  collecting money and engaging in prayer. The most important of
  these is the =Lyonese Society= for the spread of the faith of
  A.D. 1822. The member’s weekly contribution is 5 cents, the
  daily prayer-demand a paternoster, an angel greeting, and a
  “St. Francis Xavier, pray for us.” The fanatical journal of the
  society had a yearly circulation of almost 250,000 copies, in
  ten European languages. The popes had showered upon its members
  rich indulgences.--After Protestant missions had received such
  a powerful impulse in the nineteenth century, the Catholic
  societies were thereby impelled to force in wherever success had
  been won and seemed likely to be secured, and wrought with all
  conceivable jesuitical arts and devices, for the most part under
  the political protection of France. The Catholic missions have
  been most zealously and successfully prosecuted in North America,
  China, India, Japan, and among the schismatic churches of the
  Levant. Since 1837 they have been advanced by aid of the French
  navy in the South Seas (§ 184, 7) and in North Africa by the
  French occupation of Algiers, and most recently in Madagascar.
  In South Africa they have made no progress.--In A.D. 1837-1839
  a bloody persecution raged in Tonquin and Cochin China; in
  A.D. 1866 Christianity was rooted out of Corea, and over 2,000
  Christians slain; two years later persecution was renewed in
  Japan. In China, through the oppressions of the French, the
  people rose against the Catholics resident there. This movement
  reached a climax in the rebellion of 1870 at Tientsin, when all
  French officials, missionaries, and sisters of mercy were put to
  death, and the French consulate, Catholic churches and mission
  houses were levelled to the ground. Also in Further India since
  the French war of A.D. 1883 with Tonquin, over which China
  claimed rights of suzerainty, the Catholic missions have again
  suffered, and many missionaries have been martyred.


                   § 187. LIBERAL CATHOLIC MOVEMENTS.

  Alongside of the steady growth of ultramontanism from the time of the
restoration of the papacy in A.D. 1814, there arose also a reactionary
movement, partly of a mystical-irenical, evangelical- revival and
liberal-scientific, and partly of a radical-liberalistic, character.
But all the leaders in such movements sooner or later succumbed before
the strictly administered discipline of the hierarchy. The Old Catholic
reaction (§ 190), on the other hand, in spite of various disadvantages,
still maintains a vigorous existence.

  § 187.1. =Mystical-Irenical Tendencies.=--=J. M. Sailer=,
  deprived in A.D. 1794 of his office at Dillingen (§ 165, 12), was
  appointed in A.D. 1799 professor of moral and pastoral theology
  at Ingolstadt, and was transferred to Landshut in A.D. 1800.
  There for twenty years his mild and conciliatory as well as
  profoundly pious mysticism powerfully influenced crowds of
  students from South Germany and Switzerland. Though the pope
  refused to confirm his nomination by Maximilian as Bishop of
  Augsburg in A.D. 1820, he so far cleared himself of the suspicion
  of mysticism, separatism, and crypto-calvinism, that in A.D. 1829
  no opposition was made to his appointment as Bishop of Regensburg.
  Sailer continued faithful to the Catholic dogmatic, and none
  of his numerous writings have been put in the Index. Yet he lay
  under suspicion till his death in A.D. 1832, and this seemed to
  be justified by the intercourse which he and his disciples had
  with Protestant pietists. His likeminded scholar, friend, and
  vicar-general, the Suffragan-bishop =Wittmann=, was designated
  his successor in Regensburg, but he died before receiving papal
  confirmation. Of all his pupils the most distinguished was the
  Westphalian Baron von =Diepenbrock=, over whose wild, intractable,
  youthful nature Sailer exercised a magic influence. In A.D. 1823
  he was ordained priest, became Sailer’s secretary, remaining his
  confidential companion till his death, was made vicar-general
  to Sailer’s successor in A.D. 1842, and in A.D. 1845 was
  raised to the archiepiscopal chair of Breslau, where he joined
  the ultramontanes, and entered with all his heart into the
  ecclesiastico-political conflicts of the Würzburg episcopal
  congress (§ 192, 4). His services were rewarded by a cardinal’s
  hat from Pius IX. in A.D. 1850. His pastoral letters, however,
  as well as his sermons and private correspondence, show that he
  never altogether forgot the teaching of his spiritual father. He
  delighted in the study of the mediæval mystics, and was specially
  drawn to the writings of Suso.

  § 187.2. =Evangelical-Revival Tendencies.=--A movement much
  more evangelical than that of Sailer, having the doctrine of
  justification by faith alone as its centre, was originated by
  a simple Bavarian priest, =Martin Boos=, and soon embraced sixty
  priests in the diocese of Augsburg. The spiritual experiences
  of Boos were similar to those of Luther. The words of a poor old
  sick woman brought peace to his soul in A.D. 1790, and led him
  to the study of Scripture. His preaching among the people and his
  conversations with the surrounding clergy produced a widespread
  revival. Amid manifold persecutions, removed from one parish
  to another, and flying from Bavaria to Austria and thence into
  Rhenish Prussia, where he died in A.D. 1825 as priest of Sayn,
  he lighted wherever he went the torch of truth. Even after his
  conversion Boos believed that he still maintained the Catholic
  position, but was at last to his own astonishment convinced of
  the contrary through intercourse with Protestant pietists and the
  study of Luther’s works. But so long as the mother church would
  keep him he wished not to forsake her.[545] So too felt his
  like-minded companions =Gossner= and =Lindl=, who were expelled
  from Bavaria in A.D. 1829 and settled in St. Petersburg. Lindl,
  as Provost of South Russia, went to reside in Odessa, where he
  exercised a powerful influence over Catholics and Protestants and
  among the higher classes of the Russians. The machinations of the
  Roman Catholic and Greek churches caused both Gossner and Lindl
  to leave Russia in A.D. 1824. They then joined the evangelical
  church, Lindl in Barmen and Gossner in Berlin. Lindl drifted
  more and more into mystico-apocalyptic fanaticism; but Gossner,
  from A.D. 1829 till his death in A.D. 1858 as pastor of the
  Bohemian church in Berlin, proved a sincere evangelical and a
  most successful worker.--The Bavarian priest Lutz of Carlshuld,
  influenced by Boos, devoted himself to the temporal and spiritual
  well-being of his people, preached Christ as the saviour of
  sinners, and exhorted to diligent reading of the Bible. In
  A.D. 1831, with 600 of his congregation, he joined the Protestant
  church; but to avoid separation from his beloved people, he
  returned again after ten months, and most of his flock with him,
  still retaining his evangelical convictions. He was not, however,
  restored to office, and subsequently in A.D. 1857, with three
  Catholic priests of the diocese, he attached himself to the
  Irvingites, and was with them excommunicated.

  § 187.3. =Liberal-Scientific Tendencies.=--=Von Wessenberg=,
  as vicar-general of the diocese of Constance introduced such
  drastic administrative reforms as proved most distasteful to
  the nuncio of Lucerne and the Romish curia. He also endeavoured
  unsuccessfully to restore a German national Catholic church.
  In the retirement of his later years he wrote a history of the
  church synods of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which
  gave great offence to the ultramontanes.--=Fr. von Baader= of
  Munich expressed himself so strongly against the absolutism
  of the papal system that the ultramontane minister, Von Abel,
  suspended his lectures on the philosophy of religion in A.D. 1838.
  He gave still greater offence by his work on Eastern and Western
  Catholicism, in which he preferred the former to the latter.[546]
  The talented =Hirscher= of Freiburg more interested in what is
  Christian than what is Roman Catholic, could not be won over
  to yield party service to the ultramontanes. They persecuted
  unrelentingly =Leop. Schmid=, whose theosophical speculation
  had done so much to restore the prestige of theology at Giessen,
  and had utterly discredited their pretensions. When his enemies
  successfully opposed his consecration as Bishop of Mainz
  in A.D. 1849, he resigned his professorship and joined the
  philosophical faculty. Goaded on by the venomous attacks of his
  opponents he advanced to a more extreme position, and finally
  declared “that he was compelled to renounce the specifically
  Roman Catholic church so long as she refused to acknowledge the
  true worth of the gospel.”

  § 187.4. =Radical-Liberalistic Tendencies.=--The brothers
  =Theiner= of Breslau wrote in A.D. 1828 against the celibacy
  of the clergy; but subsequently John attached himself to the
  German-Catholics, and in A.D. 1833 Augustine returned to his
  allegiance to Rome (§ 191, 7).--During the July Revolution in
  Paris, the priest Lamennais, formerly a zealous supporter of
  absolutism, became the enthusiastic apostle of liberalism. His
  journal _L’Avenir_, A.D. 1830-1832, was the organ of the party,
  and his _Paroles d’un Croyant_, A.D. 1834, denounced by the
  pope as unutterably wicked, made an unprecedented sensation. The
  endeavour, however, to unite elements thoroughly incongruous led
  to the gradual breaking up of the school, and Lamennais himself
  approximated more and more to the principles of modern socialism.
  He died in A.D. 1854. One of his most talented associates on
  the staff of the _Avenir_ was the celebrated pulpit orator
  =Lacordaire=, A.D. 1802-1861. Upon Gregory’s denunciation of
  the journal in A.D. 1832 Lacordaire submitted to Rome, entered
  the Dominican order in A.D. 1840, and wrote a life of Dominic
  in which he eulogised the Inquisition; but his eloquence still
  attracted crowds to _Notre Dame_. Ultimately he fell completely
  under the influence of the Jesuits.

  § 187.5. =Attempts at Reform in Church Government.=--In A.D. 1861
  =Liverani=, pope’s chaplain and apostolic notary, exposed the
  scandalous mismanagement of Antonelli, the corruption of the
  sacred college, the demoralization of the Roman clergy, and the
  ambitious schemes of the Jesuits, recommended the restoration
  of the holy Roman empire, not indeed to the Germans, but to
  the Italians: the pope should confer on the king of Italy by
  divine authority the title and privileges of Roman emperor, who,
  on his part, should undertake as papal mandatory the political
  administration of the States of the Church. But in A.D. 1873 he
  sought and obtained papal forgiveness for his errors. The Jesuit
  =Passaglia= expressed enthusiastic approval of the movements of
  Victor Emanuel and of Cavour’s ideal of a “free church in a free
  state.” He was expelled from his order, his book was put into
  the Index, but the Italian Government appointed him professor of
  moral philosophy in Turin. At last he retracted all that he had
  said and written. In the preface to his popular exposition of the
  gospels of 1874, the Jesuit father =Curci= urged the advisability
  of a reconciliation between the Holy See and the Italian
  government, and expressed his conviction that the Church States
  would never be restored. That year he addressed the pope in
  similar terms, and refusing to retract, was expelled his order in
  A.D. 1877. Leo XIII. by friendly measures sought to move him to
  recant, but without success. The condemnation of his books led
  to their wider circulation. In A.D. 1883 he charged the Holy See
  with the guilt of the unholy schism between church and state; but
  in the following year he retracted whatever in his writings the
  pope regarded as opposed to the faith, morals, and discipline of
  the Catholic church.

  § 187.6. =Attempts to Found National Catholic Churches.=--After
  the July Revolution of A.D. 1830 the Abbé =Chatel= of Paris
  had himself consecrated bishop of a new sect by a new-templar
  dignitary (§ 210, 1) and became primate of the =French Catholic
  Church=, whose creed recognised only the law of nature and viewed
  Christ as a mere man. After various congregations had been formed,
  it was suppressed by the police in A.D. 1842. The Abbé =Helsen=
  of Brussels made a much more earnest endeavour to lead the church
  of his fatherland from the antichrist to the true Christ. His
  =Apostolic Catholic Church= was dissolved in A.D. 1857 and its
  remnants joined the Protestants. The founding of the =German
  Catholic Church= in A.D. 1844 promised to be more enduring. In
  August of that year, Arnoldi, Bishop of Treves, exhibited the
  holy coat preserved there, and attracted one and a half millions
  of pilgrims to Treves (§ 188, 2). A suspended priest, =Ronge=, in
  a letter to the bishop denounced the worship of relics, seeking
  to pose as the Luther of the nineteenth century. =Czerski= of
  Posen had in August, 1844, seceded from the Catholic church, and
  in October founded the “Christian Catholic Apostolic Church,”
  whose creed embodied the negations without the positive beliefs
  of the Protestant confessions, maintaining in other respects
  the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. Ronge meanwhile
  formed congregations in all parts of Germany, excepting Bavaria
  and Austria. A General Assembly held at Leipzig in March, 1845,
  brought to light the deplorable religious nihilism of the leaders
  of the party. Czerski, who refused to abandon the doctrine of
  Christ’s divinity, withdrew from the conference, but Ronge held
  a triumphal procession through Germany. His hollowness, however,
  became so apparent that his adherents grew ashamed of their
  enthusiasm for the new reformer. His congregations began to break
  up; many withdrew, several of the leaders threw off the mask
  of religion and adopted the _rôle_ of political revolutionists.
  After the settlement that followed the disturbances of A.D. 1848
  the remnants of this party disappeared.[547]

  § 187.7. The inferior clergy of Italy, after the political
  emancipation of Naples from the Bourbon domination in A.D. 1860,
  longed for deliverance from clerical tyranny, and founded in
  A.D. 1862 a society with the object of establishing a =national
  Italian church= independent of the Romish curia. Four Neapolitan
  churches were put at the disposal of the society by the minister
  Ricasoli, but in 1865, an agreement having been come to between
  the curia and the government, the bishops were recalled and the
  churches restored. Thousands, to save themselves from starvation,
  gave in their submission, but a small party still remained
  faithful. Encouraged by the events of 1870 (§§ 135, 3; 189, 3),
  they were able in 1875 to draw up a “dogmatic statement” for
  the “Church of Italy independent of the Roman hierarchy,” which
  indeed besides the Holy Scriptures admitted the authority of
  the universal church as infallible custodian and interpreter
  of revealed truth, but accepted only the first seven œcumenical
  councils as binding. In the same year Bishop Turano of Girgenti
  excommunicated five priests of the Silician town Grotta as
  opponents of the syllabus and the dogma of infallibility. The
  whole clergy of the town, numbering twenty-five, then renounced
  their obedience to the bishop, and with the approval of the
  inhabitants declared themselves in favour of the “statement.”
  North of Rome this movement made little progress; but in 1875
  three villages of the Mantuan diocese claimed the ancient
  privilege of choosing their own priest, and the bishop and
  other authorities were obliged to yield. The Neapolitan movement,
  however, as a whole seems to be losing itself in the sand.

  § 187.8. =The Frenchman, Charles Loyson=, known by his Carmelite
  monkish name of _Père Hyacinthe_, was protected from the Jesuits
  by Archbishop Darboy when he inveighed against the corruptions
  of the church, and even Pius IX. on his visit to Rome in 1868
  treated him with favour. The general of his order having imposed
  silence on him, he publicly announced his secession from the
  order and appeared as a “preacher of the gospel,” claiming
  from a future General Council a sweeping reform of the church,
  protesting against the falsifying of the gospel of the Son of God
  by the Jesuits and the papal syllabus. He was then excommunicated.
  In A.D. 1871 he joined the German Old Catholics (§ 190, 1);
  and though he gave offence to them by his marriage, this did
  not prevent the Old Catholics of Geneva from choosing him as
  their pastor. But after ten months, because “he sought not the
  overthrow but the reform of the Catholic church, and reprobated
  the despotism of the mob as well as that of the clergy, the
  infallibility of the state as well as that of the pope,” he
  withdrew and returned to Paris, where he endeavoured to establish
  a French National Church free of Rome and the Pope. The clerical
  minister Broglie, however, compelled him to restrict himself to
  moral-religious lectures. In February, 1879, he built a chapel
  in which he preaches on Sundays and celebrates mass in the French
  language. He sought alliance with the Swiss Christian Catholics,
  whose bishop, Herzog, heartily reciprocated his wishes, and with
  the Anglican church, which gave a friendly response. But that
  this “seed corn” of a “Catholic Gallican Church” will ever grow
  into a fully developed plant was from the very outset rendered
  more than doubtful by the peculiar nature of the sower, as well
  as of the seed and the soil.


                    § 188. CATHOLIC ULTRAMONTANISM.

  The restoration of the Jesuit order led, during the long pontificate
of Pius IX., to the revival and hitherto unapproached prosperity of
ultramontanism, especially in France, whose bishops cast the Gallican
Liberties overboard (§§ 156, 3; 203, 1), and in Germany, where with
strange infatuation even Protestant princes gave it all manner of
encouragement. Even the lower clergy were trained from their youth
in hierarchical ideas, and under the despotic rule of their bishops,
and a reign of terror carried on by spies and secret courts, were
constrained to continue the profession of the strictest absolutism.

  § 188.1. =The Ultramontane Propaganda.=--In =France=
  ultramontanism revived with the restoration. Its first and ablest
  prophet was Count =de Maistre=, A.D. 1754-1821, long Sardinian
  ambassador at St. Petersburg. He wrote against the modern
  views of the relations of church and state, supporting the
  infallibility, absolutism, and inviolability of the pope. He
  was supported by Bonald, Chateaubriand, Lamartine, Lamennais,
  Lacordaire, and Montalembert. Only Bonald maintained this
  attitude. Between him and Chateaubriand a dispute arose over
  the freedom of the press; Lamennais and Lacordaire began to
  blend political radicalism with their ultramontanism; Lamartine
  involved himself in the February revolution of 1848 as the
  apostle of humanity; and Montalembert took up a half-way position.
  In 1840 Louis =Veuillot= started the _Univers Religieux_ in place
  of the _Avenir_, in which, till his death in 1883, he vindicated
  the extremest ultramontanism.--In =Germany= ultramontane views
  were disseminated by romancing historians and poets mostly
  converts from Protestantism. =Görres=, professor of history in
  Munich, represented the Reformation as a second fall, and set
  forth the legends of ascetics in his “History of Mysticism” as
  sound history. The German bishops set themselves to train the
  clergy in hierarchical views, and by a rule of terror prevented
  any departure from that theory. The ultramontanising of the
  masses was carried on by missions, and by the establishment
  of brotherhoods and sisterhoods. In the beginning of A.D. 1860
  there were only thirteen ultramontane journals with very
  few subscribers, while in January, 1875, there were three
  hundred. The most important was _Germania_, founded at Berlin in
  1871.--The _Civiltà Cattolica_ of Rome was always revised before
  publication by Pius IX., and under Leo XIII. a similar position
  is held by the _Moniteur de Rome_, while the _Osservatore Romano_
  and the _Voce della verità_ have also an official character.

  § 188.2. =Miracles.=--Prince =Hohenlohe= went through many parts
  of Germany, Austria, and Hungary, performing miraculous cures;
  but his day of favour soon passed, and he settled down as a
  writer of ascetical works.--Pilgrimages to wonder-working shrines
  were encouraged by reports of cures wrought on the grand-niece
  of the Bishop of Cologne (§ 193, 1), cured of knee-joint
  disease before the holy coat of Treves (§ 187, 6). Subjected to
  examination, the pretended seamless coat was found to be a bit
  of the gray woollen wrapping of a costly silk Byzantine garment
  1½ feet broad and 1 foot long.

  § 188.3. =Stigmatizations.=--In many cases these marks were
  found to have been fraudulently made, but in other cases it was
  questionable whether we had not here a pathological problem,
  or whether hysteria created a desire to deceive or pre-disposed
  the subject to being duped under clerical influence. =Anna Cath.
  Emmerich=, a nun of Dülmen in Westphalia, in 1812, professed
  to have on her body bloody wound-marks of the Saviour. For five
  years down to her death in 1824, the poet Brentano sat at her
  feet, venerating her as a saint and listening to her ecstatic
  revelations on the death and sufferings of the Redeemer and his
  mother. Overberg, Sailer, and Von Stolberg were also satisfied of
  the genuineness of her revelations and of the miraculous marking
  of her body. The physician Von Drussel examined the wound-prints
  and certified them as miraculous; but Bodde, professor of
  chemistry at Münster, pronounced the blood marks spots produced
  by dragon’s-blood. Competent physicians declared her a hysterical
  woman incapable of distinguishing between dream and reality,
  truth and lies, honesty and deceit. Others famous in the same
  line were Maria von Wörl, Dominica Lazzari, and =Crescentia
  Stinklutsch=; also Dorothea Visser of Holland and Juliana
  Weiskircher from near Vienna.

  § 188.4. Of a very doubtful kind were the miraculous marks on
  =Louise Lateau=, daughter of a Belgian miner. On 24th April, 1868,
  it is said she was marked with the print of the Saviour’s wounds
  on hands, feet, side, brow, and shoulders. In July, A.D. 1868,
  she fell into an ecstasy, from which she could be awakened
  only by her bishop or one authorized by him. Trustworthy
  physicians, after a careful medical examination, reported
  that she laboured under a disease which they proposed to call
  “stigmatic neuropathy.” Chemical analysis proved the presence of
  food which had been regularly taken, probably in a somnambulistic
  trance. In the summer of 1875 her sister for a time put an end
  to the affair by refusing the clergy entrance into the house,
  and she was then obliged to eat, drink, and sleep like other
  Christians, so that the Friday bloody marks disappeared. But
  now, say ultramontane journals, Louise became dangerously ill,
  and clergy were called in to her help, and the marks were again
  visible. Her patron Bishop Dumont of Tournay being deposed by
  the pope in 1879, she took part against his successor, and was
  threatened with excommunication (§ 200, 7). She was now deserted
  by the ultramontanes and Belgian clergy, and treated as a poor,
  weak-minded invalid. She died neglected and in obscurity in
  A.D. 1883.

  § 188.5. Of pseudo-stigmatizations there has been no lack even
  in the most recent times. In 1845 =Caroline Beller=, a girl of
  fifteen years, in Westphalia, was examined by a skilful physician.
  On Thursday he laid a linen cloth over the wound-prints, and sure
  enough on Friday it was marked with blood stains; but also strips
  of paper laid under, without her knowledge, were pricked with
  needles. The delinquent now confessed her deceit, which she had
  been tempted to perpetrate from reading the works of Francis of
  Assisi, Catherine of Siena, and Emmerich. Theresa Städele in 1849,
  Rosa Tamisier in 1851, and Angela Hupe in 1863, were convicted of
  fraudulently pretending to have stigmata. The latter was proved
  to have feigned deafness and lameness for a whole year, to have
  diligently read the writings of Emmerich in 1861, to have shown
  the physician fresh bleeding wounds on hands, feet, and side, and
  to have affirmed that she had neither eaten nor drunk for a year.
  Four sisters of mercy were sent to attend her, and they soon
  discovered the fraud. In 1876 the father confessor of Ernestine
  Hauser was prosecuted for damages, having injured the girl’s
  health by the severe treatment to which she was subjected in
  order to induce ecstasy and obtain an opportunity for impressing
  the stigmata. =Sabina Schäfer= of Baden, in her eighteenth year,
  had for two years borne the reputation of a wonder-working saint,
  who every Friday showed the five wound prints, and in ecstasy
  told who were in hell and who in purgatory. She professed
  to live without food, though often she betook herself to the
  kitchen to pray alone, and even carried food with her to give
  to her guardian angel to carry to the distant poor. When under
  surveillance in 1880 she sought to bribe her guardian to bring
  her meat and drink, fragments of food were found among her
  clothes, and also a flask with blood and an instrument for
  puncturing the skin. She confessed her guilt, and was sentenced
  by the criminal court of Baden to ten weeks’ imprisonment. The
  ultramontane _Pfälzer Bote_ complained that so-called liberals
  should ruthlessly encroach on the rights of the church and the
  family.

  § 188.6. =Manifestations of the Mother of God in France.=--The
  most celebrated of these manifestations occurred in 1858 at
  =Lourdes=, where in a grotto the Virgin repeatedly appeared to a
  peasant girl of fourteen years, almost imbecile, named Bernadette
  Soubirous, saying “_Je suis l’Immaculée Conception_,” and urging
  the erection of a chapel on that spot. A miracle-working well
  sprang up there. Since 1872 the pilgrimages under sanction of the
  hierarchy have been on a scale of unexampled magnificence, and
  the cures in number and significance far excelling anything heard
  of before.--At the village of =La Salette= in the department of
  Isère, in 1846 two poor children, a boy of fifteen and a girl of
  eleven years, saw a fair white-dressed lady sitting on a stone
  and shedding tears, and, lo, from the spot where her foot rested
  sprang up a well, at which innumerable cures have been wrought.
  The epidemic of visions of the Virgin reached a climax in Alsace
  Lorraine in 1872. In a wood near the village of =Gereuth= crowds
  of women and children gathered, professing to see visions of
  the mother of God; but when the police appeared to protect the
  forest, the manifestation craze spread over the whole land, and
  at thirty-five stations almost daily visions were enjoyed. The
  epidemic reached its crisis in Mary’s month, May, 1874, and
  continued with intervals down to the end of the year. In some
  cases deceit was proved; but generally it seemed to be the
  result of a diseased imagination and self-deception fostered
  by speculative purveyors and the ultramontane press and clergy.

  § 188.7. =Manifestations of the Mother of God in Germany.=--In
  the summer of 1876 three girls of eight years old in the village
  of =Marpingen=, in the department of Treves, saw by a well a
  white-robed lady, with the halo over her head and with a child
  in her arms, who made herself known as the immaculate Virgin,
  and called for the erection of a chapel. A voice from heaven
  said, This is my beloved Son, etc. There were also processions
  and choirs of angels, etc. The devil, too, appeared and ordered
  them to fall down and worship him. Thousands crowded from far
  and near, and the water of the fountain wrought miraculous cures.
  The surrounding clergy made a profitable business of sending
  the water to America, and the _Germania_ of Berlin unweariedly
  sounded forth its praises. Before the court of justice the
  children confessed the fraud, and were sentenced to the house of
  correction; and though on technical grounds this judgment was set
  aside, the supreme court of appeal in 1879 pronounced the whole
  thing a scandalous and disgraceful swindle.--Weichsel, priest
  of =Dittrichswald= in Ermland, who gained great reputation as an
  exorcist, made a pilgrimage to Marpingen in the summer of 1877,
  and on his return gave such an account of what he had seen to
  his communicants’ class that first one and then another saw the
  mother of God at a maple tree, which also became a favourite
  resort for pilgrims.

  § 188.8. =Canonizations.=--When in 1825 Leo XII. canonized a
  Spanish monk Julianus, who among other miracles had made roasted
  birds fly away off the spit, the Roman wits remarked that they
  would prefer a saint who would put birds on the spit for them.
  St. Liguori was canonized by Gregory XVI. in 1839. Pius IX.
  canonized fifty-two and beatified twenty-six of the martyrs
  of Japan. The Franciscans had sought from Urban VIII. in 1627
  canonization for six missionaries and seventeen Japanese converts
  martyred in 1596 (§ 150, 2), but were refused because they would
  not pay 52,000 Roman thalers for the privilege. Pius IX. granted
  this, and included three Jesuit missionaries. At Pentecost, 1862,
  the celebration took place, amid acclamations, firing of cannons,
  and ringing of bells. In 1868 the infamous president of the
  heretic tribunal Arbúes [Arbires] (§ 117, 2) received the
  distinction. The number of _doctores ecclesiæ_ was increased by
  Pius IX. by the addition of Hilary of Poitiers in 1851, Liguori
  in 1870, and Francis de Sales in 1877. And Leo XIII. canonized
  four new saints, the most distinguished of whom was the French
  mendicant, Bened. Jos. Labre, who after having been dismissed
  by Carthusians, Cistercians, and Trappists as unteachable, made
  a pilgrimage to Rome, where he stayed fifteen years in abject
  poverty, and died in 1783 in his thirty-sixth year.

  § 188.9. =Discoveries of Relics.=--The Roman catacombs continued
  still to supply the demand for relics of the saints for newly
  erected altars. Toward the end of A.D. 1870 the Archbishop of
  St. Iago de Compostella (§ 88, 4) made excavations in the crypt
  of his cathedral, in consequence of an old tradition that the
  bones of the Apostle James the Elder, the supposed founder of the
  church, had been deposited there, and he succeeded in discovering
  a stone coffin with remains of a skeleton. The report of this
  made to Pius IX. gave occasion to the appointment of a commission
  of seven cardinals, who, after years of minute examination of
  all confirmatory historical, archæological, anatomical, and
  local questions, submitted their report to Leo XIII., whereupon,
  in November, 1884, he issued an “Apostolic Brief,” by which
  he (without publishing the report) declared the unmistakable
  genuineness of the discovered bones as _ex constanti et
  pervulgato apud omnes sermone jam ab Apostolorum ætate memoriæ
  prodita_, pronounced the relics generally _perennes fontes_,
  from which the _dona cælestia_ flow forth like brooks among the
  Christian nations, and calls attention to the fact that it is
  just in this century, in which the power of darkness has risen
  up in conflict against the Lord and his Christ, these and also
  many other relics “_divinitus_” have been discovered, as _e.g._
  the bones of St. Francis, of St. Clara, of Bishop Ambrose, of the
  martyrs Gervasius and Protasius, of the Apostles Philip and James
  the Less, the genuineness of which had been avouched by his
  predecessors Pius VII. and Pius IX.

  § 188.10. =The blood of St. Januarius=, a martyr of the age
  of Diocletian, liquefies thrice a year for eight days, and on
  occasion of earthquakes and such-like calamities in Naples, the
  blood is brought in two vials by a matron near to the head of the
  saint; if it liquefies the sign is favourable to the Neapolitans,
  if it remains thick unfavourable; but in either case it forms
  a powerful means of agitation in the hands of the clergy.
  Unbelievers venture to suggest that this _precioso sangue del
  taumaturgo S. Gennaro_ is not blood, but a mixture that becomes
  liquid by the warmth of the hand and the heat of the air in the
  crowded room, some sort of cetaceous product coloured red.

  § 188.11. About 100 clergy, twenty colour-bearers, 150 musicians,
  10,000 leapers, 3,000 beggars, and 2,000 singers take part
  in the =Leaping Procession at Echternach= in Luxemburg, which
  is celebrated yearly on Whit-Tuesday. It was spoken of in the
  sixteenth century as an ancient custom. After an “exciting”
  sermon, the procession is formed in rows of from four to six
  persons bound together by pocket-handkerchiefs held in their
  hands; Wilibrord’s dance is played, and all jump in time to the
  music, five steps forward and two backward, or two backward and
  three forward, varied by three or four leaps to the right and
  then as many to the left. Thus continually leaping the procession
  goes through the streets of the city to the parish church, up
  the sixty-two steps of the church stair and along the church
  aisles to the tomb of Wilibrord (§ 78, 3). The dance is kept up
  incessantly for two hours. The performers do so generally because
  of a vow, or as penance for some fault, or to secure the saint’s
  intercession for the cure of epilepsy and convulsive fits,
  common in that region, mainly no doubt owing to such senseless
  proceedings. The origin of the custom is obscure. Tradition
  relates that soon after the death of Wilibrord a disease appeared
  among the cattle which jumped incessantly in the stalls, till
  the people went leaping in procession to Wilibrord’s tomb, and
  the plague was stayed! But the custom is probably a Christian
  adaptation of an old spring festival dance of pagan times
  (§ 75, 3; comp. 2 Sam. vi. 14).

  § 188.12. =The Devotion of the Sacred Heart.=--Even after the
  suppression of the Jesuit order the devotion of the Sacred Heart
  (§ 156, 6) was zealously practised by the ex-Jesuits and their
  friends. On the restoration of the order numerous brotherhoods
  and sisterhoods, especially in France, devoted themselves to this
  exercise, and the _revanche_ movement of A.D. 1870 used this as
  one of its most powerful instruments. Crowds of pilgrims flocked
  to Paray le Monial, and there, kneeling before the cradle of
  Bethlehem, they besought the sacred heart of Jesus to save France
  and Rome, and the refrain of all the pilgrim songs, “_Dieu, de
  la clemence ... sauvez Rome et la France au nom du sacré-cœur_,”
  became the spiritual Marseillaise of France returning to the
  Catholic fold. From the money collected over the whole land a
  beautiful church _du Sacré-Cœur_ has been erected on Montmartre
  in Paris. The gratifying news was then brought from Rome that
  the holy father had resolved on July 16th, 1875, the twenty-ninth
  anniversary of his ascending the papal throne and the two
  hundredth anniversary of the great occurrences at Paray le
  Monial, that the whole world should give adoration to the sacred
  heart. In France this day was fixed upon for the laying of the
  foundation stone of the church at Montmartre, and the Archbishop
  of Cologne, Paul Melchers, commanded Catholic Germany to show
  greater zeal in the adoration of the sacred heart, “ordained by
  divine revelation” two hundred years before.

  § 188.13. =Ultramontane Amulets.=--The Carmelites adopted a brown,
  the Trinitarians a white, the Theatines a blue, the Servites
  a black, and the Lazarites a red, scapular, assured by divine
  visions that the wearing of them was a means of salvation. A
  tract, entitled “_Gnaden und Ablässe des fünffachen Skapuliers_,”
  published by episcopal authority at Münster in 1872, declared
  that any layman who wore the five scapulars would participate
  in all the graces and indulgences belonging to them severally.
  The most useful of all was the Carmelite scapular, impenetrable
  by bullets, impervious to daggers, rendering falls harmless,
  stilling stormy seas, quenching fires, healing the possessed, the
  sick, the wounded, etc.--The Benedictines had no scapulars, but
  they had Benedict-medals, from which they drew a rich revenue.
  This amulet first made its appearance in the Bavarian Abbey of
  Metten. The tract, entitled, “_St. Benediktusbüchlein oder die
  Medaille d. h. Benediktus_,” published at Münster in 1876, tells
  how it cures sicknesses, relieves toothache, stops bleeding
  at the nose, heals burns, overcomes the craving for drink,
  protects from attacks of evil spirits, restrains skittish horses,
  cures sick cattle, clears vineyards of blight, secures the
  conversion of heretics and godless persons, etc.--In A.D. 1878
  there appeared at Mainz, with approval of the bishop, a book in
  its third edition, entitled, “_Der Seraphische Gürtel und dessen
  wunderbare Reichtümer nach d. Franz. d. päpstl. Hausprälaten
  Abbé v. Segur_,” according to which Sixtus V. in 1585 founded
  the Archbrotherhood of the Girdle of St. Francis. It also affirms
  that whoever wears this girdle day and night and repeats the six
  enjoined paternosters, participates in all the indulgences of
  the holy land and of all the basilicas and sanctuaries of Rome
  and Assisi, and is entitled to liberate 1,000 souls a day from
  purgatory.--Great miracles of healing and preservation from all
  injuries to body and soul, property and goods, are attributed by
  the Jesuits to the “_holy water of St. Ignatius_” (§ 149, 11),
  the sale of which in Belgium, France, and Switzerland has proved
  to them a lucrative business. But the mother of God has herself
  favoured them with a still more powerful miracle-working water in
  the fountains of Lourdes and Marpingen.

  § 188.14. We give in conclusion a specimen of =Ultramontane
  pulpit eloquence=. A Bavarian priest, Kinzelmann, said in a
  sermon in 1872: “We priests stand as far above the emperor, kings,
  and princes as the heaven is above the earth.... Angels and
  archangels stand beneath us, for we can in God’s stead forgive
  sins. We occupy a position superior to that of the mother of God,
  who only once bare Christ, whereas we create and beget him every
  day. Yea, in a sense, we stand above God, who must always and
  everywhere serve us, and at the consecration must descend from
  heaven upon the mass,” etc.--An apotheosis of the priesthood
  worthy of the Middle Ages.


                    § 189. THE VATICAN COUNCIL.[548]

  Immediately after Pius IX. had, at the centenary of St. Peter in 1867,
given a hint that a general council might be summoned at an early date,
the _Civiltà Cattolica_ of Rome made distinct statements to the effect
that the most prominent questions for discussion would be the confirming
of the syllabus (§ 185, 2), the sanctioning of the doctrine of papal
absolutism in the spirit of the bull _Unam sanctam_ of Boniface VIII.
(§ 110, 1), and the proclamation of papal infallibility. The _Civiltà_
had already taught that “when the pope thinks, it is God who thinks in
him.” When the council opened on the day of the immaculate conception,
December 8th, 1869, all conceivable devices of skilful diplomacy
were used by the Jesuit Camarilla, and friendly cajoling and violent
threatening on the part of the pope, in order to silence or win
over, and, in case this could not be done, to stifle and suppress
the opposition which even already was not inconsiderable in point
of numbers, but far more important in point of moral, theological,
and hierarchical influence. The result aimed at was secured. Of the
150 original opponents only fifty dared maintain their opposition to
the end, and even they cowardly shrank from a decisive conflict, and
wrote from their respective dioceses, as their Catholic faith obliged
them to do, notifying their most complete acquiescence.

  § 189.1. =Preliminary History of the Council.=--When Pius IX. on
  the centenary of St. Peter made known to the assembled bishops
  his intention to summon a general council, they expressed their
  conviction that by the blessing of the immaculate Virgin it would
  be a powerful means of securing unity, peace, and holiness. The
  formal summons was issued on the day of St. Peter and St. Paul
  of the following year, June 29th, 1868. The end for which the
  council was convened was stated generally as follows: The saving
  of the church and civil society from all evils threatening them,
  the thwarting of the endeavours of all who seek the overthrow
  of church and state, the uprooting of all modern errors and the
  downfall of all godless enemies of the apostolical chair. In
  Germany the Catholic General Assembly which met at Bamberg soon
  after this declared that from this day a new epoch in the world’s
  history would begin, for “either the salvation of the world would
  result from this council, or the world is beyond the reach of
  help.” This hopefulness prevailed throughout the whole Catholic
  world. Fostered by the utterances of the _Civiltà Cattolica_, the
  excitement grew from day to day. The learned bishop _in partibus_
  Maret, dean of the theological faculty of Paris, now came
  forward as an eloquent exponent of the Gallican liberties;
  even the hitherto so strict Catholic, the Count Montalembert,
  to the astonishment of everybody, assumed a bold and independent
  attitude in regard to the council, and energetically protested
  in a publication of March 7th, 1870, six days before his death,
  against the intrigues of the Jesuits and the infallibility dogma
  which it was proposed to authorize. But the greatest excitement
  was occasioned by the work “_Der Papst und das Konzil_,”
  published in Leipzig, 1869, under the pseudonym _Janus_, of which
  the real authors were Döllinger, Friedrich, and Huber of Munich,
  who brought up the heavy artillery of the most comprehensive
  historical scholarship against the evident intentions of the
  curia. The German bishops gathered at the tomb of St. Boniface
  at Fulda in September, 1869, and issued from thence a general
  pastoral letter to their disturbed flocks, declaring that it
  was impossible that the council should decide otherwise than
  in accordance with holy Scripture and the apostolic traditions
  and what was already written upon the hearts of all believing
  Catholics. Also the papal secretary, Card. Antonelli, quieted
  the anxiety of the ambassadors of foreign powers at Rome by the
  assurance that the Holy See had in view neither the confirming of
  the syllabus nor the affirming of the dogma of infallibility. In
  vain did the Bavarian premier, Prince Hohenlohe, insist that the
  heads of other governments should combine in taking measures to
  prevent any encroachment of the council upon the rights of the
  state. The great powers resolved to maintain simply a watchful
  attitude, and only too late addressed earnest expostulations and
  threats.

  § 189.2. =The Organization of the Council.=--Of 1,044 prelates
  entitled to take part in the council 767 made their appearance,
  of whom 276 were Italians and 119 bishops _in partibus_, all
  pliable satellites of the curia, as were also the greater number
  of the missionary bishops, who, with their assistants in the
  propaganda, were supported at the cost of the holy father. The
  sixty-two bishops of the Papal States were doubly subject to the
  pope, and of the eighty Spanish and South American bishops it was
  affirmed in Rome that they would be ready at the bidding of the
  holy father to define the Trinity as consisting of four persons.
  Forty Italian cardinals and thirty generals of orders were
  equally dependable. The Romance races were represented by no less
  than 600, the German by no more than fourteen. For the first time
  since general councils were held was the laity entirely excluded
  from all influence in the proceedings, even the ambassadors of
  Catholic and tolerant powers. The order of business drawn up
  by the pope was arranged in all its details so as to cripple
  the opposition. The right of all fathers of the council to make
  proposals was indeed conceded, but a committee chosen by the pope
  decided as to their admissibility. From the special commissions,
  whose presidents were nominated by the pope, the drafts of
  decrees were issued to the general congregation, where the
  president could at will interrupt any speaker and require him
  to retract. Instead of the unanimity required by the canon law
  in matters of faith, a simple majority of votes was declared
  sufficient. A formal protest of the minority against these and
  similar unconstitutional proposals was left quite unheeded. The
  proceedings were indeed taken down by shorthand reporters, but
  not even members of council were allowed to see these reports.
  The conclusions of the general congregation were sent back for
  final revision to the special commissions, and when at last
  brought up again in the public sessions, they were not discussed,
  but simply voted on with a _placet_ or a _non-placet_. The right
  transept of St. Peter’s was the meeting place of the council,
  the acoustics of which were as bad as possible, but the pope
  refused every request for more suitable accommodation. Besides,
  the various members spoke with diverse accents, and many had but
  a defective knowledge of Latin. Although absolute secresy was
  enjoined on pain of falling into mortal sin, under the excitement
  of the day so much trickled out and was in certain Romish circles
  so carefully gathered and sifted, that a tolerably complete
  insight was reached into the inner movements of the council. From
  such sources the author of the “_Römischen Briefe_,” supposed
  to have been Lord Acton, a friend and scholar of Döllinger, drew
  the material for his account, which, carried by trusty messengers
  beyond the bounds of the Papal State, reached Munich, and
  there, after careful revision by Döllinger and his friends, were
  published in the _Augsburg Allg. Zeitung_. Also Prof. Friedrich
  of Munich, who had accompanied Card. Hohenlohe to Rome as
  theological adviser, collected what he could learn in episcopal
  and theological circles in a journal which was published at a
  later date.

  § 189.3. =The Proceedings of the Council.=--The first public
  session of December 8th, 1869, was occupied with opening
  ceremonies; the second, of January 6th, with the subscription
  of the confession of faith on the part of each member. The first
  preliminary was the _schema_ of the faith, the second that on
  church discipline. Then followed the _schema_ on the church and
  the primacy of the pope in three articles: the legal position
  of the church in reference to the state, the absolute supremacy
  of the pope over the whole church on the principles of the
  Pseudo-Isidore (§ 87, 2) and the assumptions of Gregory VII.,
  Innocent III. and Boniface VIII., reproduced in the principal
  propositions of the syllabus (§ 184, 2), and the outlines of a
  catechism to be enforced as a manual for the instruction of youth
  throughout the church. On March 6th there was added by way of
  supplement to the _schema_ of the church a fourth article in the
  form of a sketch of the decree of infallibility. Soon after the
  opening of the council an agitation in this direction had been
  started. An address to the pope emanating from the Jesuit college
  petitioning for this was speedily signed by 400 subscribers.
  A counter address with 137 signatures besought the pope not to
  make any such proposal. At the head of the agitation in favour of
  infallibility stood archbishops Manning of Westminster, Deschamps
  of Mechlin, Spalding of Baltimore, and bishops Fessler of
  St. Pölten, secretary of the council, Senestrey of Regensburg,
  the “overthrower of thrones” (§ 197, 1), Martin of Paderborn, and,
  as bishop _in partibus_, Mermillod of Geneva. Among the leaders
  of the opposition the most prominent were cardinals Rauscher of
  Vienna, Prince Schwarzenberg of Prague and Matthieu of Besançon,
  Prince-bishop Förster of Breslau, archbishops Scherr of Munich,
  Melchers of Cologne, Darboy of Paris, and Kenrick of St. Louis,
  the bishops Ketteler of Mainz, Dinkel of Augsburg, Hefele
  of Rottenburg, Strossmayer of Sirmium, Dupanloup of Orleans,
  etc.--Owing to the discussions on the =Schema of the Faith= there
  occurred on March 22nd a stormy scene, which in its wild uproar
  reminds one of the disgraceful _Robber Synod of Ephesus_
  (§ 52, 4). When Bishop Strossmayer objected to the statement
  made in the preamble, that the indifferentism, pantheism, atheism,
  and materialism prevailing in these days are chargeable upon
  Protestantism, as contrary to truth, the furious fathers of the
  majority amid shouts and roars, shaking of their fists, rushed
  upon the platform, and the president was obliged to adjourn the
  sitting. At the next session the objectionable statement was
  withdrawn and the entire _schema_ of the faith was unanimously
  adopted at the third public sitting of the council on April 24th.
  =The Schema of the Church= came up for a consideration on
  May 10th. The discussion turned first and mainly on the fourth
  article about the infallibility of the pope. Its biblical
  foundation was sought in Luke xxii. 32, its traditional basis
  chiefly in the well-known passage of Irenæus (§ 34, 8) and on
  its supposed endorsement by the general councils of Lyons and
  Florence (§ 67, 4, 6), but the main stress was laid on its
  necessarily following from the position of the pope as the
  representative of Christ. The opposition party had from the
  outset their position weakened by the conduct of many of their
  adherents who, partly to avoid giving excessive annoyance to the
  pope, and partly to leave a door open for their retreat, did not
  contest the correctness of the doctrine in question, but all the
  more decidedly urged the inopportuneness of its formal definition
  as threatening the church with a schism and provocative of
  dangerous conflicts with the civil power. The longer the decision
  was deferred by passionate debates, the more determinedly did
  the pope throw the whole weight of his influence into the scales.
  By bewitching kindliness he won some, by sharp, angry words he
  terrified others. He denounced opponents as sectarian enemies of
  the church and the apostolic chair, and styled them ignoramuses,
  slaves of princes, and cowards. He trusted the aid of the blessed
  Virgin to ward off threatened division. To the question whether
  he himself regarded the formulating of the dogma as opportune,
  he answered: “No, but as necessary.” Urged by the Jesuits, he
  confidently declared that it was notorious that the whole church
  at all times taught the absolute infallibility of the pope;
  and on another occasion he silenced a modest doubt as to a
  sure tradition with the dictatorial words, _La tradizione
  sono io_, adding the assurance, “As Abbáte Mastai I believe in
  infallibility, as pope I have experienced it.” On July 13th the
  final vote was called for in the general congregation. There were
  371 who voted simply _placet_, sixty-one _placet juxta modum_,
  _i.e._ with certain modifications, and eighty-eight _non placet_.
  After a last hopeless attempt by a deputation to obtain the
  pope’s consent to a milder formulating of the decree, Bishop
  Ketteler vainly entreating on his knees, to save the unity and
  peace of the church by some small concession, the fifty hitherto
  steadfast members of the minority returned home, after emitting
  a written declaration that they after as well as before must
  continue to adhere to their negative vote, but from reverence and
  respect for the person of the pope they declined to give effect
  to it at a public session. On the following day, July 18th,
  the fourth and last public sitting was held: 547 fathers voted
  _placet_ and only two, Riccio of Cajazzo and Fitzgerald of Little
  Rock, _non placet_. A violent storm had broken out during the
  session and amid thunder and lightning, Pius IX., like “a second
  Moses” (Exod. xix. 16), proclaimed in the _Pastor æternus_ the
  absolute plenipotence and infallibility of himself and all his
  predecessors and successors.--It was on the evening preceding
  the proclamation of this new dogma that Napoleon III. proclaimed
  war with Prussia, in consequence of which the pope lost the
  last remnants of temporal sovereignty and every chance of its
  restoration. Under the influence of the fever-fraught July sun,
  the council now dwindled down to 150 members, and, after the
  whole glory of the papal kingdom had gone down (§ 185, 3), on
  October 20th, its sittings were suspended until better times.
  The _schema_ of discipline and the preliminary sketch of a
  catechism were not concluded; a subsequently introduced _schema_
  on apostolic missions was left in the same state; and a petition
  equally pressed by the Jesuits for the defining of the corporeal
  ascension of Mary had not even reached the initial stage.

  § 189.4. =Acceptance of the Decrees of the Council.=--All
  protests which during the council the minority had made
  against the order of business determined on and against all
  irregularities resulting from it, because not persisted in,
  were regarded as invalid. Equally devoid of legal force was
  their final written protest which they left behind, in which
  they expressly declined to exercise their right of voting. And
  the assent which they ultimately without exception gave to the
  objective standpoint of the law and the faith of the Catholic
  church, was not in the least necessary in order to make it appear
  that the decisions of the council, drawn up with such unanimity
  as had scarcely ever before been seen, were equally valid with
  any of the decrees of the older councils. Thus the bishops
  of the minority, if they did not wish to occasion a split of
  unexampled dimensions and incalculable complications, quarrels,
  and contentions in the church that boasted of a unity which had
  hitherto been its strength and stay, could do nothing else than
  yield at the twelfth hour to the pope’s demand that “_sacrificio
  dell’intelletto_” which at the eleventh hour they had refused.
  The German bishops, who had proved most steadfast at the council,
  were now in the greatest haste to make their submission. Even
  by the end of August, at Fulda, they joined their infallibilist
  neighbours in addressing a pastoral letter, in which they most
  solemnly declared that all true Catholics, as they valued their
  soul’s salvation, must unconditionally accept the conclusions of
  the council unanimously arrived at which are in no way prejudiced
  by the “differences of opinion” elicited during the discussion.
  At the same time they demanded of theological professors,
  teachers of religion, and clergymen throughout the dioceses a
  formal acceptance of these decrees as the inviolable standpoint
  of their doctrinal teaching; they also took measures against
  those who refused to yield, and excommunicated them. Even
  Bishop Hefele, who did not sign this pastoral and was at
  first determined not to yield nor swerve, at last gave way.
  In his pastoral proclaiming the new dogma he gave it a quite
  inadmissible interpretation: As the infallibility of the church,
  so also that of the pope as a teacher, extends only to the
  revealed doctrines of faith and morals, and even with reference
  to them only the definitions proper and not the introductory
  statements, grounds, and applications, belong to the infallible
  department. But subsequently he cast himself unreservedly into
  the arms of his colleagues assembled once again at Fulda in
  September, 1872, where he also found his like-minded friend,
  Bishop Haneberg of Spires. Yet he forbore demanding an express
  assent from his former colleagues at Tübingen and his clergy, and
  thus saved Württemberg from a threatened schism. Strossmayer held
  out longest, but even he at last threw down his weapons. But many
  of the most cultured and scholarly of the theological professors,
  disgusted with the course events were taking, withdrew from the
  field and continued silently to hold their own opinions. The
  inferior clergy, for the most part trained by ultramontane bigots,
  and held in the iron grasp of strict hierarchical discipline,
  passed all bounds in their extravagant glorification of the new
  dogma. And while among the liberal circles of the Catholic laity
  it was laughed at and ridiculed, the bigoted nobles and the
  masses who had long been used to the incensed atmosphere of an
  enthusiastic adoration of the pope, bowed the knee in stupid
  devotion to the papal god. But the brave heart of one noble
  German lady broke with sorrow over the indignity done by the
  Vatican decree and the characterlessness of the German bishops to
  the church of which to her latest breath she remained in spirit a
  devoted member. Amalie von Lasaulx, sister of the Munich scholar
  Ernst von Lasaulx (§ 174, 4), from 1849 superioress of the
  Sisters of Mercy in St. John’s Hospital at Bonn, lay beyond hope
  of recovery on a sick-bed to which she had been brought by her
  self-sacrificing and faithful discharge of the duties of her
  calling, when there came to her from the lady superior of the
  order at Nancy the peremptory demand to give in her adhesion to
  the infallibility dogma. As she persistently and courageously
  withstood all entreaties and threats, all adjurations and cruelly
  tormenting importunings, she was deposed from office and driven
  from the scene of her labours, and when, soon thereafter, in 1872,
  she died, the habit of her order was stripped from her body. The
  Old Catholics of Bonn, whose proceedings she had not countenanced,
  charged themselves with securing for her a Christian burial.--No
  state as such has recognised the council. Austria answered it by
  abolishing the concordat and forbidding the proclamation of the
  decrees. Bavaria and Saxony refused their _placet_; Hesse, Baden,
  and Württemberg declared that the conclusions of the council
  had not binding authority in law. Prussia indeed held to its
  principle of not interfering in the internal affairs of the
  Catholic church, but, partly for itself, partly as the leading
  power of the new German empire, passed a series of laws in
  order to resume its too readily abandoned rights of sovereignty
  over the affairs of the Catholic church, and to insure itself
  against further encroachments of ultramontanism upon the domain
  of civil life (§ 197). The Romance states, on the other hand,
  pre-eminently France, were prevented by internal troubles and
  conflicts from taking any very decisive steps.


                       § 190. THE OLD CATHOLICS.

  A most promising reaction, mainly in Germany, led by men highly
respected and eminent for their learning, set in against the Vatican
Council and its decrees, in the so-called Old Catholic movement of the
liberal circles of the Catholic people, which went the length, even
in 1873, of establishing an independent and well organized episcopal
church. Since then, indeed, it has fallen far short of the all too
sanguine hopes and expectations at first entertained; but still
within narrower limits it continues steadily to spread and to rear for
itself a solid structure, while carefully, even nervously, shrinking
from anything revolutionary. More in touch with the demands of the
_Zeitgeist_ in its reformatory concessions, yet holding firmly in every
particular to the positive doctrines of orthodoxy, the Old Catholic
movement has made progress in Switzerland, while in other Catholic
countries its success has been relatively small.

  § 190.1. =Formation and Development of the Old Catholic Church
  in the German Empire.=--In the beginning of August, 1870, the
  hitherto exemplary Catholic professor Michelis of Braunsberg
  (§ 191, 6), issued a public charge against Pius IX. as a heretic
  and devourer of the church, and by the end of August several
  distinguished theologians (Döllinger and Friedrich of Munich,
  Reinkens, Weber, and Baltzer of Breslau, Knoodt of Bonn, and
  the canonist Von Schulte of Prague) joined him at Nuremberg
  in making a public declaration that the Vatican Council could
  not be regarded as œcumenical, nor its new dogma as a Catholic
  doctrine. This statement was subscribed to by forty-four Catholic
  professors of the university of Munich with the rector at their
  head, but without the theologians. Similarly, too, several
  Catholic teachers in Breslau, Freiburg, Würzburg, and Bonn
  protested, and still more energetically a gathering of Catholic
  laymen at Königswinter. Besides the Breslau professors already
  named, the Bonn professors Reusch, Langen, Hilgers, and Knoodt
  refused to subscribe the council decrees at the call of their
  bishop; whereas the Munich professors, with the exception of
  Döllinger and Friedrich, yielded. A repeated injunction of his
  archbishop in January, 1871, drew from Döllinger the statement
  that he as a Christian, a theologian, a historian, and a citizen,
  was obliged to reject the infallibility dogma, while at the
  same time he was prepared before an assembly of bishops and
  theologians to prove that it was opposed to Scripture, the
  Fathers, tradition, and history. He was now literally overwhelmed
  with complimentary addresses from Vienna, Würzburg, Munich, and
  almost all other cities of Bavaria; and an address to government
  on the dangers to the state threatened by the Vatican decrees
  that lay at the Munich Museum, was quickly filled with 12,000
  signatures. On April 14th, Döllinger was excommunicated, and
  Professor Huber sent an exceedingly sharp reply to the archbishop.
  After several preliminary meetings, the =first congress= of the
  Old Catholics was held in Munich in September, 1871, attended
  by 500 deputies from all parts of Germany. A programme was
  unanimously adopted which, with protestation of firm adherence
  to the faith, worship, and constitution of the ancient Catholic
  church, maintained the invalidity of the Vatican decrees and the
  excommunication occasioned by them, and, besides recognising the
  Old Catholic church of Utrecht (§ 165, 8), expressed a hope of
  reunion with the Greek church, as well as of a gradual progress
  towards an understanding with the Protestant church. But when at
  the second session the president, Dr. von Schulte, proposed the
  setting up of independent public services with regular pastors,
  and the establishing as soon as possible of an episcopal
  government of their own, Döllinger contested the proposal as
  a forsaking of the safe path of lawful opposition, taking the
  baneful course of the Protestant Reformation, and tending toward
  the formation of a sect. As, however, the proposal was carried
  by an overwhelming majority, he declined to take further part
  in their public assemblies and retired more into the background,
  without otherwise opposing the prevailing current or detaching
  himself from it. The second congress was held at Cologne in
  the autumn of 1872. From the episcopal churches of England and
  America, from the orthodox church of Russia, from France, Italy,
  and Spain, were sent deputies and hearty friendly greetings.
  Archbishop Loos of Utrecht, by the part which he took in the
  congress, cemented more closely the union with the Old Catholics
  of Holland. Even the German “_Protestantenverein_” was not
  unrepresented. A committee chosen for the purpose drew up an
  outline of a synodal and congregational order, which provides
  for the election of bishops at an annual meeting at Pentecost
  of a synod, of which all the clergy are members and to which the
  congregations send deputies, one for every 200 members. Alongside
  of the bishop stands a permanent synodal board of five priests
  and seven laymen. The bishop and synodal board have the right of
  vetoing doubtful decrees of synod. The choice of pastors lies
  with the congregation; its confirmation belongs to the bishop.
  In July, 1873, a bishop was elected in the Pantaleon church
  of Cologne by an assembly of delegates, embracing twenty-two
  priests and fifty-five laymen. The choice fell upon Professor
  Reinkens, who, as meanwhile Bishop Loos of Utrecht had died, was
  consecrated on August 11th, at Rotterdam, by Bishop Heykamp of
  Deventer, and selected Bonn as his episcopal residence.

  § 190.2. The first synod of the German Old Catholics, consisting
  of thirty clerical and fifty-nine lay members, met at Bonn in
  May, 1874. It was agreed to continue the practice of auricular
  confession, but without any pressure being put upon the
  conscience or its observance being insisted upon at set times.
  Similarly the moral value of fasting was recognised, but all
  compulsory abstinence, and all distinctions of food as allowable
  and unallowable, were abolished. The second synod, with reference
  to the marriage law, took the position that civil regular
  marriages ought also to have the blessing of the church; only
  in the case of marriages with non-Christians and divorced parties
  should this be refused. The third synod introduced a German
  ritual in which the exorcism was omitted, while the Latin mass
  was provisionally retained. The fourth synod allowed to such
  congregations as might wish it the use of the vernacular in
  several parts of the service of the mass. At all these synods the
  lay members had persistently repeated the proposal to abolish the
  obligatory celibacy of the clergy. But now the agitation,
  especially on the part of the Baden representatives, had become
  so keen, that at the fifth synod of 1878, in spite of the
  warning read by Bishop Reinkens from the Dutch Old Catholics,
  who threatened to withdraw from the communion, the proposal
  was carried by seventy-five votes against twenty-two. The Bonn
  professors, Langen and Menzel, foreseeing this result, had
  absented themselves from the synod, Reusch immediately withdrew
  and resigned his office as episcopal vicar-general, Friedrich
  protested in the name of the Bavarian Old Catholics. Reinkens,
  too, had vigorously opposed the movement; whereas Knoodt,
  Michelis, and Von Schulte had favoured it. The synod of 1883
  resolved to dispense the supper in both kinds to members of the
  Anglican church residing in Germany, but among their own members
  to follow meanwhile the usual practice of _communio sub una_.
  The number of Old Catholic congregations in the German empire
  is now 107, with 38,507 adherents and 56 priests.--Even at their
  first congress the German Old Catholics, in opposition to the
  unpatriotic and law-defying attitude of German ultramontanism,
  had insisted upon love of country and obedience to the laws
  of the state as an absolute Christian duty. Their newly chosen
  bishop Reinkens, too, gave expression to this sentiment in
  his first pastoral letter, and had the oath of allegiance
  administered him by the Prussian, Baden, and Hessian governments.
  But Bavaria felt obliged, on account of the terms of its
  concordat, to refuse. At first the Old Catholics had advanced the
  claim to be the only true representatives of the Catholic church
  as it had existed before July 18th, 1870. At the Cologne congress
  they let this assumption drop, and restricted their claims upon
  the state to equal recognition with “the New Catholics,” equal
  endowments for their bishop, and a fair proportion of the
  churches and their revenues. Prussia responded with a yearly
  episcopal grant of 16,000 thalers; Baden added about 6,000. It
  proved more difficult to enforce their claim to church property.
  A law was passed in Baden in 1874, which not only guaranteed
  to the Old Catholic clergy their present benefices and incomes,
  freed them from the jurisdiction of the Romish hierarchy, and
  gave them permission to found independent congregations, but also
  granted them a mutual right of possessing and using churches and
  church furniture as well as sharing in church property according
  to the numerical proportion of the two parties in the district.
  A similar measure was introduced into the Prussian parliament,
  and obtained the royal assent in July, 1875. Since then, however,
  the interest of the government in the Old Catholic movement has
  visibly cooled. In Baden, in 1886 the endowment had risen to
  24,000 marks.

  § 190.3. =The Old Catholics in other Lands.=--=In Switzerland=
  the Old, or rather, as it has there been called, the Christian,
  Catholic movement, had its origin in 1871 in the diocese
  of Basel-Solothurn, whence it soon spread through the whole
  country. The national synod held at Olten in 1876 introduced
  the vernacular into the church services, abolished the compulsory
  celibacy of the clergy and obligatory confession of communicants,
  and elected Professor Herzog bishop, Reinkens giving him
  episcopal consecration. In 1879 the number of Christian Catholics
  in German Switzerland amounted to about 70,000, with seventy-two
  pastors. But since then, in consequence of the submission of the
  Roman Catholics to the church laws condemned by Pius IX. they
  have lost the majority in no fewer than thirty-nine out of the
  forty-three congregations of Canton Bern, and therewith the
  privileges attached. A proposal made in the grand council of
  the canton in 1883 for the suppression of the Christian Catholic
  theological faculty in the University of Bern, which has existed
  since 1874, was rejected by one hundred and fifty votes against
  thirteen.--=In Austria=, too, strong opposition was shown
  to the infallibility dogma. At Vienna the first Old Catholic
  congregation was formed in February, 1872, under the priest Anton;
  and soon after others were established in Bohemia and Upper
  Austria. But it was not till October, 1877, that they obtained
  civil recognition on the ground that their doctrine is that
  which the Catholic church professed before 1870. In June, 1880,
  they held their first legally sanctioned synod. The provisional
  synodical and congregational order was now definitely adopted,
  and the use of the vernacular in the church services, the
  abolition of compulsory fasting, confession, and celibacy,
  as well as of surplice fees, and the abandoning of all but the
  high festivals, were announced on the following Sunday. The
  bitter hatred shown by the Czechs and the ultramontane clergy
  to everything German has given to the Old Catholic movement for
  some years past a new impulse and decided advantage.--=In France=
  the Abbé Michaud of Paris lashed the characterlessness of the
  episcopate and was excommunicated, and the Abbés Mouls and Junqua
  of Bordeaux were ordered by the police to give up wearing the
  clerical dress. Junqua, refusing to obey this order, was accused
  by Cardinal Donnet, Bishop of Bordeaux, before the civil court,
  and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Not till 1879
  did the ex-Carmelite Loyson of Paris lay the foundation of a
  Catholic Gallican church, affiliated with the Swiss Old Catholics
  (§ 187, 8).--=In Italy= since 1862, independently of the German
  movement, yet on essentially the same grounds, a national Italian
  church was started with very promising beginnings, which were
  not, however, realized (§ 187, 7). Rare excitement was caused
  throughout Italy by the procedure of Count Campello, canon of
  St. Peter’s in Rome, who in 1881 publicly proclaimed his creed
  in the Methodist Episcopal chapel, there renouncing the papacy,
  and in a published manifesto addressed to the cathedral chapter
  justified this step and made severe charges against the papal
  curia; but soon after, in a letter to Loyson, he declared that
  he, remaining faithful to the true Catholic church, did not
  contemplate joining any Protestant sect severed from Catholic
  unity, and in a communication to the Old Catholic Rieks of
  Heidelberg professed to be in all points at one with the German
  Old Catholics. Accordingly he sought to form in Rome a Catholic
  reform party, whose interests he advocated in the journal _Il
  Labaro_. The pope’s domestic chaplain, Monsignor Savarese, has
  adopted a similar attitude. In December, 1883, he was received
  by the pastor of the American Episcopal church at Rome into the
  Old Catholic church on subscribing the Nicene Creed. In 1886 they
  were joined by another domestic chaplain of the pope, Monsignor
  Renier, formerly an intimate friend of Pius IX., who publicly
  separated himself from the papal church, and with them took his
  place at the head of a Catholic “_Congregation of St. Paul_” in
  Rome.--Also the Episcopal _Iglesia Española_ in Spain (§ 205, 4),
  and the Mexican _Iglesia de Jesus_ (§ 209, 1), must be regarded
  as essentially of similar tendencies to the Old Catholics.


            § 191. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, ESPECIALLY IN GERMANY.

  Catholic theology in Germany, influenced by the scientific spirit
prevailing in Protestantism, received a considerable impulse. From
latitudinarian Josephinism it gradually rose toward a strictly
ecclesiastical attitude. Most important were its contributions in
the department of dogmatic and speculative theology. Besides and after
the schools of Hermes, Baader, and Günther, condemned by the papal
chair, appeared a whole series of speculative dogmatists who kept their
speculations within the limits of the church confession. Also in the
domain of church history, Catholic theology, after the epoch-making
productions of Möhler and Döllinger, has aided in reaching important
results, which, however, owing to the “tendency” character of
their researches, demand careful sifting. Least important are their
contributions to biblical criticism and exegesis. In general, however,
the theological _docents_ at the German universities give a scientific
character to their researches and lectures in respect of form and also
of matter, so far as the Tridentine limits will allow. But the more the
Jesuits obtained influence in Germany, the more was that scholasticism,
which repudiated the German university theology and opposed it with
perfidious suspicions and denunciations, naturalized, especially in the
episcopal seminaries, while it was recommended by Rome as the official
theology. The attempt, however, at the Munich Congress of Scholars
in 1863 to come to an understanding between the two tendencies failed,
owing to the contrariety of their principles and the opposition of
the Jesuits.--Outside of Germany, French theology, especially in the
department of history, manifested a praiseworthy activity. In Spain
theology has never outgrown the period of the Middle Ages. In Italy,
on the other hand, the study of Christian antiquities flourished,
stimulated by recent discoveries of treasures in catacombs, museums,
archives, and libraries.

  § 191.1. =Hermes and his School.=--The Bonn professor, =George
  Hermes=, influenced in youth by the critical philosophy, passed
  the Catholic dogma of Trent, assured it would stand the test,
  through the fire of doubt and the scrutiny of reason, because
  only what survives such examination could be scientifically
  vindicated. He died in A.D. 1831, and left a school named after
  him, mainly in Treves, Bonn, and Breslau. Gregory XVI. in 1835
  condemned his writings, and the new Archbishop of Cologne,
  Droste-Vischering, forbad students at Bonn attending the lectures
  of Hermesians. These made every effort to secure the recall of
  the papal censure. Braun and Elvenich went to Rome, but their
  declaration that Hermes had not taught what the pope condemned
  profited them as little as a similar statement had the Jansenists.
  There now arose on both sides a bitter controversy, which
  received new fuel from the Prusso-Cologne ecclesiastical strife
  (§ 193, 1). Finally in 1844 professors Braun and Achterfeld of
  Bonn were deprived of office by the coadjutor-Archbishop Geissel,
  and the Prussian government acquiesced. The professors of the
  Treves seminary and Baltzer of Breslau, the latter influenced
  by Günther’s theology, retracted.--A year before Hermes’
  condemnation the same pope had condemned the opposite theory of
  Abbé =Bautain= of Strassburg, that the Christian dogmas cannot
  be proved but only believed, and that therefore all use of reason
  in the appropriation of the truths of salvation is excluded.
  Bautain, as an obedient son of the church, immediately retracted,
  “_laudabiliter se subjecit_.”

  § 191.2. =Baader and his School.=--Catholic theology for a long
  time paid no regard to the development of German philosophy.
  Only after Schelling, whose philosophy had many points of contact
  with the Catholic doctrine, a general interest in such studies
  was awakened as forming a speculative basis for Catholicism. To
  the theosophy of Schelling based on that of the Görlitz shoemaker
  (§ 160, 2), =Francis von Baader=, professor of speculative
  dogmatics at Munich, though not a professional theologian, but
  a physician and a mineralogist, attached himself. In his later
  years he went over completely to ultramontanism. His scholar
  =Franz Hoffmann= of Würzburg has given an exposition of Baader’s
  speculative system. At Giessen this system was represented by
  Leop. Schmid (§ 187, 3). All the Catholic adherents of this
  school are distinguished by their friendly attitude toward
  Protestantism.

  § 191.3. =Günther and his School.=--A theology of at least
  equal speculative power and of more decidedly Catholic contents
  than that of Baader, was set forth by the secular priest =Anton
  Günther= of Vienna, a profound and original thinker of combative
  humour, sprightly wit, and a roughness of expression sometimes
  verging upon the burlesque. He recognised the necessity of going
  up in philosophical and theological speculation to Descartes,
  who held by the scholastic dualism of God and the creature, the
  Absolute and the finite, spirit and nature, while all philosophy,
  according to him, had been ever plunging deeper into pantheistic
  monism. Thence he sought to solve the two problems of Christian
  speculation, creation and incarnation, and undertook a war of
  extermination against “all monism and semimonism, idealistic and
  realistic pantheism, disguised and avowed semipantheism,” among
  Catholics and Protestants. His first great work, “_Vorschule zur
  Spekul. Theologie_,” published in 1828, treating of the theory
  of creation and the theory of incarnation, was followed by a
  long series of similar works. His most eminent scholars were
  =Pabst=, doctor of medicine in Vienna, who gave clear expositions
  of his master’s dark and aphoristic sayings, and =Veith=, who
  popularized his teachings in sermons and practical treatises.
  Some of the Hermesians, such as Baltzer of Breslau, entered the
  rank of his scholars. The historico-political papers, however,
  charged him with denying the mysteries of Christianity, rejecting
  the traditional theology, etc., and Clemens, a _privatdocent_
  of philosophy in Bonn, became the mouthpiece of this party. Thus
  arose a passionate controversy, which called forth the attention
  of Rome. We might have expected Günther to meet the fate of
  Hermes twenty years before; but the matter was kept long under
  consideration, for strong influence from Vienna was brought
  to bear on his behalf. At last in January, 1857, the formal
  reprobation of the Güntherian philosophy was announced, and
  all his works put in the Index. Günther humbly submitted to the
  sentence of the church. So too did =Baltzer=. But being suspected
  at Rome, he was asked voluntarily to resign. This Baltzer refused
  to do. Then Prince-Bishop Förster called upon the government
  to deprive him; and when this failed, he withdrew from him the
  _missio canonica_ and a third of his canonical revenues, and in
  1870, on his opposing the infallibility dogma, he withheld the
  other two-thirds. His salary from the State continued to be paid
  in full till his death in A.D. 1871.

  § 191.4. =John Adam Möhler.=--None of all the Catholic
  theologians of recent times attained the importance and influence
  of Möhler in his short life of forty-two years. Stimulated
  to seek higher scientific culture by the study mainly of
  Schleiermacher’s works and those of other Protestants, and
  putting all his rich endowments at the service of the church,
  he won for himself among Catholics a position like that of
  Schleiermacher among Protestants. His first treatise of 1825,
  on the unity of the church, was followed by his “Athanasius the
  Great,” and the work of his life, the “Symbolics” of 1832, in
  its ninth edition in 1884, which with the apparatus of Protestant
  science combats the Protestant church doctrine and presented
  the Catholic doctrine in such an ennobled and sublimated form,
  that Rome at first seriously thought of placing it in the Index.
  Hitherto Protestants had utterly ignored the productions of
  Catholic theology, but to overlook a scientific masterpiece like
  this would be a confession of their own weakness. And in fact,
  during the whole course of the controversy between the two
  churches, no writing from the Catholic camp ever caused such
  commotion among the Protestants as this. The ablest Protestant
  replies are those of Nitsch [Nitzsch] and Baur. In 1835 Möhler
  left Tübingen for Munich; but sickness hindered his scientific
  labours, and, in 1838, in the full bloom of manhood, the Catholic
  church and Catholic science had to mourn his death. He can
  scarcely be said to have formed a school; but by writings,
  addresses, and conversation he produced a scientific ferment in
  the Catholic theology of Germany, which continued to work until
  at last completely displaced by the scholasticism reintroduced
  into favour by the Jesuits.

  § 191.5. =John Jos. Ignat. von Döllinger.=--Of all Catholic
  theologians in Germany, alongside of and after Möhler, by far the
  most famous on either side of the Alps was the church historian
  Döllinger, professor at Munich since 1826. His first important
  work issued in that same year was on the “Doctrine of the
  Eucharist in the First Three Centuries.” His comprehensive
  work, “The History of the Christian Church,” of 1833 (4 vols.,
  London, 1840), was not carried beyond the second volume; and
  his “Text-book of Church History” of 1836, was only carried
  down to the Reformation. The tone of his writings was strictly
  ecclesiastical, yet without condoning the moral faults of
  the popes and hierarchy. Great excitement was produced by his
  treatise on “The Reformation,” in which he gathered everything
  that could be found unfavourable to the Reformers and their work,
  and thus gained the summit of renown as a miracle of erudition
  and a master of Catholic orthodoxy. Meanwhile in 1838 he had
  taken part in controversies about mixed marriages (§ 193, 1), and
  in 1843 over the genuflection question (§ 195, 2), with severely
  hierarchical pamphlets. As delegate of the university since 1845
  he defended with brilliant eloquence in the Bavarian chamber the
  measures of the ultramontane government and the hierarchy, became
  in 1847 Provost of St. Cajetan, but was also in the same year
  involved in the overthrow of the Abel ministry, and was deprived
  of his professorship. In the following year he was one of the
  most distinguished of the Catholic section in the Frankfort
  parliament, where he fought successfully in the hierarchical
  interest for the unconditional freedom and independence of the
  church. King Maximilian II. restored him to his professorship
  in 1849. From this time his views of confessional matters became
  milder and more moderate. He first caused great offence to his
  ultramontane admirers at Easter, 1861, when he in a series of
  public lectures delivered one on the Papal States then threatened,
  in which he declared that the temporal power of the pope, the
  abuses of which he had witnessed during a journey to Rome in 1857,
  was by no means necessary for the Catholic church, but was rather
  hurtful. The papal nuncio, who was present, ostentatiously left
  the meeting, and the ultramontanes were beside themselves with
  astonishment, horror, and wrath. Döllinger gave some modifying
  explanations at the autumn assembly of the Catholic Union at
  Munich in 1861. But soon thereafter appeared his work, “The
  Church and the Churches” (London, 1862), which gave the lecture
  slightly modified as an appendix. The “Fables respecting the
  Popes of the Middle Ages” (London, 1871), was as little to the
  taste of the ultramontanes. Indeed in these writings, especially
  in the first named, the polemic against the Protestant Church
  had all its old bitterness; but he is at least more just toward
  Luther, whom he characterizes as “the most powerful man of the
  people, the most popular character, which Germany ever possessed.”
  And while he delivers a glowing panegyric on the person of the
  pope, he lashes unrelentingly the misgovernment of the Papal
  States. At the Congress of Scholars at Munich he contended for
  the freedom of science. Döllinger as president of the congress
  sent the pope a telegram which satisfied his holiness. But the
  Jesuits looked deeper, and immediately “_il povero Döllinger_”
  was loaded by the _Civiltà Cattolica_ with every conceivable
  reproach. In A.D. 1868 nominated to the life office of imperial
  councillor, he voted with the bishops against the liberal
  education scheme of the government. But his battle against
  the council and infallibility made the rent incurable, and his
  angry archbishop hurled against him the great excommunication.
  Then Vienna made him doctor of philosophy, Marburg, Oxford,
  and Edinburgh gave him LL.D., and the senate of his university
  unanimously elected him rector in 1871. But his tabooed lecture
  room became more and more deserted. He took no prominent part
  in the organizing of the Old Catholic church (§ 190, 1), but all
  the more eagerly did he seek to promote its union negotiations
  (§ 175, 6).

  § 191.6. =The Chief Representatives of Systematic
  Theology.=--=Klee=, A.D. 1800-1840, of Bonn and Munich,
  was a positivist of the old school, and during the Hermesian
  controversy a supporter of the theology of the curia. =Hirscher=,
  1788-1865, of Freiburg, numbered by the liberals as one of
  their ornaments and by the fanatical ultramontanes as a heretic,
  did much to promote a conciliatory and moderate Catholicism,
  equally free from ultramontane and rationalistic tendencies,
  abandoning nothing essential in the Catholic doctrine. =Hilgers=,
  the Hermesian, afterwards joined the Old Catholics of Bonn.
  =Staudenmaier= and =Sengler= of Freiburg and =Berlage= of Münster
  held a distinguished rank as speculative theologians. In the same
  department, =Kuhn= and =Drey= of Tübingen, =Ehrlich= of Prague,
  =Deutinger= of Dillingen, a disciple of Schelling and Baader,
  and as such persecuted, though a pious believing Catholic,
  =Oischinger= of Munich, who in despair at the proclamation of the
  Vatican decree suddenly stopped his fruitful literary activity,
  =Dieringer= of Bonn, who for the same reason not only ceased to
  write but also in 1871 resigned his professorship and retired to
  a small country pastorate, and finally, =Hettinger= of Würzburg,
  best known by his “_Apologie d. Christenthums_.”--While the
  above-named, though suspected and opposed by the scholastic party,
  strove to preserve intact their ecclesiastical Catholic character,
  other representatives of this tendency by their struggles against
  scholasticism and then against the Vatican Council, were driven
  away from their orthodox position. Thus =Frohschammer= of Munich,
  when his treatise on “The Origin of the Soul,” in which he
  supported the theory of Generationism in opposition to the
  Catholic doctrine of creationism, and other works were placed
  in the Index, asked for a revision on the ground that he taught
  nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was stripped of all his
  clerical functions, and students were prohibited attending his
  lectures. He protested, and his rooms were more crowded than
  ever. Subsequently, however, repudiated even by the Old Catholics,
  he drifted more and more, not only from the church, but even
  from belief in revelation. Against Strauss’ last work he wrote
  a tract in which he sought to prove that “the old faith is
  indeed untenable,” but that also “the new science” cannot take
  its place, that a “new faith” must be introduced by going back
  to the Christianity of Christ. =Michelis=, a man of wide culture
  in the department of natural science and philology, as well as
  theology and philosophy, had in his earlier position as professor
  in Paderborn, Münster, and Braunsberg, supported by word and pen
  a strictly ecclesiastical tendency; but the Vatican Council made
  him one of the first and most zealous leaders of the Old Catholic
  movement. His most important work is his “Catholic Dogmatics,”
  of 1881, in which the Old Catholic conception of Christianity is
  represented as the purified higher unity of the Protestant and
  Vatican systems of doctrine.

  § 191.7. =The Chief Representatives of Historical Theology.=--The
  first place after Möhler and Döllinger belongs to Möhler’s
  scholar Hefele, from 1840 professor at Tübingen and from 1869
  Bishop of Rottenburg, distinguished by the liberal spirit of his
  researches. His treatises on the Honorius controversy made him
  one of the most dangerous opponents of the infallibility dogma,
  to which, however, he at last submitted (§ 189, 4). His most
  important work is the “History of the Councils.” Hase criticised
  the second edition of the work, severely but not without
  sufficient grounds, by saying that in it “the bishop chokes
  the scholar.” =Werner= of Vienna is a prolific writer in the
  department of the history of theological literature; while
  =Bach= of Munich and the Dominican =Denifle= have written on
  the mediæval mystics, the latter also on the universities of
  the Middle Ages. =Hergenröther= of Würzburg, by his monograph
  on “Photius and the Greek Schism,” written in the interests of
  his party, and by his polemic against the anti-Vatican movement,
  and specially by his “Handbook of Church History,” rendered such
  service to the papacy and the papal church, that Leo XIII. in
  1879 made him a cardinal and librarian of the Vatican, with
  the task of reorganizing the library.--Among the Old Catholics,
  =Friedrich= of Munich, besides his historical account of the
  Vatican Council, had written on Wessel, Huss, and the church
  history of Germany. =Huber= of Munich, whose “Philosophy of the
  Church Fathers” of 1859 was put in the Index, while his much
  more liberal work on Erigena of 1861 passed without censure, in
  later years wrote an exhaustive account of the Jesuit order and
  a critical reply to Strauss’ “Old and New Faith.” =Pichler= of
  Munich, by his conscientious research and criticism, drew down
  upon him the papal censure, and his book on the “History of the
  Division of the Eastern and Western Churches” had the honour
  of being placed in the Index. His later studies and writings
  estranged him more and more from Romanism, inspired him with the
  idea of a national German church, and fostered in him a love for
  the _Protestantenverein_ movement; but his unbridled bibliomania
  while assistant in the Royal Library of St. Petersburg in 1871,
  brought his public career to a sad and shameful end. The Old
  Catholic Professor =Langen= of Bonn, wrote a four-volume work
  against the Vatican dogma, discussed the “Trinitarian Doctrinal
  Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches,” in the
  interests of a union with the Greek church, and published an
  able monograph on “John of Damascus,” as well as a thorough and
  impartial “History of the Roman Church down to Nicholas I.,”
  two vols., 1881, 1885.--In Rome the Oratorian =Aug. Theiner=
  atoned for the literary errors of his youth (§ 187, 4) by his
  zealous vindication of papal privileges. His chief works were the
  continuation of the “_Annales Ecclesiastici_” of Baronius, and
  the editing of the historical documents of the various Christian
  nations. The Jesuits charged him with giving the anti-Vaticanists
  aid from the library and sought to influence the pope against
  him so as to deprive him of his office of prefect of the Vatican
  archives. He was suspended from his duties, and though he
  still retained his title and occupied his official residence
  in the Vatican, the doors from it into the library were built
  up. His edition of the “Acts of the Council of Trent,” which
  was commenced, was also prohibited. But he succeeded in making
  a transcript at Agram in Croatia, where in 1874 a portion of it,
  the official protocol of the secretary of the Council, Massarelli,
  was printed by the help of Bishop Strossmayer in an elegant
  style but abbreviated, and therefore unsatisfactory. Cardinal
  Angelo =Mai=, as principal Vatican librarian, distinguished
  himself by his palimpsest studies in old classical as well as
  patristic literature. And quite worthy of ranking with either
  in carefulness, diligence, and patience was =De Rossi=, who
  has laboured in the department of Christian archæology, and
  is well known by his great work, “_Roma sotteranea cristiana_,”
  published in 1864 ff.--=Xavier Kraus=, when his “Handbook” had
  been adversely criticised, hastened to Rome, submitted all his
  utterances to the judgment of the pope, and proclaimed on his
  return that in the next edition he would explain what had been
  misunderstood and withdraw what was objected to. The question
  now rises, whether the more recent work of =Xav. Funk= can
  escape a similar censure.

  Among Catholic writers on canon lay the most notable are
  =Walters= of Bonn, =Phillips= of Vienna, =Von Schulte= of Prague
  and Bonn, who till the Vatican Council was one of the most zealous
  advocates of the strict Catholic tendency, since then openly on
  the side of the opposition, a keen supporter, and by word and pen
  a vigorous promoter, of the Old Catholic movement, and =Vering=
  of Prague, who occupies the ultramontane Vatican standpoint.

  § 191.8. =The Chief Representatives of Exegetical
  Theology.=--=Hug= of Freiburg, in his “Introduction,” occupies
  the biblical but ecclesiastically latitudinarian attitude of
  Jahn. Leaving dogma unattacked and so himself unattacked, =Mövers=
  of Breslau, best known by his work on the Phœnicians, a Richard
  Simon of his age, developed a subtlety of destructive criticism
  of the canon and history of the Old Testament which astonished
  even the father of Protestant criticism, De Wette. =Kaulen= of
  Bonn wrote an “Introduction to the Old and New Testament,” in
  a fairly scientific spirit from the Vatican standpoint; while
  =Maier= of Freiburg, wrote an introduction to the New Testament
  and commentaries on some New Testament books.--The Old Catholic
  =Reusch= of Bonn wrote “Introduction to the Old Testament,” and
  “Nature and the Bible” (2 vols., Edin., 1886). =Sepp= of Munich,
  silent since 1867, began his literary career with a “Life of
  Christ,” a “History of the Apostles,” etc., in the spirit of
  the romantic mystical school of Görres. His “Sketch of Church
  Reform, beginning with a Revision of the Bible Canon,” caused
  considerable excitement. With humble submission to the judgment
  of his church, he demanded a correction of the Tridentine decrees
  on Scripture in accordance with the results of modern science,
  but the only response was the inclusion of his book in the Index.

  § 191.9. =The Chief Representatives of the New
  Scholasticism.=--The official and most masterly representative of
  this school for the whole Catholic world was the Jesuit =Perrone=,
  1794-1876, professor of dogmatics of the _Collegium Romanum_,
  the most widely read of the Catholic polemical writers, but not
  worthy to tie the shoes of Bellarmin [Bellarmine], Bossuet, and
  Möhler. In his “_Prælectiones Theologicæ_,” nine vols., which has
  run through thirty-six editions, without knowing a word of German,
  he displayed the grossest ignorance along with unparalleled
  arrogance in his treatment of Protestant doctrine, history, and
  personalities (§ 175, 2). The German Jesuit =Kleutgen= who, under
  Pius IX., was the oracle of the Vatican in reference to German
  affairs, introduced the new Roman scholasticism by his work “_Die
  Theologie der Vorzeit_,” into the German episcopal seminaries,
  whose teachers were mostly trained in the _Collegium Germanicum_
  at Rome. Alongside of Perrone and Kleutgen, in the domain of
  morals, the Jesuit =Gury= holds the first place, reproducing
  in his works the whole abomination of probabilism, _reservatio
  mentalis_, and the old Jesuit casuistry (§ 149, 10), with the
  usual lasciviousness in questions affecting the sexes. Among
  theologians of this tendency in German universities we mention
  next =Denzinger= of Würzburg, who seeks in his works “to
  lead dogmatics back from the aberrations of modern philosophic
  speculations into the paths of the old schools.” His zealous
  opposition to Güntherism did much to secure its emphatic
  condemnation.

  § 191.10. =The Munich Congress of Catholic Scholars, 1863.=--In
  order if possible to heal the daily widening cleft between the
  scientific university theologians and the scholastic theologians
  of the seminaries, and bring about a mutual understanding and
  friendly co-operation between all the theological faculties,
  Döllinger and his colleague Haneberg summoned a congress
  at Munich, which was attended by about a hundred Catholic
  scholars, mostly theologians. After high mass, accompanied with
  the recitation of the Tridentine creed, the four days’ conference
  began with a brilliant presidential address by Döllinger “On the
  Past and Present of Catholic Theology.” The liberal views therein
  enunciated occasioned violent and animated debates, to which,
  however, it was readily admitted as a religious duty that all
  scientific discussions and investigations should yield to the
  dogmatic claims of the infallible authority of the church, as
  thereby the true freedom of science can in no way be prejudiced.
  A telegraphic report to the pope drawn up in this spirit by
  Döllinger was responded to in a similar manner on the same
  day with the apostolic blessing. But after the proceedings
  _in extenso_ had become known, a papal brief was issued which
  burdened the permission to hold further yearly assemblies with
  such conditions as must have made them utterly fruitless. They
  were indeed acquiesced in with a bad grace at the second and
  last congress at Würzburg in 1864, but the whole scheme was
  thus brought to an end.

  § 191.11. =Theological Journals.=--The most severely scientific
  journal of this century is the Tübingen _Theol. Quartalschrift_,
  which, however, since the Vatican Council has been struggling
  to maintain a neutral position between the extremes of the Old
  and the New Catholicism. In order if possible to displace it the
  Jesuits Wieser and Stenstrup of Innsbruck [Innsbrück] started in
  1877 their _Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie_. The ably conducted
  _Theol. Litteraturblatt_, started in 1866 by Prof. Reusch of Bonn,
  had to be abandoned in 1878, after raising the standard of Old
  Catholicism.

  § 191.12. =The Popes and Theological Science.=--What kind
  of theology =Pius IX.= wished to have taught is shown by his
  proclaiming St. Liguori (§ 165, 2) and St. Francis de Sales
  (§ 157, 1) _doctores ecclesiæ_. =Leo XIII.=, on the other hand,
  in 1879 recommended in the encyclical _Æterni patris_, in the
  most urgent way, all Catholic schools to make the philosophy
  of the angelical Aquinas (§ 103, 6) their foundation, founded
  in 1880 an “Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas,” three out of its
  thirty members being Germans, Kleutgen, Stöckl, and Morgott, and
  gave 300,000 lire out of Peter’s pence for an edition of Aquinas’
  works with the commentaries of “the most eminent expositors,”
  setting aside “all those books which, while professing to be
  derived from St. Thomas are really drawn from foreign and unholy
  sources;” _i.e._, in accordance with the desires of the Jesuits,
  omitting the strictly Thomist expositors (§ 149, 13), and giving
  currency only to Jesuit interpretations. No wonder that the
  Jesuit General Beckx in such circumstances submitted himself
  “humbly,” being praised for this by the pope as a saint. But a
  much greater, indeed a really great, service to the documentary
  examination of the history of the Christian church and state has
  been rendered by the same pope, undoubtedly at the instigation of
  Cardinal Hergenröther, by the access granted not only to Catholic
  but also to Protestant investigators to the exceedingly rich
  treasures of the Vatican archives. Though still hedged round with
  considerable limitations, the concession seems liberality itself
  as compared with the stubborn refusal of Pius IX. to facilitate
  the studies of any inquirer. With honest pride the pope could
  inscribe on his bust placed in the library: “_Leo XIII. Pont.
  Max. historiæ studiis consulens tabularii arcana reclusit a
  1880_.”--But what the ends were which he had in view and what
  the hopes that he cherished is seen from the rescript of August,
  1883, in which he calls upon the cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and
  Hergenröther, as prefects of the committee of studies, of the
  library and archives, while proclaiming the great benefits which
  the papacy has secured to Italy, to do their utmost to overthrow
  “the lies uttered by the sects” on the history of the church,
  especially in reference to the papacy, for, he adds, “we desire
  that at last once more the truth should prevail.” Therefore
  archives and library are to be opened to pious and learned
  students “for the service of religion and science in order that
  the historical untruths of the enemies of the church which have
  found entrance even into the schoolbooks should be displaced by
  the composition of good writings.” The firstfruits of the zeal
  thus stimulated were the “_Monunenta ref. Lutheranæ ex tabulariis
  S. Sedis_,” Ratisbon, 1883, published by the assistant keeper of
  the archives P. Balan as an extinguisher to the Luther Jubilee of
  that year. But this performance came so far short of the wishes
  and expectations of the Roman zealots that by their influence the
  editor was removed from his official position. The next attempt
  of this sort was the edition by Hergenröther of the papal
  _Regesta_ down to Leo X.




        IV. Relation of Church to the Empire and to the States.


                    § 192. THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

  The Peace of Luneville of 1801 gave the deathblow to the old German
empire, by the formal cession of the left bank of the Rhine to France,
indemnifying the secular princes who were losers by this arrangement
with estates and possessions on the right of the Rhine, taken from the
neutral free cities of the empire and the secularized ecclesiastical
principalities, institutions, monasteries, and orders. An imperial
commission sitting at Regensburg arranged the details of these
indemnifications. They were given expression to by means of the
imperial commission’s decree or recess of 1803. The dissolution of
the constitution of the German empire thus effected was still further
carried out by the Peace of Presburg of 1805, which conferred upon the
princes of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden, in league with Napoleon,
full sovereignty, and to the two first named the rank of kings, and was
completed by the founding of the Confederation of the Rhine of 1806,
in which sixteen German princes formally severed themselves from the
emperor and empire and ranked themselves as vassals of France under the
protectorate of Napoleon. Francis II., who already in 1804 had assumed
the title of Emperor of Austria as Francis I., now that the German
empire had actually ceased to exist, renounced also the name of
German emperor. The unhappy proceedings of the Vienna Congress of the
German Confederation and its permanent representation in the Frankfort
parliament during 1814 and 1815, after Napoleon’s twice repeated defeat,
led finally to the Austro-Prussian war of 1866.

  § 192.1. =The Imperial Commission’s Decree, 1803.=--The
  significance of this for church history consists not merely
  in the secularization of the ecclesiastical principalities
  and corporations, but even still more in the alteration
  caused thereby in the ecclesiastical polity of the territorial
  governments. With the ecclesiastical principalities the most
  powerful props of the Catholic church in Germany were lost,
  and Protestantism obtained a decided ascendency in the council
  of the German princes. The Catholic prelates were now simply
  paid servants of the state, and thus their double connexion with
  the curia and the state brought with it in later times endless
  entanglements and complications. On the other hand, in states
  hitherto almost exclusively Protestant, _e.g._ Württemberg, Baden,
  Hesse, there was a great increase of Catholic subjects, which
  attracted but little serious attention when the confessional
  particularism in the consciousness of the age was more unassuming
  and tolerant than ever it has been before or since.

  § 192.2. =The Prince-Primate of the Confederation of the
  Rhine.=--Baron Carl Theod. von Dalberg, distinguished for his
  literary culture and his liberal patronage of art and science,
  was made in 1802 Elector of Mainz and Lord High Chancellor of the
  German empire. When by the recess of 1803 the territories of the
  electorate on the left of the Rhine were given over to France and
  those on the right secularized, the electoral rank was abolished.
  The same happened with respect to the lord high chancellorship
  through the creation of the Rhenish Confederation. Dalberg was
  indemnified for the former by the favour of Napoleon by the
  gift of a small territory on the right of the Rhine, and for the
  latter by the renewal of the prince-primacy of the Confederation
  of the Rhine with a seat in the Federal council. He still
  retained his episcopal office and fixed its seat at Regensburg.
  The founding of a metropolitan chapter at Regensburg embracing
  the whole domain of the Rhenish Confederation he did not succeed
  in carrying out, and in 1813 he felt compelled to surrender also
  his territorial possessions. His spiritual functions, however,
  as Archbishop of Regensburg, he continued to discharge until his
  death in 1817.

  § 192.3. =The Vienna Congress and the Concordat.=--The Vienna
  Congress of 1814, 1815, had assigned it the difficult task of
  righting the sorely disturbed political affairs of Europe and
  giving a new shape to the territorial and dynastic relations. But
  never had an indispensably necessary redistribution of territory
  been made more difficult or more complicated by diplomatic
  intrigues than in Germany. Instead of the earlier federation of
  states, the restoration of which proved impossible, the federal
  constitution of June 8th, 1815, created under the name of the
  German Confederation a union of states in which all members
  of the confederation as such exercised equal sovereign rights.
  Their number then amounted to thirty-eight, but in the course
  of time by death or withdrawal were reduced to thirty-four. The
  new distribution of territory, just as little as the Luneville
  Peace, took into account confessional homogeneity of princes and
  territories, so that the combination of Catholic and Protestant
  districts with the above referred to consequences, occurred in
  a yet larger measure. But the federal constitution secured in
  Article XVI. full toleration for all Christian confessions in
  the countries of the confederation. The claims of the Romish
  curia, which advanced from the demand for the restoration of all
  ecclesiastical principalities and the return of all impropriated
  churches and monasteries to their original purposes, to the
  demand for the restoration of the holy Roman-German empire in the
  mediæval and hierarchical sense, as well as the solemn protest
  against its conclusions laid upon the table of the congress by
  the papal legate Consalvi, were left quite unheeded. But also
  a proposal urgently pressed by the vicar-general of the diocese
  of Constance, Baron von Wessenberg (§ 187, 3), to found a German
  Catholic national church under a German primate found no favour
  with the congress; and an article recommended by Austria and
  Prussia to be incorporated in the acts of the confederation by
  which the Catholic church in Germany endeavoured to secure a
  common constitution under guarantee of the confederation, was
  rejected through the opposition of Bavaria. And since in the
  Frankfort parliament neither Wessenberg with his primacy and
  national church idea nor Consalvi with a comprehensive concordat
  answering to the wishes of the curia, was able to carry through
  a measure, it was left to the separate states interested to make
  separate concordats with the pope. Bavaria concluded a concordat
  in 1817 (§ 195, 1); Prussia in 1821 (§ 193, 1). Negotiations with
  the other German states fell through owing to the excessiveness
  of the demands of the hierarchy, or led to very unsatisfactory
  results, as in Hanover in 1824 (§ 194, 1) and the states
  belonging to the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine
  in 1837 (§ 196, 1). In the time of reaction against the
  revolutionary excesses of 1848 the curia first secured any real
  advance. Hesse-Darmstadt opened the list in 1854 with a secret
  convention (§ 196, 4); then Austria followed in 1855 with a
  model concordat (§ 198, 2) which served as the pattern for the
  concordats with Württemberg in 1857 (§ 196, 6), and with Baden
  in 1859 (§ 196, 2), as well as for the episcopal convention with
  Nassau in 1861 (§ 196, 4). But the revived liberal current of
  1860 swept away the South German concordats; the Vatican Council
  by its infallibility dogma gave the deathblow to that of Austria,
  and the German “_Kulturkampf_” sent the Prussian concordat to the
  winds, and only that of Bavaria remained in full force.

  § 192.4. =The Frankfort Parliament and the Würzburg Bishops’
  Congress of 1848.=--As in the March diets of 1848 the magic
  word “freedom” roused through Germany a feverish excitement,
  it found a ready response among the Catholics, whose church
  was favoured in the highest degree by the movement. In the
  Frankfort parliament the ablest leaders of Catholic Germany
  had seats. Among the Catholic population there were numerous
  religio-political societies formed (§ 186, 3), and the German
  bishops, avowedly for the celebration of the 600th anniversary of
  the building of Cologne cathedral, set alongside of the Frankfort
  people’s parliament a German bishops’ council. After they had at
  Frankfort declared themselves in favour of unconditional liberty
  of faith, conscience, and worship, the complete independence
  of all religious societies in the ordering and administering
  of their affairs, but also of freeing the schools from all
  ecclesiastical control and oversight, as well as of the
  introduction of obligatory civil marriage, the bishops’ council
  met in October at Würzburg under the presidency of Archbishop
  Geissel of Cologne with nineteen episcopal assistants and several
  able theological advisers. In thirty-six sessions they reached
  the conclusion that complete separation between church and state
  is not to be desired so long as the state does not refuse to
  the church the place of authority belonging to it. On the other
  hand, by all means in their power they are to seek the abrogation
  of the _placet_ of the sovereign, the full independence of
  ecclesiastical legislation, administration and jurisdiction, with
  the abolition of the _appellatio tanquam ab abusu_, the direction
  and oversight of the public schools as well as the control of
  religious instruction in higher schools to be given only by
  teachers licensed for the purpose by the bishops, and finally to
  demand permission to erect educational institutions of their own
  of every kind, etc., and to forward a copy of these decisions
  to all German governments. The main object of the Würzburg
  assembly to secure currency for their resolutions in the new
  Germany sketched out at the Frankfort parliament, was indeed
  frustrated by that parliament’s speedy overthrow. Nevertheless
  in the several states concerned it proved of great and lasting
  importance in determining the subsequent unanimous proceedings
  of the bishops.


                            § 193. PRUSSIA.

  To the pious king Frederick William III. (1797-1840) it was a matter
of heart and conscience to turn to account the religious consciousness
of his people, re-awakened by God’s gracious help during the war of
independence, for the healing of the three hundred years’ rent in the
evangelical church by a union of the two evangelical confessions. The
jubilee festival of the Reformation in 1817 seemed to him to offer the
most favourable occasion. The king also desired to see the Catholic
church in his dominions restored to an orderly and thriving condition,
and for this end concluded a concordat with Rome in 1821. But it was
broken up in 1836 over a strife between canon and civil law in reference
to mixed marriages. Frederick William IV. was dominated by romantic
ideas, and his reign (1840-1858), notwithstanding all his evangelical
Christian decidedness, was wanting in the necessary firmness and
energetic consistency. In the Catholic church the Jesuits were allowed
unhindered to foster ultramontane hierarchical principles, and in
the evangelical church the troubles about constitution, union, and
confession could not be surmounted either by its own proper guardian,
the episcopate, or by the superior church councils created in 1850.
And although the notifications of William I. on his entrance upon the
sole government in 1858 were hailed by the liberals as giving assurance
that a new era had dawned in the development of the evangelical national
church, this hope proved to be premature. With the exaltation of the
victory-crowned royal house of Prussia to the throne of the newly
erected German Empire on January 18th, 1871, a new era was actually
opened for ecclesiastical developments and modifications throughout
the land.

  § 193.1. =The Catholic Church to the Close of the Cologne
  Conflict.=--The government of =Frederick William III.= entered
  into negotiations with the papal curia, not so much for the old
  provinces in which everything was going well, but rather in the
  interests of the Rhine provinces annexed in 1814, whose bishops’
  sees were vacant or in need of circumscription. The first
  Prussian ambassador to the Roman curia (1816-1823) was the famous
  historian Niebuhr. Although a true Protestant and keen critic
  and restorer of the history of old pagan Rome he was no match
  for the subtle and skilful diplomacy of Consalvi. In presence
  of the claims of the curia he manifested to an almost incredible
  extent trustful sympathy and acquiescence, even taking to do with
  matters that lay outside of Prussian affairs, eagerly silencing
  and opposing any considerations suggested from the other side. A
  complete concordat, however, defining in detail all the relations
  between church and state was not secured, but in 1821 an
  agreement was come to, with thankful acknowledgment of the “great
  magnanimity and goodness” shown by the king, by the bull _De
  salute animarum_, sanctioned by the king through a cabinet order
  (“in the exercise of his royal prerogative and without detriment
  to these rights”), according to which two archbishoprics, Cologne
  and Posen, and six bishoprics, Treves, Münster, Paderborn,
  Breslau, Kulm, and Ermeland, with a clerical seminary, were
  erected in Prussia and furnished with rich endowments. The
  cathedral chapter was to have the free choice of the bishop; but
  by an annexed note it was recommended to make sure in every such
  election that the one so chosen would be a _grata persona_ to the
  king. The union thus effected between church and state was of but
  short duration. The decree of Trent forbade Catholics to enter
  into mixed marriages with non-Catholics. A later papal bull
  of 1741, however, permitted it on condition of an only passive
  assistance of the clergy at the wedding and an engagement by the
  parents to train up the children as Catholics. The law of Prussia,
  on the other hand, in contested cases made all the children
  follow the religion of their fathers. As this was held in 1825
  to apply to the Rhine provinces, and as the bishops there had, in
  1828, appealed to the pope, Pius VIII. when negotiations with the
  Prussian ambassador Bunsen (1824-1838) proved fruitless, issued
  in 1830 a brief which permitted Catholic priests to give the
  ecclesiastical sanction to mixed marriages only when a promise
  was given that the children should be educated as Catholics, but
  otherwise to give only passive assistance. When all remonstrances
  failed to overcome the obstinacy of the curia, the government
  turned to the Archbishop of Cologne, Count =Spiegel=, a zealous
  friend and promoter of the Hermesian theology (§ 191, 1), and
  arranged in 1834 a secret convention with him, which by his
  influence all his suffragans joined. In it they promised to give
  such an interpretation to the brief that its observance would be
  limited to teaching and exhortation, but would by no means extend
  to the obligation of submitting the children to Catholic baptism,
  and that the mere _assistentia passiva_ would be resorted to as
  rarely as possible, and only in cases where absolutely required.
  Spiegel died in November, 1835. In 1836 the Westphalian Baron
  =Clement Droste von Vischering= was chosen as his successor.
  Although before his elevation he had unhesitatingly agreed to
  the convention, soon after his enthronization he strictly forbad
  all the clergy celebrating any marriage except in accordance with
  the brief, and blamed himself for having believed the agreement
  between convention and brief affirmed by the government, and
  having only subsequently on closer examination discovered the
  disagreement between the two. At the same time, in order to give
  effect to the condemnation that had been meanwhile passed on
  the Hermesian theology, he gave orders that at the confessional
  the Bonn students should be forbidden to attend the lectures
  of Hermesians. When the archbishop could not be prevailed on
  to yield, he was condemned in 1837 as having broken his word
  and having incited to rebellion, and sent to the fortress of
  Minden. =Gregory XIV.= addressed to the consistory a fulminating
  allocution, and a flood of controversial tracts on either
  side swept over Germany. Görres designated the archbishop “the
  Athanasius of the nineteenth century.” The government issued
  a state paper justifying its procedure, and the courts of
  law sentenced certain refractory priests to several years’
  confinement in fortresses or prisons. The moderate peaceful
  tone of the cathedral chapter did much to quell the disturbance,
  supporting as it did the state rather than the archbishop. The
  example of Cologne encouraged also =Dunin=, Archbishop of Gnesen
  and Posen, to issue in 1838 a pastoral in which he threatened
  with suspension any priest in his diocese who would not yield
  unconditional obedience to the papal brief. For this he was
  deposed by the civil courts and sentenced to half a year’s
  imprisonment in a fortress, but the king prevented the execution
  of the sentence. But Dunin fled from Berlin, whither he had
  been ordered by the king, to Posen, and was then brought in 1839
  to the fortress of Kolberg. While matters were in this state
  Frederick William IV. came to the throne in 1840. Dunin was
  immediately restored, after promising to maintain the peace.
  Droste also was released from his confinement with public marks
  of respect, but received in 1841, with his own and the pope’s
  approval, in the former Bishop of Spires, Geissel, a coadjutor,
  who in his name and with the right of succession administered the
  diocese. The government gave no aid to the Hermesians. The law
  in regard to mixed marriages continued indeed in force, but
  was exercised so as to put no constraint of conscience upon
  the Catholic clergy. Of his own accord the king declined
  further exercise of the royal prerogative, allowing the bishops
  direct intercourse with the papal see, whereas previously all
  correspondence had to pass through royal committees, with this
  proviso by the minister Eichhorn, “that this display of generous
  confidence be not abused,” and with the expectation that the
  bishops would not only communicate to the government the contents
  of their correspondence with the pope, but also the papal replies
  which did not deal exclusively with doctrine, and would not speak
  and act against the wish and will of the government. But Geissel,
  recommended by Louis of Bavaria to his son-in-law Frederick
  William IV. instead of Baron von Diepenbrock (§ 187, 1) who was
  first thought of, by his skilful and energetic manœuvring, going
  on from victory to victory, raised ultramontanism in Prussia to
  the very summit of its influence and glory.

  § 193.2. =The Golden Age of Prussian Ultramontanism,
  1841-1871.=--In the Cologne-Posen conflict Rome had won an almost
  complete victory, and with all its satellites now thought only
  of how it might in the best possible manner turn this victory to
  account, in which the all too trustful government sought to aid
  it to the utmost. This movement received a further impulse in
  the revolution of 1848 (§ 192, 4). In Prussia as well as in other
  German lands, and there in a special degree, the Catholic church
  managed to derive from the revolutionary movements of those times,
  and from the subsequent reaction, substantial advantage. The
  constitution of 1850 declared in Article xv.: “The evangelical
  and the Roman Catholic Church as well as every other religious
  society regulates and administers its affairs independently;”
  in Article xvi.: “The correspondence of religious societies
  with their superiors is unrestricted, the publication of
  ecclesiastical ordinances is subject only to those limitations
  which apply to all other documents;” in Article xviii.:
  “The right of nomination, proposal, election, and institution
  to spiritual office, so far as it belongs to the state, is
  abolished;” and in Article xxiv.: “The respective religious
  societies direct religious instruction in the public schools.”
  Under the screen of these fundamental privileges the Catholic
  episcopate now claimed one civil prerogative after another,
  emancipated itself wholly from the laws of the state, and, on
  the plea that God must be obeyed rather than man, made the canon
  law, not only in purely ecclesiastical but also in mixed matters,
  the only standard, and the decision of the pope the final appeal.
  At last nothing was left to the state but the obligation of
  conferring splendid endowments upon the bishops, cathedral
  chapters, and seminaries for priests, and the honour of being at
  home the executioner of episcopal tyranny, and abroad the avenger
  of every utterance unfavourable in the doctrine and worship,
  customs and enactments of the Catholic church. With almost
  incredible infatuation the Catholic hierarchy was now regarded
  as a main support of the throne against the revolutionary
  tendencies of the age and as the surest guarantee for the loyalty
  of subjects in provinces predominantly Catholic. Under protection
  of the law allowing the formation of societies and the right
  of assembling, the order of Jesuits set up one establishment
  after another, and made up for defects or insufficient energy
  of ultramontane pastoral work, agitation and endeavour at
  conversion on the part of other peaceably disposed parish
  priests, by numerous missions conducted in the most ostentatious
  manner (§ 186, 6). Although according to Article xiii. of the
  constitution religious societies could obtain corporative rights
  only by special enactments, the bishops, on their own authority,
  without regarding this provision, established religious orders
  and congregations wherever they chose. As these were generally
  placed under foreign superiors male or female, to whom in Jesuit
  fashion unconditional obedience was rendered, each member being
  “like a corpse,” without any individual will, they spread without
  hindrance, so that continually new cloisters and houses of the
  orders sprang up like mushrooms over the Protestant metropolis
  (§ 186, 2). Education in Catholic districts fell more and more
  into the hands of religious corporations, and even the higher
  state educational institutions, so far as they dealt with the
  training of the Catholic youth (theological faculties, gymnasia,
  and Training schools), were wholly under the control of the
  bishops. From the boys’ convents and priests’ seminaries,
  erected at all episcopal residences, went forth a new generation
  of clergy reared in the severest school of intolerance, who,
  first of all acting as chaplains, by espionage, the arousing
  of suspicion and talebearing, were the dread of the old parish
  priests, and, as “chaplains at large,” stirred up fanaticism
  among the people, and secured the Catholic press to themselves
  as a monopoly. For the purposes of Catholic worship and education
  the government had placed state aid most liberally at their
  disposal, without requiring any account from the bishops as to
  their disposal of the money. Although the number of Catholics
  in the whole country was only about half that of the Protestants,
  the endowment of the Catholic was almost double that of the
  evangelical church. The civil authority readily helped the
  bishops to enforce any spiritual penalties, and thus the inferior
  clergy were brought into absolute dependence upon their spiritual
  superiors. In the government department of Public Worship, from
  1840 to 1848 under the direction of Eichhorn, there was since
  1841 a subsection for dealing with the affairs of the Catholic
  church which, although restricted to the guarding of the rights
  of the king over against the curia and that of the state over
  against the hierarchy, came to be in an entirely opposite
  sense “the civil department of the pope in Prussia.” Under Von
  Mühler’s ministry, 1862-1872, it obtained absolute authority
  which it seems to have exercised in removing unfavourable acts
  and documents from the imperial archives. And thus the Catholic
  church, or rather the ultramontane party dominant in it since
  1848, grew up into a power that threatened the whole commonwealth
  in its very foundations.--By the annexation of Hanover, Hesse,
  and Nassau in 1866, four new bishoprics, those of Hildesheim,
  Osnabrück, Fulda and Limburg were added to the previous
  eight.--Continuation § 197.

  § 193.3. =The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia down to
  1848.=--On the accomplishment of the union by Frederick
  William III. and the confusions arising therefrom, see § 177.
  =Frederick William IV.= on his accession declared his wish in
  reference to the national evangelical church, that the supreme
  control of the church should be exercised only in order to secure
  for it in an orderly and legal way the independent administration
  of its own affairs. The realization of this idea, after a church
  conference of the ordinary clergy from almost all German states
  had been held in Berlin without result, was attempted at Berlin
  by a general synod, opened on Whitsunday, 1846. The synod at
  its eighteenth session entered upon the consideration of the
  difficult question of doctrine and the confession. The result
  of this was the approval of an ordination formula drawn up by
  Dr. Nitzsch (§ 182, 10), according to which the candidate for
  ordination was to make profession of the great fundamental
  and saving truths instead of the church confession hitherto
  enforced. And since among these fundamental truths the doctrines
  of creation, original sin, the supernatural conception, the
  descent into hell and the ascension of Christ, the resurrection
  of the body, the last judgment, everlasting life and everlasting
  punishment were not included, and therefore were not to be
  enforced, since further by this ordination formula the special
  confessions of Lutheran and Reformed were really set aside,
  and therewith the existence of a Lutheran as well as a Reformed
  church within the union seemed to be abolished, a small number
  of decided Lutherans in the synod protested; still more decided
  and vigorous protests arose from outside the synod, to which
  the _Evang. Kirchenzeitung_ opened its columns. The government
  gave no further countenance to the decisions of the synod, and
  opponents exercised their wit upon the unfortunate _Nicænum_ of
  the nineteenth century, which as a _Nitzschenum_ had fallen into
  the water. In March, 1847, the king issued a patent of toleration,
  by which protection was assured anew to existing churches, but
  the formation of new religious societies was allowed to all who
  found not in these the expression of their belief.

  § 193.4. =The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia,
  1848-1872.=--When the storms of revolution broke out in 1848,
  the new minister of worship, =Count Schwerin=, willingly aided
  in reorganizing the church according to the mind of the masses
  of the people by a constitutional synod. But before it had met
  the reaction had already set in. The transition ministry of
  =Ladenberg= was assured by consistories and faculties of the
  danger of convoking such a synod of representatives of the people.
  Instead of the synod therefore a =Supreme Church Council= was
  assembled at Berlin in 1850, which, independent of the ministry,
  and only under the king as _præcipuum membrum ecclesiæ_, should
  represent the freedom of the church from the state as something
  already realized. On March 6th, 1852, the king issued a cabinet
  order, in consequence of which the Supreme Church Council
  administered not only the affairs of the evangelical national
  church as a whole, but also was charged with the interests of the
  Lutheran as well as the Reformed church in particular, and was
  to be composed of members from both of those confessions, who
  should alone have to decide on questions referring to their own
  confession. On the _Itio in partes_ thus required in this board,
  only Dr. Nitzsch remained over, as he declared that he could find
  expression for his religious convictions in neither of the two
  confessions, but only in a consensus of both. The difficulty
  was overcome by reckoning him a representative equally of both
  denominations. Encouraged by such connivance in high places to
  entertain still bolder hopes, the Lutheran societies in 1853
  presented to the king a petition signed by one hundred and sixty
  one clergymen, for restoring Lutheran faculties and the Lutheran
  church property. But this called forth a rather unfavourable
  cabinet order, in which the king expressed his disapproval of
  such a misconception of the ordinances of the former year, and
  made the express declaration that it never was his intention to
  break up or weaken the union effected by his father, that he only
  wished to give the confession within the union the protection
  to which it was undoubtedly entitled. After this the separate
  Lutheran interest so long highly favoured fell into manifest and
  growing disfavour. Still the ministerial department of worship
  under =Von Raumer=, 1850-1858, continued to conduct the affairs
  of schools and universities in the spirit of the ecclesiastical
  orthodox reaction, and issued the endless school regulations
  conceived in this spirit of the privy councillor Stiehl. The
  Supreme Church Council also exhibited a rare activity and passed
  many wholesome ordinances. The evangelical church won great
  credit by the care it took of its members scattered over distant
  lands, in supplying them with clergy and teachers. The evident
  favour with which Frederick William IV. furthered the efforts of
  the Evangelical Alliance of 1857 (§ 178, 3) was the last proof
  of decided aversion from the confessional movement which he was
  to be allowed to give. A long and hopeless illness, of which he
  died in 1861, obliged him to resign the government to his brother
  =William I.= When this monarch in October, 1855, began to rule
  in his own name, he declared to his newly appointed ministers
  that it was his firm resolve that the evangelical union, whose
  beneficent development had been obstructive to an orthodoxy
  incompatible with the character of the evangelical church, and
  which had thus almost caused its ruin, should be maintained
  and further advanced. But in order that the task might be
  accomplished, the organs for its administration must be carefully
  chosen and to some extent changed. All hypocrisy and formalism,
  which that orthodoxy had fostered, is wherever possible to be
  removed. The “new era,” however, marked by the appearance of
  liberal journals, by no means answered to the expectations which
  those words excited. The ministry of =Von Bethmann-Hollweg=,
  1858-1862, filled some theological and spiritual offices in this
  liberal spirit; Stahl withdrew from the Supreme Church Council;
  the proceedings against the free churches, as well as the severe
  measures against the re-marriage of divorced parties, were
  relaxed. But the marriage law laid down by the ministry with
  permission of civil marriage was rejected by the House of Peers,
  and the hated school regulations had to be undertaken by the
  minister himself. The ecclesiastically conservative ministry of
  =Von Mühler=, 1862-1872, which, however, wanted a fixed principle
  as well as self-determined energy of will, and was therefore
  often vacillating and losing the respect of all parties, was
  utterly unfit to realize these expectations. The Supreme Church
  Council published in 1867 the outlines of a provincial synodal
  constitution for the six East Provinces which were still without
  this institution, which the Rhine Provinces and Westphalia had
  enjoyed since 1835. For this purpose he convened in autumn, 1869,
  an extraordinary provincial synod, which essentially approved
  the sketch submitted, whereupon it was provisionally enacted.

  § 193.5. =The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia,
  1872-1880.=--After the removal of Von Mühler, the minister of
  worship, in January, 1872, his place was taken by =Dr. Falk=,
  1872-1879. The hated school regulations were now at last set
  aside and replaced by new moderate prescriptions, conceived in
  an almost unexpectedly temperate spirit. On September 10th, 1873,
  the king issued a congregational and synodal constitution
  for the eastern provinces, with the express statement that the
  position of the confession and the union should thereby be in no
  way affected. It prescribed that in every congregation presided
  over by a pastor, elected by the ecclesiastically qualified
  church members, _i.e._ those of honourable life who had taken
  part in public worship and received the sacraments, there should
  be a church council of from four to twelve persons, and for
  more important matters, _e.g._ the election of a pastor, a
  congregational committee of three times the size, half of which
  should be reappointed every third year. To the district synod,
  presided over by the superintendent, each congregation sends as
  delegates besides the pastor a lay representative chosen by the
  church council from among its members or from the congregational
  committee. According to the same principle the District Synods
  choose from their members a clerical and a lay representative to
  the provincial synod, to which also the evangelical theological
  faculty of the university within the bounds sends a deputy, and
  the territorial lord nominates a number of members not exceeding
  a sixth part of the whole. The general synod, in which also the
  two western provinces, the Rhenish and Westphalian, take part,
  consists of one hundred and fifty delegates from the provincial
  synods, and thirty nominated by the territorial lords, to which
  the faculties of theology and law of the six universities within
  the bounds send each one of their members. Although this royal
  decree had proclaimed itself final, and only remitted to an
  =Extraordinary General Synod= to be called forthwith the task of
  arranging for future ordinary general synods, yet at the meeting
  of this extraordinary synod in Berlin, on November 24th, 1875,
  a draft was submitted of a constitution modified in various
  important points. Of the three demands of the liberal party
  now violently insisted upon--

    1. Substitution of the “filter” system in the election of
       provincial and general synod members for that of the
       community electorate.

    2. Strengthening of the lay element in all synods; and

    3. Abolition of the equality of small village communities with
       large town communities

  the first was by far the most important and serious in its
  consequences, but the other two bore fruit through the decree
  that two-thirds of the members of the district and provincial
  synods should be laymen, and the other one-third should be freely
  elected to the district synod from the populous town communities,
  for the provincial synods from the larger district synods.
  Also in reference to the rights belonging to the several grades
  of synods, considerable modifications were made, whereby the
  privileges of communities were variously increased (_e.g._ to
  them was given the right of refusing to introduce the catechisms
  and hymn-books sanctioned by the provincial synods), while those
  of the district and provincial synods were lessened in favour
  of the general synod, and those of the latter again in favour
  of the high church council and the minister of public worship.
  After nearly four weeks’ discussion the bill without any serious
  amendments was passed by the assembly, and on January 20th, 1876,
  received the royal assent and became an ecclesiastical law.
  But in order to give it also the rank of a law of the state,
  a decision of the States’ Parliament on the relation of church
  and state was necessary. The parliament had already in 1874,
  when the original congregational and synodal constitution was
  submitted to it, in order to advance the movement, approved
  only the congregational constitution with provisional refusal
  of everything going beyond that. In May, 1876, the bill already
  raised by the king into an ecclesiastical law, passed both houses
  of parliament, and had here also some amendments introduced with
  the effect of increasing and strengthening the prerogative of
  the state. The main points in the law as then passed are these:
  The general synod, whose members undertake to fulfil their
  duties agreeably to the word of God and the ordinances of the
  evangelical national church, has the task of maintaining and
  advancing the state church on the basis of the evangelical
  confession. The laws of the state church must receive its assent,
  but any measure agreed upon by it cannot be laid before the king
  for his sanction without the approval of the minister of public
  worship. It meets every sixth year; in the interval it, as well
  as the provincial synods, is represented by a synodal committee
  chosen from its members. The head of the church government is
  the Supreme Church Council, whose president countersigns the
  ecclesiastical laws approved by the king. The right of appointing
  to this office lies with the minister of public worship; in
  the nomination of other members the president makes proposals
  with consent of the minister. Taxation of the general synod for
  parliamentary purposes needs the assent of the minister of state,
  and must, if it exceeds four per cent. of the class and income
  tax, be agreed to by the Lower House, which also annually has
  to determine the expenditure on ecclesiastical administration.

  § 193.6. When preparations were being made for the extraordinary
  general synod, the king had repeatedly given vigorous expression
  to his positive religious standpoint, and from the proposed
  lists of members for that synod submitted by the minister of
  public worship all names belonging to the _Protestantenverein_
  were struck out. Still more decidedly in 1877 did he show
  his disapproval in the Rhode-Hossbach troubles (§ 180, 4), by
  declaring his firm belief in the divinity of Christ, and when the
  then president of the Brandenburg consistory, Hegel, tendered his
  resignation, owing to differences with the liberal president of
  the Supreme Church Council, Hermann, the king refused to accept
  it, because he could not then spare any such men as held by
  the apostolic faith. In May, 1878, Hermann was at last, after
  repeated solicitations, allowed to retire, Dr. Hermes, member of
  the Supreme Church Council, was nominated his successor, and the
  positive tendency of the Supreme Church Council was strengthened
  by the admission of the court preachers, Kögel and Baur. His
  proposals again disagreeing with the royal nominations for the
  provincial synod and for the =First Ordinary General Synod= of
  autumn, 1879, led the minister of public worship, Dr. Falk, at
  last, after repeated solicitation, to accept his resignation.
  It was granted him in July, 1879, and the chief president of the
  province of Silesia, =Von Puttkamer=, a more decided adherent
  of the positive union party, was named as his successor;
  but in June, 1881, he was made minister of the interior, and
  the undersecretary of the department of public worship, =Von
  Gossler=, was made minister. The general synod, October 10th
  till November 3rd, consisted of fifty-two confessionalists,
  seventy-six positive-unionists, fifty-six of the middle party
  or evangelical unionist, and nine from the ranks of the left,
  the _Protestantenverein_; three confessionalists, twelve
  positive-unionists, and fifteen of the middle party were
  nominated by the king. The measures proposed by the Supreme
  Church Council:

    1. A marriage service without reference to the preceding civil
       marriage, with two marriage formulæ, the first a joint
       promise, the second a benediction;

    2. A disciplinary law against despisers of baptism and marriage,
       which threatened such with the loss of all ecclesiastical
       electoral rights, and eventually with exclusion from the
       Lord’s supper and sponsor rights; and

    3. A law dealing with _Emeriti_,

  were adopted by the synod and then approved by the king. On the
  other hand a series of independent proposals conceived in the
  interests of the high-church party remained in suspense. The last
  effected elections for the general synod committee resulted in
  the appointment of three positive-unionist members, including the
  president, two confessionalists, and two of the middle party.[549]

  § 193.7. =The Evangelical Church in the Annexed Provinces.=--In
  1866 the provinces of Hanover, Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein were
  incorporated with the kingdom of Prussia. In these political
  particularism, combined with confessional Lutheranism, suspicion
  of every organized system of church government as intended
  to introduce Prussian unionism, even to the extreme of open
  rebellion, led to violent conflicts. The king, indeed, personally
  gave assurance in Cassel, Hanover and Kiel that the position of
  the church confession should in no way be endangered. “He will
  indeed support the union where it already existed as a sacred
  legacy to him from his forefathers; he also hopes that it may
  always make further progress as a witness to the grand unity of
  the evangelical church; but compulsion is to be applied to no
  man.” The consistories of these provinces were still to continue
  independent of the Supreme Church Council. But the ministerial
  order for the restoration of representative synodal constitution
  increasingly prevailed, although the wide-spread suspicion and
  individual protests against the system of church government,
  such as the temporary prohibition of the Marburg consistory of
  the mission festival, as avowedly used for agitation against
  the intended synodal constitution, helped to intensify the
  bitterness of feeling. But on the other hand many preachers by
  their unbecoming pulpit harangues, and their refusal to take
  the oath of allegiance or service, to pray in church for their
  new sovereign, and to observe the general holiday appointed
  to be held in 1869 on November 10th (Luther’s birthday),
  etc., compelled the ecclesiastical authorities to impose fines,
  suspension, penal transportation, and deposition. In the Lutheran
  =Schleswig-Holstein= a new congregational constitution was
  introduced in 1869 by the minister Von Mühler, as the basis of a
  future synodal constitution, which was adopted by the _Vorsynode_
  of Rendsburg in 1871, preserving the confessional status laid
  down, without discussion. In 1878 an advance was made by the
  institution of district or provostship synods, and in February,
  1880, the first General Synod was held at Rendsburg. As in Old
  Prussia so also here the conservative movement proved victorious.
  The laity obtained majorities in all synods, and the supremacy
  of the state was secured by the subordination of the church
  government under the minister of public worship.

  § 193.8. =In Hanover=, where especially Lichtenberg, president of
  the upper consistory, and Uhlhorn, member of the upper consistory
  (since 1878 abbot of Loccum), although many Lutheran extremists
  long remained dissatisfied, temperately and worthily maintained
  the independence and privileges of the Lutheran church, the first
  national synod could be convened and could bring to a generally
  peaceful conclusion the question of the constitution only in
  the end of 1869, after the preliminary labour of the national
  synod committee. In 1882 the Reformed communities of 120,000
  souls, hitherto subject to Lutheran consistories, obtained an
  independent congregational and synodal constitution. Against
  the new marriage ordinance enacted in consequence of the
  civil marriage law (§ 197, 5), Theod. Harms (brother, and from
  1865 successor of L. Harms, § 184, 1), pastor and director of
  Hermannsburg missionary seminary, rebelled from the conviction
  that civil marriage did not deserve to be recognised as marriage.
  He was first suspended, then in 1877 deposed from office, and
  with the most of his congregation retired and founded a separate
  Lutheran community, to which subsequently fifteen other small
  congregations of 4,000 souls were attached. As teacher and pupils
  of the seminary made it a zealous propaganda for the secession,
  the missionary journals and missionary festivals were misused
  for the same purpose, and as Harms answered the questions of the
  consistory in reference thereto, partly by denying, partly by
  excusing, that court, in December, 1878, forbad the missionary
  collections hitherto made throughout the churches at Epiphany
  for Hermannsburg, and so completely broke off the connection
  between the state church and the institution which had hitherto
  been regarded as “its pride and its preserving salt.” A reaction
  has since set in in favour of the seminary and its friends on
  the assurance that the interests of the separation would not be
  furthered by the seminary, and that several other objectionable
  features, _e.g._ the frequent employment in the mission service
  of artisans without theological training, the sending of them out
  in too great numbers without sufficient endowment and salary, so
  that missionaries were obliged to engage in trade speculations,
  should be removed as far as possible; but since the seminary
  life was always still carried on upon the basis of ecclesiastical
  secession, it could lead to no permanent reconciliation with the
  state church. Harms died in 1885. His son Egmont was chosen his
  successor, and as the consistory refused ordination, he accepted
  consecration at the hands of five members of the Immanuel Synod
  at Magdeburg.

  § 193.9. =In Hesse= the ministry of Von Mühler sought to bring
  about a combination of the three consistories of Hanau, Cassel,
  and Marburg, as a necessary vehicle for the introduction of a
  new synodal constitution. In the province itself an agitation
  was persistently carried on for and against the constitutional
  scheme submitted by the ministers, which wholly ignored the old
  church order (§ 127, 2), which, though in the beginning of the
  seventeenth century through the ecclesiastical disturbances of
  the time (§ 154, 1), it had passed out of use, had never been
  abrogated and so was still legally valid. A _Vorsynode_ convened
  in 1870 approved of it in all essential points, but conventions
  of superintendents, pastoral conferences and lay addresses
  protested, and the Prussian parliament, for which it was not yet
  liberal enough, refused the necessary supplies. As these after
  Von Mühler’s overthrow were granted, his successor, Dr. Falk,
  immediately proceeded in 1873 to set up in Cassel the court
  that had been objected to so long. It was constituted after the
  pattern of the Supreme Church Council, of Lutheran, Reformed, and
  United members with _Itio in partes_ on specifically confessional
  questions. The clergy of Upper Hesse comforted themselves
  with saying that the new courts in which the confessions were
  combined, if not better, were at least no worse than the earlier
  consistories in which the confessions were confounded; and they
  felt obliged to yield obedience to them, so long as they did not
  demand anything contradictory the Lutheran confession. On the
  other hand, many of the clergy of Lower Hesse saw in the advance
  from a merely eventual to an actual blending of the confessional
  status in church government an intolerable deterioration. And so
  forty-five clergyman of Lower and one of Upper Hesse laid before
  the king a protest against the innovation as destructive of the
  confessional rights of the Hessian church contrary to the will
  of the supreme majesty of Jesus Christ. They were dismissed with
  sharp rebuke, and, with the exception of four who submitted, were
  deposed from office for obstinate refusal to obey. There were
  about sixteen congregations which to a greater or less extent
  kept aloof from the new pastors appointed by the consistories,
  and without breaking away from the state church wished to remain
  true to the old pastor “appointed by Jesus Christ himself.”--In
  autumn, 1884, the movement on behalf of the restoration of a
  presbyterial and synodal constitution of the Hessian evangelical
  church, which had been delayed for fourteen years, was resumed.
  A sketch of a constitution, which placed it under three
  general superintendents (Lutheran, Reformed, United) and
  thirteen superintendents, and, for the fair co-operation of
  the lay element in the administration of church affairs (the
  confession status, however, being beyond discussion), provided
  suitable organs in the shape of presbyteries and synods, with a
  predominance of the lay element, was submitted to a _Vorsynode_
  that met on November 12th, consisting of two divisions, like a
  Lower and Upper House, sitting together. The first division, as
  representative of the then existing church order, embraced, in
  accordance with the practice of the old Hessian synods, all the
  members of the consistory, _i.e._ the nine superintendents and
  thirteen pastors elected by the clergy; the second, consisting at
  least of as many lay as clerical members, was chosen by the free
  election of the congregation. The royal assent was given to the
  decrees of the _Vorsynode_ in the end of December, 1885, and the
  confessional status was thereby expressly guaranteed.


                § 194. THE NORTH GERMAN SMALLER STATES.

  In most of the smaller North German states, owing to the very slight
representation of the Reformed church, which was considerable only
in Bremen, Lippe-Detmold, and a part of Hesse and East Friesland, the
union met with little favour. Yet only in a few of those provinces did a
sharply marked confessional Lutheranism gain wide and general acceptance.
This was so especially and most decidedly in Mecklenburg, but also in
Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. On the other hand, since the close of 1860,
in almost all those smaller states a determined demand was made for a
representative synodal constitution, securing the due co-operation of
the lay element.--The Catholic church was strongest in Hanover, and next
come some parts of Hesse, which had been added to the ecclesiastical
province of the Upper Rhine (§ 196, 1), but in the other North German
smaller states it was only represented here and there.

  § 194.1. =The Kingdom of Saxony.=--The present kingdom of Saxony,
  formerly an electoral principality, has had Catholic princes
  since 1679 (§ 153, 1), but the Catholic church could strike its
  roots again only in the immediate neighbourhood of the court.
  Indeed those belonging to it did not enjoy civil and religious
  equality until 1807, when this distinction was set aside. The
  erection of cloisters and the introduction of monkish orders,
  however, continued even then forbidden, and all official
  publications of the Catholic clergy required the _placet_ of
  the government. The administration of the evangelical church,
  so long as the king is Catholic, lies, according to agreement,
  in the hands of the ministers commissioned _in evangelicis_.
  Although several of these have proved defenders of ecclesiastical
  orthodoxy, the rationalistic Illumination became almost
  universally prevalent not only among the clergy but also
  among the general populace. Meanwhile a pietistic reaction
  set in, especially powerful in Muldenthal, where Rudelbach’s
  labours impressed on it a Lutheran ecclesiastical character.
  The religious movement, on the other hand, directed by Martin
  Stephan, pastor of the Bohemian church in Dresden, came to a
  sad and shameful end. As representative and restorer of strict
  Lutheran views he had wrought successfully in Dresden from 1810,
  but, through the adulation of his followers, approaching even
  to worship, he fell more and more deeply into hierarchical
  assumption and neglect of self-vigilance. When the police in
  1837 restricted his nightly assemblies, without, however, having
  discovered anything immoral, and suspended him from his official
  duties, he called upon his followers to emigrate to America. Many
  of them, lay and clerical, blindly obeyed, and founded in 1835,
  in Missouri, a Lutheran church communion (§ 208, 2). Stephan’s
  despotic hierarchical assumptions here reached their fullest
  height; he also gave his lusts free scope. Women oppressed or
  actually abused by him at length openly proclaimed his shame in
  1839, and the community excommunicated him. He died in A.D. 1846.
  Taught by such experiences, and purged of the Donatist-separatist
  element, a church reaction against advancing rationalism made
  considerable progress under a form of church that favoured it,
  and secured also influential representatives in members of the
  theological faculty of the university of Leipzig distinguished
  for their scientific attainments. After repeated debates in
  the chamber over a scheme of a new ecclesiastical and synodal
  order submitted by the ministry, the first evangelical Lutheran
  state synod met in Dresden, in May, 1871. On the motion of
  the government, the law of patronage was here modified so that
  the patron had to submit three candidates to the choice of the
  ecclesiastical board. It was also decided to form an upper or
  state consistory, to which all ecclesiastical matters hitherto
  administered by the minister of public worship should be given
  over; the control of education was to remain with the ministry,
  and the state consistory was to charge itself with the oversight
  only of religious instruction and ethico-religious training. The
  most lively debates were those excited by the proposal to abolish
  the obligation resting upon all church teachers to seem to adhere
  to the confession of the Lutheran church, led by Dr. Zarncke,
  the rector of the state university. The commission of inquiry
  sent down, under the presidency of Professor Luthardt, demanded
  the absolute withdrawal of this proposal, which aimed at perfect
  doctrinal freedom. On the other hand, Professor G. Baur made the
  mediate proposal to substitute for the declaration on oath, the
  promise to teach simply and purely to the best of his knowledge
  and according to conscience the gospel of Christ as it is
  contained in Scripture, and witnessed in the confessions of the
  Lutheran church. And as even now Luthardt, inspired by the wish
  not to rend the first State Synod at its final sitting by an
  incurable schism, agreed to this suggestion, it was carried
  by a large majority. In consequence of this decision, a number
  of “Lutherans faithful to the confession,” withdrew from the
  State church, and on the anniversary of the Reformation in 1871,
  constituted themselves into an Evangelical Lutheran Free Church,
  associated with the Missouri synod (§ 208, 2), from which, on
  the suggestion of some of the members of the community who had
  returned from America, they chose for themselves a pastor called
  Ruhland. There were five such congregations in Saxony: at Dresden,
  Planitz, Chemnitz, Frankenberg, and Krimmitschau, to which some
  South German dissenters at Stenden, Wiesbaden, Frankfort, and
  Anspach attached themselves.

  § 194.2. =The Saxon Duchies.=--The Stephan emigration had
  also decoyed a number of inhabitants from Saxe-Altenburg. In
  a rescript to the Ephorus Ronneburg, in 1838, the consistory
  traced back this separatist movement to the fact that the
  religious needs of the congregations found no satisfaction in the
  rationalistic preaching, and urged a more earnest presentation
  from the pulpit of the fundamental and central doctrines of
  evangelical Christianity. This rescript was the subject of
  violent denunciation. The government took the opinion of four
  theological faculties on the procedure of the consistory and
  its opponents, who published it simply with the praise and blame
  contained therein, and thus prevented any investigation. Also
  in =Weimar= and =Gotha= the rationalism of Röhr and Bretschneider,
  which had dominated almost all pulpits down to the middle of
  the century, began gradually to disappear, and the more recent
  parties of Confessional, Mediation, and Free Protestant theology
  to take its place. The last named party found vigorous support
  in the university of Jena. A petition addressed to it in 1882
  from the Thuringian Church Conference of Eisenach, to call
  to Jena also a representative of the positive Lutheran theology,
  was decidedly refused, and, in a controversial pamphlet by
  Superintendent Braasch, condemned as “the Eisenach outrage”
  (_Attentat_). In =Meiningen= the _Vorsynode_ convened there
  in 1870 sanctioned the sketch of a moderately liberal synodal
  constitution submitted to it, which placed the confession indeed
  beyond the reach of legislative interference, but also secured
  its rights to free inquiry. The first State Synod, however, did
  not meet before 1878. In =Weimar= the first synod was held in
  1873, the second in 1879.

  § 194.3. =The Kingdom of Hanover.=--Although the union found no
  acceptance in Hanover, after the overthrow of the rationalism of
  the _ancien régime_, the union theology became dominant in the
  university. The clergy, however, were in great part carried along
  by the confessional Lutheran current of the age. The Preachers’
  Conference at Stade in 1854 took occasion to call the attention
  of the government to the “manifest divergence” between the union
  theology of the university and the legal and actual Lutheran
  confession of the state church, and urged the appointment
  of Lutheran teachers. The faculty, on the other hand, issued
  a memorial in favour of liberty of public teaching, and the
  curators filled the vacancies again with union theologians.
  When in April, 1862, it was proposed to displace the state
  catechism introduced in 1790, which neither theologically nor
  catechetically satisfied the needs of the church, by a carefully
  sifted revision of the Walther catechism in use before 1790,
  approved of by the Göttingen faculty, the agitation of the
  liberal party called forth an opposition, especially in city
  populations, which expressed itself in insults to members of
  consistories and pastors, and in almost daily repeated bloody
  street fights with the military, and obliged the government at
  last to give way.--The negotiations about a concordat with Rome
  reached up further in 1824 than obtaining the circumscription
  bull _Impensa Romanorum_, by which the Catholic church obtained
  two bishoprics, those of Hildesheim and Osnabrück.--In 1886,
  Hanover was incorporated with the kingdom of Prussia (§ 193, 8).

  § 194.4. =Hesse.=--Landgrave Maurice, 1592-1627, had forced upon
  his territories a modified Melanchthonian Calvinism (§ 154, 1),
  but a Lutheran basis with Lutheran modes of viewing things and
  Lutheran institutions still remained, and the Lutheran reaction
  had never been completely overcome, not even in Lower Hesse,
  although there the name of the Reformed Church with Reformed
  modes of worship had been gradually introduced in most of the
  congregations. The communities of Upper Hesse and Schmalcald,
  however, by continuous opposition saved for the most part their
  Lutheranism, which in 1648 was guaranteed to them anew by the
  Darmstadt Recess, and secured an independent form of church
  government in the Definitorium at Marburg. The union movement,
  which issued from Prussia in 1817, met with favour also in Hesse,
  but only in the province of Hanau in 1818 got the length of a
  formal constituting of a church on the basis of the union. In
  1821, however, the elector issued the so-called Reorganization
  edict, by which the entire evangelical church of the electorate,
  without any reference to the confession status, but simply in
  accordance with the political divisions of the state, was put
  under the newly instituted consistories of Cassel, Marburg,
  and Hanau, in the formation of which the confession of the
  inhabitants had not been considered. The Marburg Definitorium
  indeed protested, but in vain, against this despotic act, which
  was felt a grievance, less on account of the wiping out of the
  confession than on account of the loss of independent church
  government which it occasioned. The government appointed pastors,
  teachers and professors without enquiring much about their
  confession. In 1838 the hitherto required subscription of the
  clergy to the confessional writings, the Augsburg Confession and
  its Apology, was modified into a formula declaring conscientious
  regard for them. But in this Bickell, professor of law at Marburg,
  saw a loss to the church in legal status, an endangering of the
  evangelical church; the theological professor, Hupfeld, also
  in the further course of the controversy took his side, while
  the advocate, Henkel, in Cassel, as a popular agitator opposed
  him and demanded a State Synod for the formal abolishing of all
  symbolical books. The government ignored both demands, and the
  vehement conflict was quieted by degrees. With 1850 a new era
  began in the keen controversy over the question, which confession,
  whether Lutheran or Reformed, was legally and actually that
  of the state. The ministry of Hassenpflug from 1850, which
  suppressed the revolution, considered it as legally the Lutheran,
  and determined the ecclesiastical arrangements in this sense,
  and in this course Dr. Vilmar, member of the Consistory, was the
  minister’s right hand. But the elector was from the beginning
  personally opposed to this procedure, and on the overthrow of
  the ministry in 1855, Vilmar (died 1868) was also transferred to
  a theological professorship at Marburg. This, however, only gave
  a new impulse to the confessional Lutheran movement in the state,
  for the spirit and tendency of the highly revered theological
  teacher powerfully influenced the younger generation of the
  Hessian clergy. In consequence of the German war, Hesse was
  annexed to Prussia in 1866 (§ 193, 9).--On the Catholic church
  in this state, compare § 196, 1.

  § 194.5. =Brunswick, Oldenburg, Anhalt, and Lippe-Detmold.=--Much
  ado was made also in =Brunswick= over the introduction of a new
  constitution for the Lutheran state church in 1869, and at last
  in 1871 a synodal ordinance was passed by which the State Synod,
  consisting of fourteen clerical and eighteen lay members, was
  to meet every four years, so as not to be a too offensive factor
  in the ecclesiastical administration and legislation, which
  therefore has left untouched the content of the confession. The
  first synod of 1872 began by rejecting the injunction to open
  the sessions with prayer and reading of scripture. =Oldenburg=,
  which in 1849, by a synod whose membership had been chosen by the
  original electorate, had been favoured with a democratic church
  constitution wholly separate from the state, accepted in 1854
  without opposition a new constitution which restored the headship
  of the church to the territorial lords, the administration of the
  church to a Supreme Church Council and ecclesiastical legislation
  to a State Synod consisting of clerical and lay members.--The
  prince in the exercise of his sovereign rights gave a charter
  in 1878 to the evangelical church of the Duchy of =Anhalt= to
  a synodal ordinance which, though approved by the _Vorsynode_ of
  1876, had been rejected by parliament, and afterwards it gained
  the assent of the national representatives.--In the Reformed
  =Lippe-Detmold= there were in 1844 still five preachers who,
  wearied of the illuminationist catechism of the state church, had
  gone back to the Heidelberg catechism and protested against the
  abolition of acceptance on oath of the symbols, as destructive
  of the peace of the church. The democratic church constitution
  of 1851, however, was abrogated in 1854, and instead of it, the
  old Reformed church order of 1684 was again made law. At the same
  time, religious pardon and equality were guaranteed to Catholics
  and Lutherans. The first Reformed State Synod was constituted
  in 1878.

  § 194.6. =Mecklenburg.=--Mecklenburg-Schwerin from 1848 was
  in possession of a strictly Lutheran church government under
  the direction of Kliefoth, and its university at Rostock
  had decidedly Lutheran theologians. When the chamberlain Von
  Kettenburg, on going over to the Catholic church, appointed
  a Catholic priest on his estate, the government in 1852, on
  the ground that the laws of the state did not allow Catholic
  services which extended beyond simple family worship, held that
  he had overstepped the limits. A complaint, in reference thereto,
  presented to the parliament and then to the German _Bund_, was
  in both cases thrown out. Even in 1863 the Rostock magistrates
  refused to allow tower and bells in the building of a Catholic
  church.--An extraordinary excitement was caused by the removal
  from office in January, 1858, of Professor M. Baumgarten of
  Rostock. An examination paper set by him on 2 Kings xi. by which
  the endeavour was made to win scripture sanction for a violent
  revolution, obliged the government even in 1856 to remove him
  from the theological examination board. At the same time his
  polemic addressed to a pastoral conference at Parchim, against
  the doctrine of the Mecklenburg state catechism on the ceremonial
  law, especially in reference to the sanctification of the Sabbath,
  increased the distrust which the clergy of the state, on account
  of his writings, had entertained against his theological position
  as one which, from a fanatical basis, diverged on all sides into
  fundamental antagonism to the confession and the ordinances of
  the Lutheran state church. The government finally deposed him
  in 1858 (leaving him, however, in possession of his whole salary,
  also of the right of public teaching), on the ground and after
  the publication of a judgment of the consistory which found him
  guilty of heretical alteration of all the fundamental doctrines
  of the Christian faith and the Lutheran confession, and sought to
  prove this verdict from his writings. As might have been foreseen,
  this step was followed by a loud outcry by all journals; but even
  Lutherans, like Von Hofmann, Von Scheurl [Scheuerl], and Luthardt,
  objected to the proceedings of the government as exceeding the
  law laid down by the ecclesiastical ordinance and the opinion
  of the consistory as resting upon misunderstanding, arbitrary
  supposition and inconsequent conclusion.


                            § 195. BAVARIA.

  Catholic Bavaria, originally an electorate, but raised in 1806, by
Napoleon’s favour, into a royal sovereignty, to which had been adjudged
by the Vienna Congress considerable territories in Franconia and the
Palatine of the Rhine with a mainly Protestant population, attempted
under Maximilian Joseph (IV.) I., after the manner of Napoleon,
despotically to pass a liberal system of church polity, but found
itself obliged again to yield, and under Louis I. became again the
chief retreat of Roman Catholic ecclesiasticism of the most pronounced
ultramontane pattern. It was under the noble and upright king,
Maximilian II., that the evangelical church of the two divisions of
the kingdom, numbering two-thirds of the population, first succeeded in
securing the unrestricted use of their rights. Nevertheless, Catholic
Bavaria remained, or became, the unhappy scene of the wildest demagogic
agitation of the Catholic clergy and of the Bavarian “Patriots” who
played their game, whose patriotism consisted only in mad hatred of
Prussia and fanatical ultramontanism. Yet King Louis II., after the
brilliant successes of the Franco-German war, could not object to the
proposal of November 30th, 1870, to found a new German empire under a
Prussian and therefore a Protestant head.

  § 195.1. =The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Maximilian I.,
  1799-1825.=--Bavaria boasted with the most unfeigned delight
  after the uprooting of Protestantism in its borders as then
  defined (§ 151, 1), that it was the most Catholic, _i.e._ the
  most ultramontane and most bigoted, of German-speaking lands, and,
  after a short break in this tradition by Maximilian Joseph III.
  (§ 165, 10), went forth again with full sail, under Charles
  Theodore, 1777-1779, on the old course. But the thoroughly
  new aspect which this state assumed on the overthrow of the
  old German empire, demanded an adapting territorially of the
  civil and ecclesiastical life in accordance with the relations
  which it owed to its present political position. The new elector
  Maximilian Joseph IV., who as king styled himself Maximilian I.,
  transferred the execution of this task to his liberal, energetic,
  and thoroughly fearless minister, Count Montgelas, 1799-1817.
  In January, 1802, it was enacted that all cloisters should
  be suppressed, and that all cathedral foundations should be
  secularized; and these enactments were immediately carried out
  in an uncompromising manner. Even in 1801 the qualification
  of Protestants to exercise the rights of Bavarian citizens
  was admitted, and a religious edict of 1803 guaranteed to all
  Christian confessions full equality of civil and political
  privileges. To the clergy was given the control of education,
  and to the gymnasia and universities a considerable number of
  foreigners and Protestants received appointments. In all respects
  the sovereignty of the state over the church and the clergy was
  very decidedly expressed, the episcopate at all points restricted
  in its jurisdiction, the training of the clergy regulated
  and supervised on behalf of the state, the patronage of all
  pastorates and benefices usurped by the government, even
  public worship subjected to state control by the prohibition
  of superstitious practices, etc. But amid many other infelicities
  of this autocratic procedure was specially the gradual dying out
  of the old race of bishops, which obliged the government to seek
  again an understanding with Rome; and so it actually happened
  in June, 1817, after Montgelas’ dismissal, that a concordat was
  drawn up. By this the Roman Catholic apostolic religion secured
  throughout the whole kingdom those rights and prerogatives which
  were due to it according to divine appointment and canonical
  ordinances, which, strictly taken, meant supremacy throughout the
  land. In addition, two archbishoprics and seven bishoprics were
  instituted, the restoration of several cloisters was agreed to,
  and the unlimited administration of theological seminaries, the
  censorship of books, the superintendance of public schools and
  free correspondence with the holy see were allowed to the bishops.
  On the other hand, the king was given the choice of bishops (to
  be confirmed by the pope), the nomination of a great part of
  the priests and canons, and the _placet_ for all hierarchical
  publications. After many vain endeavours to obtain amendments,
  the king at last, on October 17th, ratified this concordat;
  but, to mollify his highly incensed Protestant subjects, he
  delayed the publication of it till the proclamation of the new
  civil constitution on May 18th following. The concordat was
  then adopted, as an appendage to an edict setting forth the
  ecclesiastical supremacy of the state, securing perfect freedom
  of conscience to all subjects, as well as equal civil rights to
  members of the three Christian confessions, and demanding from
  them equal mutual respect. The irreconcilableness of this edict
  with the concordat was evident, and the newly appointed bishops
  as well as the clerical parliamentary deputies, declared by papal
  instruction that they could not take the oath to the constitution
  without reservation, until the royal statement of Tegernsee,
  September 21st, that the oath taken by Catholic subjects simply
  referred to civil relations, and that the concordat had also the
  validity of a law of the state, induced the curia to agree to
  it. But the government nevertheless continued to insist as before
  upon the supremacy of the state over the church, enlarged the
  claims of the royal _placet_, put the free intercourse with
  Rome again under state control, arbitrarily disposed of church
  property and supervised the theological examinations of the
  seminarists, made the appointment of all clergy dependent on
  its approbation, and refused to be misled in anything by the
  complaints and objections of the bishops.

  § 195.2. =The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Louis I.,
  1825-1848.=--Zealous Catholic as the new king was, he still
  held with unabated tenacity to the sovereign rights of the crown,
  and the extreme ultramontane ministry of Von Abel from 1837
  was the first to wring from him any relaxations, _e.g._ the
  reintroduction of free intercourse between the bishops and the
  holy see without any state control. But it could not obtain the
  abolition of the _placet_, and just as little the eagerly sought
  permission of the return of the Jesuits. On the other hand the
  allied order of Redemptorists was allowed, whose missions among
  the Bavarian people, however, the king soon made dependent
  on a permission to be from time to time renewed. His tolerant
  disposition toward the Protestants was shown in 1830, by his
  refusing the demand of the Catholic clergy for a Reverse in
  mixed marriages, and recognising Protestant sponsors at Catholic
  baptisms. But yet his honourable desire to be just even to
  the Protestants of his realm was often paralysed, partly by
  his own ultramontane sympathies, partly and mainly by the
  immense influence of the Abel ministry, and the religious
  freedom guaranteed them by law in 1818 was reduced and restricted.
  Among other things the Protestant press was on all sides gagged
  by the minister, while the Catholic press and preaching enjoyed
  unbridled liberty. Great as the need was in southern Bavaria the
  government had strictly forbidden the taking of any aid from the
  _Gustavus Adolphus Verein_. Louis saw even in the name of this
  society a slight thrown on the German name, and was specially
  offended at its vague, nearly negative attitude towards the
  confession. Yet he had no hesitation in affording an asylum in
  Catholic Bavaria to the Lutheran confessor Scheibel (§ 177, 2)
  whom Prussian diplomacy had driven out of Lutheran Saxony,
  and did not prevent the university of Erlangen, after its dead
  orthodoxy had been reawakened by the able Reformed preacher
  Krafft (died 1845), becoming the centre of a strict Lutheran
  church consciousness in life as well as science for all
  Germany. The adoration order of 1838, which required even the
  Protestant soldiers to kneel before the host as a military salute,
  occasioned great discontent among the Protestant population,
  and many controversial pamphlets appeared on both sides. When
  finally the parliament in 1845 took up the complaint of the
  Protestants, a royal proclamation followed by which the usually
  purely military salute formerly in use was restored. In 1847 the
  ultramontane party, with Abel at its head, fell into disfavour
  with the king, on account of its honourable attitude in the
  scandal which the notorious Lola Montez caused in the circle of
  the Bavarian nobility; but in 1848 Louis was obliged, through the
  revolutionary storm that burst over Bavaria, to resign the crown.

  § 195.3. =The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Maximilian II.,
  1848-1864, and Louis II.= (died 1886).--Much more thoroughly
  than his father did Maximilian II. strive to act justly toward
  the Protestant as well as the Catholic church, without however
  abating any of the claims of constitutional supremacy on the
  part of the state. In consequence of the Würzburg negotiations
  (§ 192, 4), the Bavarian bishops assembled at Freysing, in
  November, 1850, presented a memorial, in which they demanded the
  withdrawal of the religious edict included in the constitution
  of 1818, as in all respects prejudicial to the rights of the
  church granted by the concordat, and set forth in particular
  those points which were most restrictive to the free and
  proper development of the catholic church. The result was
  the publication in April, 1852, of a rescript which, while
  maintaining all the principles of state administration hitherto
  followed, introduced in detail various modifications, which,
  on the renewal of the complaints in 1854, were somewhat further
  increased as the fullest and final measure of surrender.--The
  change brought about 1866 in the relation of Bavaria to North
  Germany led the government under Louis II. to introduce liberal
  reforms, and the offensive and defensive alliance which the
  government concluded with the heretical Prussia, the failure of
  all attempts on the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war to force
  it in violation of treaty to maintain neutrality, and then to
  prevent Bavaria becoming part of the new German empire founded in
  1871 at the suggestion of her own king, roused to the utmost the
  wrath of the Bavarian clerical patriots. In the conflicts of the
  German government, in 1872, against the intolerable assumptions,
  claims and popular tumults of the ultramontane clergy, the
  department of public worship, led by Lutz, inclined to take
  an energetic part. But this was practically limited to the
  passing of the so-called _Kanzelparagraphen_ (§ 197, 4) in
  the _Reichstag_. Comp. § 197, 14.

  § 195.4. =Attempts at Reorganization of the Lutheran
  Church.=--Since 1852, Dr. von Harless (§ 182, 13), as president
  of the upper consistory at Munich, stood at the head of the
  Lutheran church of Bavaria. Under his presidency the general
  synod at Baireuth in 1853 showed a vigorous activity in the
  reorganization of the church. On the basis of its proceedings
  the upper consistory ordered the introduction of an admirable
  new hymnbook. This occasioned considerable disagreement. But when,
  in 1856, the upper consistory issued a series of enactments on
  worship and discipline, a storm, originating in Nuremberg, burst
  forth in the autumn of that same year, which raged over the whole
  kingdom and attacked even the state church itself. The king was
  assailed with petitions, and the spiritual courts went so far in
  faint-heartedness as to put the acceptance and non-acceptance of
  its ordinances to the vote of the congregations. Meanwhile the
  time had come for calling another general synod (1857). An order
  of the king as head of the church abolished the union of the
  two state synods in a general synod which had existed since 1849,
  and forbad all discussion of matters of discipline. Hence instead
  of one, two synods assembled, the one in October at Anspach, the
  other in November at Baireuth. Both, consisting of equal numbers
  of lay and clerical members, maintained a moderate attitude,
  relinquishing none of the privileges of the church or the
  prerogatives of the upper consistory, and yet contributed greatly
  to the assuaging of the prevalent excitement. Also the lay and
  clerical members of the subsequent reunited general synods held
  every fourth year for the most part co-operated successfully
  on moderate church lines. The synod held at Baireuth in 1873
  unanimously rejected an address sent from Augsburg inspired by
  “Protestant Union” sympathies, as to their mind “for the most
  part indistinct and where distinct unevangelical.”

  § 195.5. =The Church of the Union in the Palatine of the
  Rhine.=--In the Bavarian =Palatine of the Rhine= the union had
  been carried out in 1818 on the understanding that the symbolical
  books of both confessions should be treated with due respect, but
  no other standard recognised than holy scripture. When therefore
  the Erlangen professor, Dr. Rust, in 1832 appeared in the
  consistory at Spires and the court for that time had endeavoured
  to fill up the Palatine union with positive Christian contents,
  204 clerical and lay members of the Diocesan Synod presented
  to the assembly of the states of the realm, opportunely meeting
  in 1837, a complaint against the majority of the consistory.
  As this memorial yielded practically no result, the opposition
  wrought all the more determinedly for the severance of the
  Palatine church from the Munich Upper Consistory. This was first
  accomplished in the revolutionary year 1848. An extraordinary
  general synod brought about the separation, and gave to the
  country a new democratic church constitution. But the reaction
  of the blow did not stop there. The now independent consistory at
  Spires, from 1853 under the leadership of Ebrard, convened in the
  autumn of that year a general synod, which made the _Augustana
  Variata_ of 1540 as representing the consensus between the
  _Augustana_ of 1530 and the Heidelberg as well as the Lutheran
  catechism, the confessional standard of the Palatine church,
  and set aside the democratic election law of 1848. When now the
  consistory, purely at the instance of the general synod of 1853,
  submitted to the diocesan synod in 1856 the proofs of a new
  hymnbook, the liberal party poured out its bitter indignation
  upon the system of doctrine which it was supposed to favour.
  But the diocesan synods admitted the necessity of introducing
  a new hymnbook and the suitability of the sketch submitted,
  recommending, however, its further revision so that the recension
  of the text might be brought up to date and that an appendix
  of 150 new hymns might be added. The hymnbook thus modified was
  published in 1859, and its introduction into church use left to
  the judgment of presbyteries, while its use in schools and in
  confirmation instruction was insisted upon forthwith. This called
  forth protest after protest. The government wished from the
  first to support the synodal decree, but in presence of growing
  disturbance, changed its attitude, recommended the consistory
  to observe decided moderation so as to restore peace, and
  in February, 1861, called a general synod which, however, in
  consequence of the prevailingly strict ecclesiastical tendencies
  of its members, again expressed itself in favour of the new
  hymnbook. Its conclusions were meanwhile very unfavourably
  received by the government. Ebrard sought and obtained liberty
  to resign, and even at the next synod, in 1869, the consistory
  went hand in hand with the liberal majority.


               § 196. THE SOUTH GERMAN SMALLER STATES AND
                      RHENISH ALSACE AND LORRAINE.

  The Protestant princely houses of South Germany had by the Lüneville
[Luneville] Peace obtained such an important increase of Catholic
subjects, that they had to make it their first care to arrange their
delicate relations by concluding a concordat with the papal curia in a
manner satisfactory to state and church. But all negotiations broke down
before the exorbitant claims of Rome, until the political restoration
movements of 1850 led to modifications of them hitherto undreamed of.
The concordats concluded during this period were not able to secure
enforcement over against the liberal current that had set in with
redoubled power in 1860, and so one thing after another was thrown
overboard. Even in the Protestant state churches this current made
itself felt in the persistent efforts, which also proved successful, to
secure the restoration of a representative synodal constitution which
would give to the lay element in the congregations a decided influence.

  § 196.1. =The Upper Rhenish Church Province.=--The governments
  of the South German States gathered in 1818 at Frankfort, to
  draw up a common concordat with Rome. But owing to the utterly
  extravagant pretensions nothing further was reached than a new
  delimitation in the bull “_Provida sollersque_,” 1821, of the
  bishoprics in the so-called Upper Rhenish Church Province: the
  archbishopric of Freiburg for Baden and the two Hohenzollern
  principalities, the bishoprics of Mainz for Hesse-Darmstadt,
  Fulda for Hesse-Cassel, Rottenburg for Württemberg, Limburg for
  Nassau and Frankfort; and even this was given effect to only
  in 1827, after long discussions, with the provision (bull _Ad
  dominicæ gregis custodiam_) that the choice of the bishops should
  issue indeed from the chapter, but that the territorial lord
  might strike out objectionable names in the list of candidates
  previously submitted to him. The actual equality of Protestants
  and Catholics which the pope had not been able to allow in the
  concordat, was now in 1880 proclaimed by the princes as the
  law of the land. Papal and episcopal indulgences had to receive
  approval before their publication; provincial and diocesan
  synods could be held only with approval of the government and
  in presence of the commissioners of the prince; taxes could not
  be imposed by any ecclesiastical court; appeal could be made to
  the civil court against abuse of spiritual power; those preparing
  for the priesthood should receive scientific training at the
  universities, practical training in the seminaries for priests,
  etc. The pope issued a brief in which he characterized these
  conditions as scandalous novelties, and reminded the bishops of
  Acts v. 29. But only the Bishop of Fulda followed this advice,
  with the result that the Catholic theological faculty at Marburg
  was after a short career closed again, and the education of the
  priests given over to the seminary at Fulda. Hesse-Darmstadt
  founded a theological faculty at Giessen in 1830; Baden had one
  already in Freiburg, and Würtemberg [Württemberg] had in 1817
  affiliated the faculty at Ellwanger with the university of
  Tübingen, and endowed it with the revenues of a rich convent. In
  all these faculties alongside of rigorous scientific exactness
  there prevailed a noble liberalism without the surrender of
  the fundamental Catholic faith. The revolutionary year, 1848,
  first gave the bishops the hope of a successful struggle for
  the unconditional freedom of the church. In order to enforce the
  Würzburg decrees (§ 192, 4), the five bishops issued in 1851 a
  joint memorial. As the governments delayed their answer, they
  declared in 1852 that they would immediately act as if all had
  been granted them; and when at last the answer came, on most
  points unfavourable, they said in 1853, that, obeying God rather
  than man, they would proceed wholly in accordance with canon law.

  § 196.2. =The Catholic Troubles in Baden down to 1873.=--The
  Grand Duchy of Baden, with two-thirds of its population Catholic,
  where in 1848 the revolution had shattered all the foundations
  of the state, and where besides a young ruler had taken the
  reins of government in his hands only in 1852, seemed in spite
  of the widely prevalent liberality of its clergy, the place best
  fitted for such an attempt. The Archbishop of Freiburg, =Herm.
  von Vicari=, in 1852, now in his eighty-first year, began by
  arbitrarily stopping, on the evening of May 9th, the obsequies of
  the deceased grand-duke appointed by the Catholic Supreme Church
  Council for May 10th, prohibiting at the same time the saying
  of mass for the dead (_pro omnibus defunctis_) usual at Catholic
  burials, but in Baden and Bavaria hitherto not refused even to
  Protestant princes. More than one hundred priests, who disobeyed
  the injunction, were sentenced to perform penances. In the
  following year he openly declared that he would forthwith carry
  out the demands of the episcopal memorial, and did so immediately
  by appointing priests in the exercise of absolute authority;
  and by holding entrance examinations to the seminary without
  the presence of royal commissioners as required by law. As a
  warning remained unheeded, the government issued the order that
  all episcopal indulgences must before publication be subscribed
  by a grand-ducal special commissioner appointed for the purpose.
  Against him, as well as against all the members of the Supreme
  Church Council, the archbishop proclaimed the ban, issued a
  fulminating pastoral letter, which was to have been read with
  the excommunication in all churches, and ordered preaching for
  four weeks for the instruction of the people on these matters.
  At the same time he solemnly protested against all supremacy
  of the state over the church. The government drove the Jesuits
  out of the country, forbad the reading of the pastoral, and
  punished disobedient priests with fines and imprisonment.
  But the archbishop, spurred on by Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz,
  advanced more boldly and recklessly than ever. In May, 1854,
  the government introduced a criminal process against him,
  during the course of which he was kept prisoner in his own house.
  The attempts of his party to arouse the Catholic population
  by demonstrations had no serious result. At the close of the
  investigation the archbishop was released from his confinement
  and continued the work as before. The government, however, still
  remained firm, and punished every offence. In June, 1855, however,
  a provisional agreement was published, and finally in June, 1859,
  a formal concordat, the bull _Æterni patris_, was concluded with
  Rome, its concessions to the archbishop almost exceeding even
  those of Austria (§ 198, 2). In spite of ministerial opposition
  the second chamber in March, 1860, brought up the matter before
  its tribunal, repudiated the right of the government to conclude
  a convention with Rome without the approbation of the states of
  the realm, and forbad the grand-duke to enforce it. He complied
  with this demand, dismissed the ministry, insisted, in answer
  to the papal protest, on his obligation to respect the rights of
  the constitution, and on October 9th, 1860, sanctioned jointly
  with the chambers a law on the legal position of the Catholic and
  Protestant churches in the state. The archbishop indeed declared
  that the concordat could not be abolished on one side, and still
  retain the force of law, but in presence of the firm attitude
  of the government he desisted, and satisfied himself with giving
  in 1861 a grudging acquiescence, by which he secured to himself
  greater independence than before in regard to imposing of dues
  and administration of the church property. Conflicts with the
  archbishop, however, and with the clerical minority in the
  chamber, still continued. The archbishop died in 1868. His see
  remained vacant, as the chapter and the government could not
  agree about the list of candidates; the interim administration
  was carried on by the vicar-general, Von Kübel (died 1881),
  as administrator of the archdiocese, quite in the spirit of
  his predecessor. The law of October 9th, 1860, had prescribed
  evidence of general scientific culture as a condition of
  appointment to an ecclesiastical office in the Protestant as well
  as the Catholic church. Later ordinances required in addition:
  Possession of Baden citizenship, having passed a favourable
  examination on leaving the university, a university course of at
  least two and half years, attendance upon at least three courses
  of lectures in the philosophical faculty, and finally also an
  examination before a state examining board, within one and half
  years of the close of the university curriculum, in the Latin
  and Greek languages, history of philosophy, general history,
  and the history of German literature (later also the so called
  _Kulturexamen_). The Freiburg curia, however, protested, and in
  1867 forbad clergy and candidates to submit to this examination
  or to seek a dispensation from it. The result was, that forthwith
  no clergymen could be definitely appointed, but up to 1874 no
  legal objection was made to interim appointments of parochial
  administrators. The educational law of 1868 abolished the
  confessional character of the public schools. In 1869 state
  recognition was withdrawn from the festivals of Corpus Christi,
  the holy apostles, and Mary, as also, on the other hand, from the
  festivals of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. In 1870 obligatory
  civil marriage was introduced, while all compulsion to observe
  the baptismal, confirmational, and funeral rites of the church
  was abolished, and a law on the legal position of benevolent
  institutions was passed to withdraw these as much as possible
  from the administration of the ecclesiastical authorities. On
  the subsequent course of events in Baden, see § 197, 14.

  § 196.3. =The Protestant Troubles in Baden.=--The union of the
  Lutheran and Reformed churches was carried out in the Grand Duchy
  of Baden in 1821. It recognised the normative significance of the
  _Augustana_, as well as the Lutheran and Heidelberg catechisms,
  in so far as by it the free examination of scripture as the
  only source of Christian faith, is again expressly demanded
  and applied. A synod of 1834 provided this state church with
  union-rationalistic agenda, hymnbook, and catechism. When there
  also a confessional Lutheran sentiment began again in the
  beginning of 1850 to prevail, the church of the union opposed
  this movement by gensdarmes, imprisonment and fines. The pastor
  Eichhorn, and later also the pastor Ludwig, with a portion
  of their congregations left the state church and attached
  themselves to the Breslau Upper Church Conference, but amid
  police interference could minister to their flocks only under
  cloud of night. After long refusal the grand-duke at last in
  1854 permitted the separatists the choice of a Lutheran pastor,
  but persistently refused to recognise Eichhorn as such. Pastor
  Haag, who would not give up the Lutheran distribution formula
  at the Lord’s supper, was after solemn warning deposed in 1855.
  On the other hand the positive churchly feeling became more
  and more pronounced in the state church itself. In 1854 the old
  rationalist members of the Supreme Church Council were silenced,
  and Ullmann of Heidelberg was made president. Under his auspices
  a general synod of 1855 presented a sketch of new church and
  school books on the lines of the union consensus, with an
  endeavour also to be just to the Lutheran views. The grand-duke
  confirmed the decision and the country was silent. But when in
  1858 the Supreme Church Council, on the ground of the Synodal
  decision of 1855, promulgated the general introduction of a
  new church book, a violent storm broke out through the country
  against the liturgical novelties contained therein (extension
  of the liturgy by confession of sin and faith, collects,
  responses, Scripture reading, kneeling at the supper, the making
  a confession of their faith by sponsors), the Heidelberg faculty,
  with Dr. Schenkel at its head, leading the opposition in the
  Supreme Church Council. Yet Hundeshagen, who in the synod had
  opposed the introduction of a new agenda, entered the lists
  against Schenkel and others as the apologist of the abused church
  book. The grand-duke then decided that no congregation should be
  obliged to adopt the new agenda, while the introduction of the
  shorter and simpler form of it was recommended. The agitations
  these awakened caused its rejection by most of the congregations.
  Meanwhile in consequence of the concordat revolution in 1860, a
  new liberal ministry had come into power, and the government now
  presented to the chambers a series of thoroughly liberal schemes
  for regulating the affairs of the evangelical church, which
  were passed by large majorities. Toward the end of the year the
  government, by deposing the Supreme Church Councillor Heintz,
  began to assume the patronage of the supreme ecclesiastical court.
  Ullmann and Bähr tendered their resignations, which were accepted.
  The new liberal Supreme Church Council, including Holtzmann,
  Rothe, etc., now published a sketch of a church constitution on
  the lines of ecclesiastical constitutionalism, which with slight
  modifications the synod of July, 1861, adopted and the grand-duke
  confirmed. It provided for annual diocesan synods of lay and
  clerical members, and a general synod every five years. The
  latter consists of twenty-four clerical and twenty-four lay
  members, and six chosen by the grand-duke, besides the prelate,
  and is represented in the interval by a standing committee of
  four members, who have also a seat and vote in the Supreme Church
  Council.--Dr. Schenkel’s “_Leben Jesu_” of 1864 led the still
  considerable party among the evangelical clergy who adhered to
  the doctrine of the church to agitate for his removal from his
  position as director of the Evangelical Pastors’ Seminary at
  Heidelberg; but it resulted only in this, that no one was obliged
  to attend his lectures. The second synod, held almost a year
  behind time in 1867, passed a liberal ordination formula. At the
  next synod in 1871, the orthodox pietistic party had evidently
  become stronger, but was still overborne by the liberal party,
  whose strength was in the lay element. Meanwhile a praiseworthy
  moderation prevailed on both sides, and an effort was made
  to work together as peaceably as possible.--In Heidelberg a
  considerable number attached to the old faith, dissatisfied
  with the preaching of the four “Free Protestant” city pastors,
  after having been in 1868 refused their request for the joint use
  of a city church for private services in accordance with their
  religious convictions (§ 180, 1), had built for this purpose a
  chapel of their own, in which numerously attended services were
  held under the direction of Professor Frommel of the gymnasium.
  When a vacancy occurred in one of the pastorates in 1880, this
  believing minority, anxious for the restoration of unity and
  peace, as well as the avoidance of the separation, asked to
  have Professor Frommel appointed to the charge. At a preliminary
  assembly of twenty-one liberal church members this proposal was
  warmly supported by the president, Professor Bluntschli, by all
  the theological professors, with the exception of Schenkel and
  eighteen other liberal voters, and agreed to by the majority of
  the two hundred liberals constituting the assembly. But when the
  formal election came round the proposal was lost by twenty-seven
  to fifty-one votes.

  § 196.4. =Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau.=--In 1819 the government
  of the Grand Duchy of =Hesse= recommended the union of all
  =Protestant= communities under one confession. Rhenish Hesse
  readily agreed to this, and there in 1822 the union was
  accomplished. In the other provinces, however, it did not take
  effect, although by the rationalism fostered at Giessen among the
  clergy and by the popular current of thought in the communities,
  the Lutheran as well as the Reformed confession had been robbed
  of all significance. But since 1850 even there a powerful
  Lutheran reaction among the younger clergy, zealously furthered
  by a section of the aristocracy of the state, set in, especially
  in the district on the right bank of the Rhine, which has eagerly
  opposed the equally eager struggles of the liberal party to
  introduce a liberal synodal representative constitution for the
  evangelical church of the whole state. These endeavours, however,
  were frustrated, and at an extraordinary state synod of 1873, on
  all controverted questions, the middle party gave their vote in
  favour of the absorptive union. The state church was declared
  to be the united church. The clause that had been added to the
  government proposal: “Without prejudice to the status of the
  confessions of the several communities,” was dropped; the place
  of residence and not the confession was that which determined
  qualifications in the community; the ordination now expressed
  obligation to the Reformation confessions generally, etc. The
  members of the minority broke off their connection with the
  synod, and seventy-seven pastors presented to the synod a protest
  against its decisions. The grand-duke then, on the basis of
  these deliberations, gave forthwith a charter to the church
  constitution, in which indeed the Lutheran, Reformed, and United
  churches were embraced in one evangelical state church with
  a common church government; but still also, by restoring the
  phrase struck out by the synod from § 1, the then existing
  confessional status of the several communities was preserved and
  the confession itself declared beyond the range of legislation.
  Yet fifteen Lutheran pastors represented that they could not
  conscientiously accept this, and the upper consistory hastened to
  remove them from office shortly before the shutting of the gates,
  _i.e._, before July 1st, 1875, when by the new law (§ 197, 15)
  depositions of clergy would belong only to the supreme civil
  court. The opposing congregations now declared, in 1877, their
  withdrawal from the state church, and constituted themselves as
  a “free Lutheran church in Hesse.”--The =Catholic= church in the
  Grand Duchy of Hesse, had under the peaceful bishops of Mainz,
  Burg (died 1833) and Kaiser (died 1849), caused the government no
  trouble. But it was otherwise after Kaiser’s death. Rome rejected
  Professor Leopold Schmid of Giessen, favoured at Darmstadt
  and regularly elected by the chapter (§ 187, 3), and the
  government yielded to the appointment of the violent ultramontane
  Westphalian, Baron von Ketteler. His first aim was the extinction
  of the Catholic faculty at Giessen (§ 191, 2); he rested not
  until the last student had been transferred from it to the
  newly erected seminary at Mainz (1851). No less energetic and
  successful were his endeavours to free the Catholic church from
  the supremacy of the state in accordance with the Upper Rhenish
  episcopal memorial. The Dalwigk ministry, in 1854, concluded a
  “provisional agreement” with the bishop, which secured to him
  unlimited autonomy and sovereignty in all ecclesiastical matters,
  and, to satisfy the pope with his desiderata, these privileges
  were still further extended in 1856. To this convention, first
  made publicly known in 1860, the ministry, in spite of all
  addresses and protests, adhered with unfaltering tenacity,
  although long convinced of its consequences. The political events
  of 1886, however, led the grand-duke in September of that year
  to abrogate the hateful convention. But the minister as well
  as the bishop considered this merely to refer to the episcopal
  convention of 1850, and treated the agreement with the pope of
  1856 as always still valid. So everything went on in the old way,
  even after Ketteler’s supreme influence in the state had been
  broken by the overthrow of Dalwigk in 1871. Comp. § 197, 15.--The
  Protestant church in the Duchy of =Nassau= attached itself to
  the union in 1817. The conflict in the Upper Rhenish church
  overflowed even into this little province. The Bishop of Limburg,
  in opposition to law and custom, appointed Catholic clergy on
  his own authority, and excommunicated the Catholic officers
  who supported the government, while the government arrested the
  temporalities and instituted criminal proceedings against bishop
  and chapter. After the conclusion of the Württemberg and Baden
  concordats, the government showed itself disposed to adopt a
  similar way out of the conflict, and in spite of all opposition
  from the States concluded in 1861 a convention with the bishop,
  by which almost all his hierarchical claims were admitted. Thus
  it remained until the incorporation of Nassau in the Prussian
  kingdom in 1866.

  § 196.5. In =Protestant Württemberg= a religious movement among
  the people reached a height such as it attained nowhere else.
  Pietism, chiliasm, separatism, the holding of conventicles,
  etc., assumed formidable dimensions; solid science, philosophical
  culture, and then also philosophical and destructive critical
  tendencies issuing from Tübingen affected the clergy of this
  state. Dissatisfaction with various novelties in the liturgy,
  the hymnbook, etc., led many formally to separate from the
  state church. After attempts at compulsion had proved fruitless,
  the government allowed the malcontents under the organizing
  leadership of the burgomaster, G. W. Hoffman (died 1846), to form
  in 1818 the community of Kornthal, with an ecclesiastical and
  civil constitution of its own after the apostolic type. Others
  emigrated to South Russia and to North America (§ 211, 6, 7).
  Out of the pastoral work of pastor Blumhardt at Möttlingen, who
  earnestly preached repentance, there was developed, in connection
  with the healing of a demoniac, which had been accompanied with a
  great awakening in the community, the “gift” of healing the sick
  by absolution and laying on of hands with contrite believing
  prayer. Blumhardt, in order to afford this gift undisturbed
  exercise, bought the Bad Boll near Göppingen, and officiated
  there as pastor and miraculous healer in the way described. He
  died in 1880.--After the way to a synodal representation of the
  whole evangelical state church had been opened up in 1851 by
  the introduction, according to a royal ordinance, of parochial
  councils and diocesan synods, the consistory having also in
  1858 published a scheme referring thereto, the whole business
  was brought to a standstill, until at last in 1867, by means
  of a royal edict, the calling of a State Synod consisting of
  twenty-five clerical and as many lay members was ordered, and
  consequently in February, 1869, such a synod met for the first
  time. Co-operation in ecclesiastical legislation was assigned
  to it as its main task, while it had also the right to advise
  in regard to proposals about church government, also to make
  suggestions and complaints on such matters, but the confession
  of the evangelical church was not to be touched, and lay entirely
  outside of its province. A liberal enactment with regard to
  dissenters was sanctioned by the chamber in 1870.

  § 196.6. =The Catholic Church in Württemberg.=--Even after
  the founding of the bishopric of Rottenberg [Rottenburg] the
  government maintained strictly the previously exercised rights of
  sovereignty over the Catholic church, to which almost one-third
  of the population belonged, and the almost universally prevalent
  liberalism of the Catholic clergy found in this scarcely any
  offence. A new order of divine service in 1837, which, with the
  approval of the episcopal council, recommended the introduction
  of German hymns in the services, dispensing the sacraments in
  the German language, restriction of the festivals, masses, and
  private masses, processions, etc., did indeed cause riots in
  several places, in which, however, the clergy took no part. But
  when in 1837, in consequence of the excitement caused throughout
  Catholic Germany by the Cologne conflict (§ 193, 1), the hitherto
  only isolated cases of lawless refusal to consecrate mixed
  marriages had increased, the government proceeded severely to
  punish offending clergymen, and transported to a village curacy
  a Tübingen professor, Mack, who had declared the compulsory
  celebration unlawful. Called to account by the nuncio of Munich
  for his indolence in all these affairs and severely threatened,
  old Bishop Keller at last resolved, in 1841, to lay before
  the chamber a formal complaint against the injury done to the
  Catholic church, and to demand the freeing of the church from
  the sovereignty of the state. In the second chamber this motion
  was simply laid _ad acta_, but in the first it was recommended
  that the king should consider it. The bishop, however, and the
  liberal chapter could not agree as to the terms of the demand,
  contradictory opinions were expressed, and things remained
  as they were. But Bishop Keller fell into melancholy and died
  in 1845. His successor took his stand upon the memorial and
  declaration of the Upper Rhenish bishops, and immediately in 1853
  began the conflict by forbidding his clergy, under threats of
  severe censure, to submit as law required to civil examinations.
  The government that had hitherto so firmly maintained its
  sovereign rights, under pressure of the influence which a lady
  very nearly related to the king exercised over him, gave in
  without more ado, quieted the bishop first of all by a convention
  in 1854, and then entered into negotiations with the Roman curia,
  out of which came in 1857 a concordat proclaimed by the bull
  _Cum in sublimi_, which, in surrender of a sovereign right of
  the state over the affairs of the church, far exceeds that of
  Austria (§ 198, 2). The government left unheeded all protests and
  petitions from the chambers for its abolition. But the example
  of Baden and the more and more decided tone of the opposition
  obliged the government at last to yield. The second chamber
  in 1861 decreed the abrogation of the concordat, and a royal
  rescript declared it abolished. In the beginning of 1862 a bill
  was submitted by the new ministry and passed into law by both
  chambers for determining the relations of the Catholic church to
  the state. The royal _placet_ or right of permitting or refusing,
  is required for all clerical enactments which are not purely
  inter-ecclesiastical but refer to mixed matters; the theological
  endowments are subject to state control and joint administration;
  boys’ seminaries are not allowed; clergymen appointed to office
  must submit to state examination; according to consuetudinary
  rights, about two-thirds of the benefices are filled by the
  king, one-third by the bishops on reporting to the civil court,
  which has the right of protest; clergy who break the law are
  removable by the civil court, etc. The curia indeed lodged
  a protest, but the for the most part peace-loving clergy reared,
  not in the narrowing atmosphere of the seminaries but amid
  the scientific culture of the university, in the halls of
  Tübingen, submitted all the more easily as they found that in
  all inter-ecclesiastical matters they had greater freedom and
  independence under the concordat than before.

  § 196.7. =The Imperial Territory of Alsace and Lorraine
  since 1871.=--After Alsace with German Lorraine had again, in
  consequence of the Franco-Prussian war, been united to Germany
  and as an imperial territory had been placed under the rule
  of the new German emperor, the secretary of the Papal States,
  Cardinal Antonelli, in the confident hope of being able to secure
  in return the far more favourable conditions, rights and claims
  of the Catholic church in Prussia with the autocracy of the
  bishops unrestricted by the state, declared in a letter to the
  Bishop of Strassburg, that the concordat of 1801 (§ 203, 1) was
  annulled. But when the imperial government showed itself ready
  to accept the renunciation, and to make profit out of it in the
  opposite way from that intended, the cardinal hasted in another
  letter to explain how by the incorporation with Germany a new
  arrangement had become necessary, but that clearly the old must
  remain in force until the new one has been promulgated. Also a
  petition of the Catholic clergy brought to Berlin by the bishop
  himself, which laid claim to this unlimited dominion over all
  Catholic educational and benevolent institutions, failed of
  its purpose. The clergy therefore wrought for this all the
  more zealously by fanaticizing the Catholic people in favour of
  French and against German interests. On the epidemic about the
  appearance of the mother of God called forth in this way, see
  § 188, 7. In 1874 the government found itself obliged to close
  the so-called “little seminaries,” or boys’ colleges, on account
  of their fostering sentiments hostile to the empire. Yet in
  1880 the newly appointed imperial governor, Field-marshal von
  Manteuffel (died 1885), at the request of the States-Committee,
  allowed Bishop Räss of Strassburg to reopen the seminary at
  Zillisheim, with the proviso that his teachers should be approved
  by the government, and that instruction in the German language
  should be introduced. Manteuffel has endeavoured since, by
  yielding favours to the France-loving Alsatians and Lorrainers,
  and to their ultramontane clergy, to win them over to the idea of
  the German empire, even to the evident sacrifice of the interests
  of resident Germans and of the Protestant church. But such
  fondling has wrought the very opposite result to that intended.


      § 197. THE SO-CALLED KULTURKAMPF IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE.[550]

  Ultramontanism had for the time being granted to the Prussian state,
which had not only allowed it absolutely free scope but readily aided
its growth throughout the realm (§ 193, 2), an indulgence for that
offence which is in itself unatoneable, having a Protestant dynasty.
Pius IX. had himself repeatedly expressed his satisfaction at the
conduct of the government. But the league which Prussia made in 1866
with the “church-robbing Sub-alpine,” _i.e._ Italian, government, was
not at all to the taste of the curia. The day of Sadowa, 3rd July, 1866,
called from Antonelli the mournful cry, _Il mondo cessa_, “The world has
gone to ruin,” and the still more glorious day of Sedan, 2nd September,
1870, completely put the bottom out of the Danaid’s vessel of
ultramontane forbearance and endurance. This day, 18th January, 1871,
had as its result the overthrow of the temporal power of the papacy as
well the establishment of a new and hereditary German empire under the
Protestant dynasty of the Prussian Hohenzollerns. German ultramontanism
felt itself all the more under obligation to demand from the new
emperor as the first expiation for such uncanonical usurpation, the
reinstatement of the pope in his lost temporal power. But when he did
not respond to this demand, the ultramontane party, by means of the
press favourable to its claims, formally declared war against the German
empire and its governments, and applied itself systematically to the
mobilization of its entire forces. But the empire and its governments,
with Prussia in the van, with unceasing determination, supported by
the majority of the States’ representatives, during the years 1871-1875
proceeded against the ultramontanes by legislative measures. The
execution of these by the police and the courts of law, owing to the
stubborn refusal to obey on the part of the higher and lower clergy, led
to the formation of an opposition, commonly designated after a phrase
of the Prussian deputy, Professor Virchow, “_Kulturkampf_,” which was
in some degree modified first in 1887. The imperial chancellor, Prince
Bismarck, uttered at the outset the confident, self-assertive statement,
“We go not to Canossa,”--and even in 1880, when it seemed as if a
certain measure of submission was coming from the side of the papacy,
and the Prussian government also showed itself prepared to make
important concessions, he declared, “We shall not buy peace with Canossa
medals; such are not minted in Germany.” Since 1880, however, the
Prussian government with increasing compliance from year to year set
aside and modified the most oppressive enactments of the May laws, so as
actually to redress distresses and inconveniences occasioned by clerical
opposition to these laws, without being able thereby to obtain any
important concession on the part of the papal curia, until at last in
1887, after the government had carried concession to the utmost limit,
the pope put his seal to definitive terms of peace by admitting the
right of giving information on the part of the bishops regarding
appointments to vacant pastorates, as well as the right of protest
on the part of the government against those thus nominated.

  § 197.1. =The Aggression of Ultramontanism.=--Even in the
  revolution year, 1848, German ultramontanism, in order to obtain
  what it called the freedom of the church, had zealously seconded
  many of the efforts of democratic radicalism. Nevertheless, in
  the years of reaction that followed, it succeeded in catching
  most of the influential statesmen on the limed twig of the
  assurance that the episcopal hierarchy, with its unlimited sway
  over the clergy and through them over the feelings of the people,
  constituted the only certain and dependable bulwark against the
  revolutionary movements of the age, and this idea prevailed down
  to 1860, and in Prussia down to 1871. But the overthrow of the
  concordat in Baden, Württemberg and Darmstadt by the states of
  the realm after a hard conflict, the humiliation of Austria in
  1866, and the growth in so threatening a manner since of the
  still heretical Prussia, produced in the whole German episcopate
  a terrible apprehension that its hitherto untouched supremacy
  in the state would be at an end, and in order to ward off this
  danger it was driven into agitations and demonstrations partly
  secret and partly open. On 8th October, 1868, the papal nuncio in
  Munich, Monsignor Meglia, uttered his inmost conviction regarding
  the Württemberg resident thus: “Only in America, England, and
  Belgium does the Catholic church receive its rights; elsewhere
  nothing can help us but the revolution.” And on 22nd April, 1869,
  Bishop Senestray [Senestrey] of Regensburg declared plainly in a
  speech delivered at Schwandorff: “If kings will no longer be of
  God’s grace, I shall be the first to overthrow the throne....
  Only a war or revolution can help us in the end.” And war at
  last came, but it helped only their opponents. Although at
  its outbreak in 1870 the ultramontane party in South Germany,
  especially in Bavaria, for the most part with unexampled
  insolence expressed their sympathy with France, and after the
  brilliant and victorious close of the war did everything to
  prevent the attachment of Bavaria to the new German empire, their
  North German brethren, accustomed to the boundless compliance of
  the Prussian government, indulged the hope of prosecuting their
  own ends all the more successfully under the new regime. Even
  in November, 1870, Archbishop Ledochowski of Posen visited the
  victorious king of Prussia at Versailles, in order to interest
  him personally in the restoration of the Papal States. In
  February, 1871, in the same place, fifty-six Catholic deputies of
  the Prussian parliament presented to the king, who had meanwhile
  been proclaimed Emperor of Germany, a formal petition for
  the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, and soon
  afterwards a deputation of distinguished laymen waited upon
  him “in name of all the Catholics of Germany,” with an address
  directed to the same end. The _Bavarian Fatherland_ (Dr. Sigl)
  indeed treated it with scorn as a “belly-crawling-deputation,
  which crawled before the magnanimous hero-emperor, beseeching
  him graciously to use said deputation as his spittoon.” And the
  _Steckenberger Bote_, inspired by Dr. Ketteler, declared: “We
  Catholics do not entreat it as a favour, but demand it as our
  right.... Either you must restore the Catholic church to all
  its privileges or not one of all your existing governments will
  endure.” At the same time as the insinuation was spread that the
  new German empire threatened the existence of the Catholic church
  in Germany, a powerful ultramontane election agitation in view of
  the next Reichstag was set on foot, out of which grew the party
  of the “Centre,” so called from sitting in the centre of the hall,
  with Von Ketteler, Windthorst, Mallinkrodt (died 1874), and the
  two Reichenspergers, as its most eloquent leaders. Even in the
  debate on the address in answer to the speech from the throne
  this party demanded intervention, at first indeed only diplomatic,
  in favour of the Papal States. In the discussion on the new
  imperial constitution A. Reichensperger sought to borrow from
  the abortive German landowners’ bill of 1848, condemned indeed as
  godless by the syllabus (§ 185, 2), principles that might serve
  the turn of ultramontanism regarding the unrestricted liberty
  of the press, societies, meetings, and religion, with the most
  perfect independence of all religious communities of the State.
  Mallinkrodt insisted upon the need of enlarged privileges for
  the Catholic church owing to the great growth of the empire
  in Catholic territory and population. All these motions were
  rejected by the Reichstag, and the Prussian government answered
  them by abolishing in July, 1871, the Catholic department of
  the Ministry of Public Worship, which had existed since 1841
  (§ 193, 2). The _Genfer Korrespondenz_, shortly before highly
  praised by the pope, declared: If kings do not help the papacy
  to regain its rights, the papacy must also withdraw from them
  and appeal directly to the hearts of the people. “Understand
  ye the terrible range of this change? Your hours, O ye princes,
  are numbered!” The Berlin _Germania_ pointed threateningly to
  the approaching _revanche_ war in France, on the outbreak of
  which the German empire would no longer be able to reckon on
  the sympathy of its Catholic subjects; and the _Ellwanger kath.
  Wochenblatt_ proclaimed openly that only France is able to guard
  and save the Catholic church from the annihilating projects
  of Prussia. And in this way the Catholic people throughout all
  Germany were roused and incited by the Catholic press, as well as
  from the pulpit and confessional, in home and school, in Catholic
  monasteries and nunneries, in mechanics’ clubs and peasants’
  unions, in casinos and assemblies of nobles. Bishop Ketteler
  founded expressly for purposes of such agitations the Mainz
  Catholic Union, in September, 1871, which by its itinerant
  meetings spread far and wide the flame of religious fanaticism;
  and a Bavarian priest, Lechner, preached from the pulpit that
  one does not know whether the German princes are by God’s or by
  the devil’s grace.

  § 197.2. =Conflicts Occasioned by Protection of the Old Catholics,
  1871-1872.=--That the Prussian government refused to assist
  the bishops in persecuting the Old Catholics, and even retained
  these in their positions after excommunication had been hurled
  against them, was regarded by those bishops as itself an act
  of persecution of the Catholic church. To this opinion they
  gave official expression, under solemn protest against all
  encroachments of the state upon the domain of Catholic faith and
  law, in a memorial addressed to the German emperor from Fulda, on
  September 7th, 1871, but were told firmly and decidedly to keep
  within their own boundaries. Even before this Bishop =Krementz
  of Ermeland= had refused the _missio canonica_ to Dr. Wollmann,
  teacher of religion at the Gymnasium of Braunsberg, on account
  of his refusing to acknowledge the dogma of infallibility, and
  had forbidden Catholic scholars to attend his instructions.
  The minister of public worship, Von Mühler, decided, because
  religious instruction was obligatory in the Prussian gymnasia,
  that all Catholic scholars must attend or be expelled from the
  institution. The Bavarian government followed a more correct
  course in a similar case that arose about the same time; for
  it recognised and protected the religious instructions of the
  anti-infallibilist priest, Renftle in Mering, as legitimate, but
  still allowed parents who objected to withhold their children
  from it. And in this way the new Prussian minister, Falk,
  corrected his predecessor’s mistake. But all the more decidedly
  did the government proceed against Bishop Krementz, when
  he publicly proclaimed the excommunication uttered against
  Dr. Wollmann and Professor Michelis, which had been forbidden by
  Prussian civil law on account of the infringement of civil rights
  connected therewith according to canon law. As the bishop could
  not be brought to an explicit acknowledgment of his obligation
  to obey the laws of the land, the minister of public worship
  on October 1st, 1872, stripped him of his temporalities.
  But meanwhile a second conflict had broken out. The Catholic
  field-provost of the Prussian army and bishop _in partibus_,
  Namszanowski, had under papal direction commanded the
  Catholic divisional chaplain, Lünnemann of Cologne, on pain
  of excommunication, to discontinue the military worship in the
  garrison chapel, which, by leave of the military court, was
  jointly used by the Old Catholics, and so was desecrated. He
  was therefore brought before a court of discipline, suspended
  from his office in May, 1872, and finally, by royal ordinance
  in 1873, the office of field-provost was wholly abolished.

  § 197.3. =Struggles over Educational Questions, 1872-1873.=--In
  the formerly Polish provinces of the Prussian kingdom the
  Polonization of resident Catholic Germans had recently assumed
  threatening proportions. The archbishop of Posen and Gnesen,
  Count =Ledochowski=, whom the pope during the Vatican Council
  appointed primate of Poland, was the main centre of this
  agitation. In the Posen priest seminary he formed for himself,
  in a fanatically Polish clergy, the tools for carrying it out,
  and in the neighbouring Schrimm he founded a Jesuit establishment
  that managed the whole movement. Where previously Polish and
  German had been preached alternately, German was now banished,
  and in the public schools, the oversight of which, as throughout
  all Prussia, lay officially in the hands of the clergy, all means
  were used to discourage the study of the German language, and
  to stamp out the German national sentiment. But even in the two
  western provinces the Catholic public schools were made by the
  clerical school inspectors wholly subservient to the designs of
  ultramontanism. In order to stem such disorder the government,
  in February, 1872, sanctioned the =School Inspection Law=
  passed by the parliament, by which the right and duty of school
  inspection was transferred from the church to the state, so that
  for the sake of the state the clerical inspectors hostile to the
  government were set aside, and where necessary might be replaced
  by laymen. A pastoral letter of the Prussian bishops assembled
  at Fulda in April of that year complained bitterly of persecution
  of the church and unchristianizing of the schools, but advised
  the Catholic clergy under no circumstances voluntarily to resign
  school inspection where it was not taken from them. By a rescript
  of the minister of public worship in June, the exclusion of all
  members of spiritual orders and congregations from teaching in
  public schools was soon followed by the suppression of the Marian
  congregations in all schools, and it was enjoined in March, 1873,
  that in Polish districts, where other subjects had been taught in
  the higher educational institutions in the German language, this
  also would be obligatory in religious instruction. Ledochowski
  indeed directed all religious teachers in his diocese to use the
  Polish language after as they had done before, but the government
  suspended all teachers who followed his direction, and gave
  over the religious instruction to lay teachers. The archbishop
  now erected private schools for the religious instruction of
  gymnasial teachers, and the government forbad attendance at them.

  § 197.4. =The Kanzelparagraph and the Jesuit law,
  1871-1872.=--While thus the Prussian government took more and
  more decided measures against the ultramontanism that had become
  so rampant in its domains, on the other hand, its mobile band
  of warriors in cassock, dress coat, and blouse did not cease to
  labour, and the imperial government passed some drastic measures
  of defence applicable to the whole empire. At the instance of
  the Bavarian government, which could not defend itself from
  the violence of its “patriots,” the Federal Council asked the
  Reichstag to add a new article to the penal code of the empire,
  threatening any misuse of the pulpit for political agitation
  with imprisonment for two years. The Bavarian minister of public
  worship, Lutz, undertook himself to support this bill before
  the Reichstag. “For several decades,” he said, “the clergy
  in Germany have assumed a new character; they are become the
  simple reflection of Jesuitism.” The Reichstag sanctioned the
  bill in December, 1871. Far more deeply than this so-called
  =Kanzelparagraph=, the operation of which the agitation of the
  clergy by a little circumspection could easily elude, did the
  =Jesuit Law=, published on July 4th, 1872, cut into the flesh
  of German ultramontanism. Already in April of that year had a
  petition from Cologne demanding the expulsion of the Jesuits
  been presented to the Reichstag. Similar addresses flowed in
  from other places. The Centre party, on the other hand, organized
  a regular flood of petitions in favour of the Jesuits. The
  Reichstag referred both to the imperial chancellor, with the
  request to introduce a law against the movements of the Jesuits
  as dangerous to the State. The Federal Council complied with this
  request, and so the law was passed which ordained the removal
  of the Jesuits and related orders and congregations, the closing
  of their institutions within six months, and prohibited the
  formation of any other orders by their individual members, and
  the government authorised the banishment of foreign members and
  the interning of natives at appointed places. A later ordinance
  of the Federal Council declared the Redemptorists, Lazarists,
  Priests of the Holy Ghost, and the Society of the Heart of Jesus
  to be orders related to the Society of Jesus. Those affected
  by this law anticipated the threatened interning by voluntarily
  removing to Belgium, Holland, France, Turkey, and America.

  § 197.5. =The Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1873-1875.=--In
  order to be able to check ultramontanism, even in its pædagogical
  breeding places, the episcopal colleges and seminaries, and at
  the same time to restrict by law the despotic absolutism of the
  bishops in disciplinary and beneficiary matters, the Prussian
  government brought in other four ecclesiastical bills, which in
  spite of violent opposition on the part of the Centre and the
  Old Conservatives, were successively passed by both houses of
  parliament, and approved by the king on May 11th, 12th, 13th,
  and 14th, 1873. Their most important provisions are: As a
  condition for admission to a spiritual office the state requires
  citizenship of the German empire, three years’ study at a German
  university, and, besides an exit gymnasial examination preceding
  the university course, a state examination in general knowledge
  (in philosophy, history, and German literature), in addition to
  the theological examination. The episcopal boys’ seminaries and
  colleges are abolished. The priest seminaries, if the minister
  of worship regards them as fit for the purpose, may take the
  place of the university course, but must be under regular state
  inspection. The candidates for spiritual offices, which must
  never be left vacant more than a year, are to be named to the
  chief president of the province, and he can for cogent reasons
  lodge a protest against them. Secession from the church is
  freely allowed, and releases from all personal obligations
  to pay ecclesiastical dues and perform ecclesiastical duties.
  Excommunication is permissible, but can be proclaimed only
  in the congregation concerned, and not publicly. The power of
  church discipline over the clergy can be exercised only by German
  superiors and in accordance with fixed processional procedure.
  Corporal punishment is not permissible, fines are allowed
  to a limited extent, and restraint by interning in so-called
  _Demeriti_ houses, but only at furthest of three months, and when
  the party concerned willingly consents. Church servants, whose
  remaining in office is incompatible with the public order, can
  be deposed by civil sentence. And as final court of appeal in all
  cases of complaint between ecclesiastical and civil authorities
  as well as within the ecclesiastical domain, a royal court
  of justice for ecclesiastical affairs is constituted, whose
  proceedings are open and its decision final.--But even the
  May Laws soon proved inadequate for checking the insolence of
  the bishops and the disorders among the Catholic population
  occasioned thereby. In December, 1873, therefore, by sovereign
  authority there was prescribed a new formula of the episcopal
  Oath of Allegiance, recognising more distinctly and decisively
  the duty of obedience to the laws of the state. Then next a bill
  was presented to the parliament, which had been kept in view in
  the original constitution, demanding obligatory civil marriage
  and abolition of compulsory baptism, as well as the conducting
  of civil registration by state officials. In February, 1874, it
  was passed into law. On the 20th and 21st =May, 1874=, two other
  bills brought in for extending the May Laws of the previous
  year, in consequence of which a bishop’s see vacated by death,
  a judicial sentence, or any other cause, must be filled within
  the space of a year, and the chapter must elect within ten days
  an episcopal administrator, who has to be presented to the chief
  president, and to undertake an oath to obey the laws of the
  state. If the chapter does not fulfil these requirements, a lay
  commissioner will be appointed to administer the affairs of the
  diocese. During the episcopal vacancy, all vacant pastorates, as
  well as all not legally filled, can be at once validly supplied
  by the act of the patron, and, where no such right exists,
  by congregational election. Parochial property, on the illegal
  appointment of a pastor, is given over to be administered by a
  lay commissioner.--The empire also came to the help of the May
  Laws by an imperial enactment of May 4th, 1874, sanctioned by the
  emperor, which empowers the competent state government to intern
  all church officers discharged from their office and not yielding
  submission thereto, as well as all punished on account of
  incompetence in their official duties, and, if this does not help,
  to condemn them to loss of their civil rights and to expulsion
  from the German federal territory.--Also in its next session the
  imperial house of representatives again gave legislative sanction
  to the _Kulturkampf_; for in January, 1875, it passed a bill
  presented by the Federal Council on the deposition on oath as
  to personal rank, and on divorce with obligatory civil marriage,
  which, going far beyond the Prussian civil law of the previous
  year, and especially ridding Bavaria of its strait-jacket canon
  marriage law enforced by the concordat, abolished the spiritual
  jurisdiction in favour of that of the civil courts, and gave it
  to the state to determine the qualifications for, as well as the
  hindrances to, divorce, without, however, touching the domain of
  conscience, or entrenching in any way upon the canon law and the
  demands of the church.

  § 197.6. =Opposition in the States to the Prussian May
  Laws.=--Bishop Martin of Paderborn had even beforehand refused
  obedience to the May Laws of 1873. After their promulgation, all
  the Prussian bishops collectively declared to the ministry that
  “they were not in a position to carry out these laws,” with the
  further statement that they could not comply even with those
  demands in them which in other states, by agreement with the pope,
  are acknowledged by the church, because they are administered
  in a one-sided way by the state in Prussia. On these lines also
  they proceeded to take action. First of all, the refractoriness
  of several of the seminaries drew down upon them the loss of
  endowment and of the right of representation; and in the next
  place, the refusal of the bishops to notify their appointment of
  clergymen led to their being frequently fined, while the church
  books and seals were taken away from clergymen so appointed,
  all the official acts performed by them were pronounced invalid
  in civil law, and those who performed them were subjected to
  fines. But here, too, again Bishop Martin, well skilled in church
  history (he had been previously professor of theology in Bonn),
  had beforehand in a pastoral instructed his clergy that “since
  the days of Diocletian there had not been seen so violent
  a persecution of the name of Jesus Christ.” Soon after this
  Archbishop Ledochowski, in an official document addressed to
  the Chief President of Poland, compared the demand to give
  notification of clerical appointments with the demand of ancient
  Rome upon Christian soldiers to sacrifice to the heathen gods.
  And by order of the pope prayers were offered in all churches for
  the church so harshly and cruelly persecuted. And yet the whole
  “persecution” then consisted in nothing more than this, that a
  newly issued law of the state, under threat of fine in case of
  disobedience, demanded again of the bishops paid by the state
  what had been accepted for centuries as unobjectionable in the
  originally Catholic Bavaria, and also for a long while in France,
  Portugal, and other Romish countries, what all Prussian bishops
  down to 1850 (§ 193, 2) had done without scruple, what the
  bishops of Paderborn and Münster even had never refused to
  do in the extra-Prussian portion of these dioceses (Oldenburg
  and Waldeck), as also the Prince-Bishop of Breslau, since the
  issuing of the similar Austrian May Laws (§ 198, 4) in the
  Austro-Silesian part of his diocese, what the episcopal courts
  of Württemberg and Baden had yielded to, although in almost all
  these states the demand referred to broke up the union with the
  papal curia. Yet before a year had passed the cases of punishment
  for these offences had so increased that the only very inadequate
  fines that could be exacted by the seizure of property had to
  be changed into equivalent sentences of imprisonment. The first
  prelate who suffered this fate was Archbishop Ledochowski, in
  February, 1874. Then followed in succession: Eberhard of Treves,
  Melchers of Cologne, Martin of Paderborn, and Brinkmann of
  Münster. The ecclesiastical court of justice expressly pronounced
  deposition against Ledochowski in April, 1874; against Martin in
  January, 1875, and against the Prince-Bishop Förster of Breslau
  in October, 1875, who alone had dared to proclaim in his diocese
  the encyclical _Quod nunquam_ (§ 197, 7). But the latter had
  even beforehand withdrawn the diocesan property to the value
  of 900,000 marks to his episcopal castle, Johannisberg, in
  Austro-Silesia, where with a truly princely income from Austrian
  funds he could easily get over the loss of the Prussian part
  of his revenues. Martin, who had been interned at Wesel, fled
  in August, 1875, under cloud of night, to Holland, from whence
  he transferred his agitations into Belgium, and finally to
  London (died 1879). Ledochowski found a residence in the Vatican.
  Brinkmann was deposed in March, and Melchers in June, 1876,
  after both had beforehand proved their enjoyment of martyrdom
  by escaping to Holland. Eberhard of Treves anticipated his
  deposition from office by his death in May, 1876. Blum of Limburg
  was deposed in June, 1877, and Beckmann of Osnabrück died in
  1878.--In the Prussian parliament and German Reichstag the Centre
  party, supported by Guelphs, Poles, and the Social Democrats, had
  meanwhile with anger, scorn, and vituperation, with and without
  wit, fought not only against all ecclesiastical, but also against
  all other legislative proposals, whose acceptance was specially
  desired by the government. And all the representatives of the
  ultramontane press within and without Europe vied with one
  another in violent denunciation of the ecclesiastical laws, and
  in unmeasured abuse of the emperor and the empire. But almost
  without exception the Roman Catholic officials in Prussia, as
  well as the Protestants and Old Catholics, carried out “the
  Diocletian persecution of Christians” in the judicial and police
  measures introduced by the church laws. A number of Catholic
  notables of the eastern provinces of their own accord, in a
  dutiful address to the emperor, expressly accepted the condemned
  laws, and won thereby the nickname of “State Catholics.” The
  great mass of the Catholic people, high and low, remained
  unflinchingly faithful to the resisting clergy in, for the most
  part, only a passive opposition, although even, as the Berlin
  _Germania_ expressed it, “the Catholic rage at the Bismarckian
  ecclesiastical polity could condense itself into one Catholic
  head” in a murderous attempt on the chancellor in quest of health
  at Kissingen, on July 13th, 1874. It was the cooper, Kullmann,
  who, fanaticised by exciting speeches and writings in the
  Catholic society of Salzwedel, sought to take vengeance, as
  he himself said, upon the chancellor for the May Laws and “the
  insult offered to his party of the Centre.”--In the further
  course of the Prussian _Kulturkampf_, however, fostered by
  the aid of the confessional, the insinuating assiduity of
  the clerical press, and the all-prevailing influence of the
  thoroughly disciplined Catholic clergy over the popish masses,
  the Centre grew in number and importance at the elections from
  session to session, so that from the beginning of 1880, by the
  unhappy division of the other parties in the Reichstag as well
  as Chamber, it united sometimes with the Conservatives, sometimes
  and most frequently with the Progressionists and Democrats
  renouncing the _Kulturkampf_, and was supported on all questions
  by Poles, Danes, Guelphs, and Alsatian-Lorrainers, as clerical
  interest and ultramontane tactics required, in accordance with
  the plan of campaign of the commander-in-chief, especially of
  the quondam Hanoverian minister, Windthorst, dominated far more
  by Guelphic than by ultramontane tendencies. The Centre was thus
  able to turn the scale, until, at least in the Reichstag, after
  the dissolution and new election of 1887, its dominatory power
  was broken by the closer combination of the conservative and
  national liberal parties.

  § 197.7. =Share in the Conflict taken by the Pope.=--=Pius IX.=
  had congratulated the new emperor in 1871, trusting, as he
  wrote, that his efforts directed to the common weal “might bring
  blessing not only to Germany, but also to all Europe, and might
  contribute not a little to the protection of the liberty and
  rights of the Catholic religion.” And when first of all the
  Centre party, called forth by the election agitation of German
  ultramontanism, opened its politico-clerical campaign in the
  Reichstag, he expressed his disapproval of its proceedings upon
  Bismarck’s complaining to the papal secretary Antonelli. Yet
  a deputation of the Centre sent to Rome succeeded in winning
  over both. In order to build a bridge for the securing an
  understanding with the curia, now that the conflict had grown
  in extent and bitterness, the imperial government in May, 1872,
  appointed the Bavarian Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe to the vacant
  post of ambassador to the Vatican. But the pope, with offensive
  recklessness, rejected the well-meant proposal, and forbade
  the cardinal to accept the imperial appointment. From that time
  he gave free and public expression on every occasion to his
  senseless bitterness against the German empire and its government.
  In an address to the German Reading Society at Rome in July, 1872,
  he allowed himself to use the most violent expressions against
  the German chancellor, and closed with the prophetic threatening:
  “Who knows but the little stone shall soon loose itself from
  the mountain (Dan. ii. 34), which shall break in pieces the foot
  of the colossus?” But even this diatribe was cast in the shade
  by the Christmas allocution of that year, in which he was not
  ashamed to characterize the procedure of the German statesmen
  and their imperial sovereign as “_impudentia_.” And after the
  publication of the first May Laws he addressed a letter to the
  emperor, in which, founding upon the fact that even the emperor
  like all baptized persons belonged to him, the pope, he cast in
  his teeth that “all the measures of his government for some time
  aimed more and more at the annihilation of Catholicism,” and
  added the threatening announcement that “these measures against
  the religion of Jesus Christ can have no other result than
  the overthrow of his own throne.” The emperor in his answer
  made expressly prominent his divinely appointed call as well as
  his own evangelical standpoint, and with becoming dignity and
  earnestness decidedly repudiated the unmeasured assumptions of
  the papacy, and published both letters. In the same style of
  immoderate pretension the pope again, in November, 1875, in one
  encyclical after another, gave vent to his anger against emperor
  and empire, especially its military institutions. In place of
  the deposed and at that time imprisoned archbishop, Ledochowski,
  he appointed in 1874 a native apostolic legate, who was at last
  ascertained to be the Canon Kurowski, when he was in October,
  1875, condemned to two years’ imprisonment. But the pope took
  the most decided and successful step by the =Encyclical _Quod
  nunquam_, of 5th February, 1875=, addressed to the Prussian
  episcopate, in which he characterized the Prussian May Laws as
  “not given to free citizens to demand a reasonable obedience,
  but as laid upon slaves, in order to force obedience by fears of
  violence,” and, “in order to fulfil the duties of his office,”
  declared quite openly to all whom it concerns and to the
  Catholics throughout the world: “_Leges illas irritas esse,
  utpote quæ divinæ Ecclesiæ constitutioni prorsus adversantur_;”
  but upon those “godless” men who make themselves guilty of the
  sin of assuming spiritual office without a divine call, falls _eo
  ipso_ the great excommunication. On the other hand he rewarded,
  in March, 1875, Archbishop Ledochowski, then still in prison, but
  afterwards, in February, 1876, settled in Rome, for his sturdy
  resistance of those laws, with a cardinal’s hat, and to the not
  less persistent Prince-Bishop Förster of Breslau he presented
  on his jubilee as priest the archiepiscopal pall. In the next
  Christmas allocution he romanced about a second Nero, who, while
  in one place with a lyre in his hand he enchanted the world by
  lying words, in other places appeared with iron in his hand,
  and, if he did not make the streets run with blood, he fills
  the prisons, sends multitudes into exile, seizes upon and with
  violence assumes all authority to himself. Also to the German
  pilgrims who went in May, 1877, to his episcopal jubilee at Rome,
  he had still much that was terrible to tell about this “modern
  Attila,” leaving it uncertain whether he intended Prince Bismarck
  or the mild, pious German emperor himself.

  § 197.8. =The Conflict about the Encyclical _Quod nunquam_ of
  1875.=--By this encyclical the pope had completely broken up the
  union between the Prussian state and the curia, resting upon the
  bull _De salute animarum_ (§ 193, 1); for he, bluntly repudiating
  the sovereign rights of the civil authority therein expressly
  allowed, by pronouncing the laws of the Prussian state invalid,
  authorized and promoted the rebellion of all Catholic subjects
  against them. The Prussian government now issued three new laws
  quickly after one another, cutting more deeply than all that went
  before, which without difficulty received the sanction of all the
  legislative bodies.

      I. The so called =Arrestment Act= (_Sperrgesetz_) of
         April 22nd, 1875, which ordered the immediate suspension
         of all state payments to the Roman Catholic bishoprics and
         pastorates until those who were entitled to them had in
         writing or by statement declared themselves ready to yield
         willing obedience to the existing laws of the state.

     II. A law of May 31st, 1875, ordering the =Expulsion of
         all Orders and such like Congregations= within eight
         months, the minister of public worship, however, being
         authorized to extend this truce to four years in the case
         of institutions devoted to the education of the young,
         while those which were exclusively hospital and nursing
         societies were allowed to remain, but were subject to
         state inspection and might at any time be suppressed by
         royal order.

    III. A law of June 12th, 1875, declaring the formal =Abrogation
         of the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Articles of
         the Constitution= (§ 193, 2).

  And finally in addition there came the enforcement during this
  session of the Chamber of laws previously introduced on the
  rights of the Old Catholics (§ 190, 2), and, on June 20th, 1875,
  on the administration of church property in Catholic parishes.
  The latter measures aimed at withdrawing the administration
  referred to from the autocratic absolutism of the clergy, and
  transferring it to a lay commission elected by the community
  itself, of which the parish priest was to be a member, but not
  the president. Although the Archbishop of Cologne in name of
  all the bishops before its issue had solemnly protested against
  this law, because by it “essential and inalienable rights of
  the Catholic church were lost,” and although the recognition
  of it actually involved recognition of the May Laws and the
  ecclesiastical court of justice, yet all the bishops declared
  themselves ready to co-operate in carrying out the arrangements
  for surrendering the church property to the administration
  of a civil commission. They thus indeed secured thoroughly
  ultramontane elections, but at the same time put themselves
  into a position of self-contradiction, and admitted that the
  one ground of their opposition to the May Laws, that they were
  one-sidedly wrought by the state, was null and void.

  § 197.9. =Papal Overtures for Peace.=--=Leo XIII.=, since 1878,
  intimated his accession to the Emperor William, and expressed his
  regret at finding that the good relations did not continue which
  formerly existed between Prussia and the holy see. The Emperor’s
  answer expressed the hope that by the aid of his Holiness
  the Prussian bishops might be induced to obey the laws of the
  land, as the people under their pastoral care actually did;
  and afterwards while in consequence of the attempt on his life
  of June 2nd, 1873, he lay upon a sickbed, the crown prince on
  June 10th answered other papal communications by saying, that
  no Prussian monarch could entertain the wish to change the
  constitution and laws of his country in accordance with the
  ideas of the Romish church; but that, even though a thorough
  understanding upon the radical controversy of a thousand
  years could not be reached, yet the endeavour to preserve a
  conciliatory disposition on both sides would also for Prussia
  open a way to peace which had never been closed in other states.
  Three weeks later the Munich nuntio Masella was at Kissingen and
  conferred with the chancellor, Prince Bismarck, who was residing
  there, about the possibility of a basis of reconciliation.
  Subsequently negotiations were continued at Gastein, and then
  in Vienna with the there resident nuntio Jacobini, but were
  suspended owing to demands by the curia to which the state could
  not submit. Still the pope attempted indirectly to open the way
  for renewed consultation, for he issued a brief dated February
  24th, 1880, to “Archbishop Melchers of Cologne” (deposed by
  the royal court of justice), in which he declared his readiness
  to allow to the respective government boards notification
  of new elected priests before their canonical institution.
  Thereupon a communication was sent to Cardinal Jacobini that the
  state ministry had resolved, so soon as the pope had actually
  implemented this declaration of his readiness, to make every
  effort to obtain from the state representatives authority to
  set aside or modify those enactments of the May Laws which were
  regarded by the Romish church as harsh. But the pope received
  this compromise of the government very ungraciously and showed
  his dissatisfaction by withdrawing his concession, which besides
  referred only to the unremovable priests, therefore not to
  _Hetzkaplane_ and succursal or assistant priests, and presupposed
  the obtaining the “_agrément_,” _i.e._ the willingly accorded
  consent, of the state, without by any means allowing the setting
  aside of the party elected.

  § 197.10. =Proof of the Prussian Government’s willingness to be
  Reconciled, 1880-1881.=--Notwithstanding this brusque refusal
  on the part of the papal curia, the government, at the instance
  of the minister of public worship, Von Puttkamer (§ 193, 6),
  resolved in May, 1880, to introduce a bill which gave a wide
  discretionary power for moderating the unhappy state of matters
  that had prevailed since the passing of the May Laws, throughout
  Catholic districts, where 601 pastorates stood wholly vacant and
  584 partly so, and nine bishoprics, some by death and others by
  deposition. Although the need of peace was readily admitted on
  both sides, the Liberals opposed these “Canossa proposals” as far
  too great; the Centre, Poles, and Guelphs as far too small. Yet
  it obtained at last in a form considerably modified, through a
  compromise of the conservatives with a great part of the national
  liberals the consent of both chambers. This law, sanctioned on
  =July 14th, 1880=, embraced these provisions:

      1. The royal court shall no longer depose from office
         any church officers, but simply pronounce incapable of
         administering the office;

    2-4. The ministry of the state is authorized to give the
         episcopal administrator charged by the church with
         the interim administration of a vacant bishopric a
         dispensation from the taking of the prescribed oath;
         further, an administration by commission of ecclesiastical
         property may be revoked as well as appointed; also state
         endowments that had been withdrawn are to be restored for
         the benefit of the whole extent of the diocese;

      5. Spiritual official acts of a duly appointed clergyman by
         way merely of assistance in another vacant parish are to
         be allowed;

      6. The minister of the interior and of public worship are
         empowered to approve of the erection of new institutions
         of religious societies which are devoted wholly to the
         care of the sick, as to allow revocably to them the care
         and nurture of children not yet of school age; and more
         recently added were

      7. The particular, according to which Articles 2, 3, and 4
         cease to operate after January 1st, 1882.

  The government was particularly careful to carry out the
  provisions temporarily recognised in Article 3, for the
  restoration of orderly episcopal administration by regularly
  elected episcopal administrators in bishoprics made vacant by
  death. Fulda, which was longest vacant, from October, 1873, had
  to be left out of account, since in that case there was only
  one member of the chapter left and so a canonical election
  was impossible. But without difficulty in March, 1881, the
  Vicar-General Dr. Höting for Osnabrück and Canon Drobe for
  Paderborn, without taking the oath of allegiance, succeeded in
  obtaining independent administration of the property as well as
  the restoration of state pay for the entire dioceses, though they
  did not give the notification required by the May Laws for the
  interim administration. In October, 1881, the deposed Prince
  Bishop Förster of Breslau died, and the suffragan bishop, Gleich,
  elected by the chapter, undertook with consent of the government
  the office of episcopal administrator.--Meanwhile the pope,
  by a hearty letter of congratulation to the emperor on his
  birthday, March 22nd, had given new life to the suspended
  peace negotiations. And now also, when the respective chapters
  transferred their right of election to the pope, the orderly
  appointments of the Canon Dr. Korum of Metz, a pupil of the
  Jesuit faculty of Innspruck [Innsbrück], very warmly recommended
  by Von Manteuffel, governor of Alsace and Lorraine, to the
  episcopal see of Treves, in August, 1881, of Vicar-General
  Kopp of Hildesheim to Fulda in December, 1881, of the episcopal
  administrators Höting and Drobe, in March and May, 1882,
  respectively to Osnabrück and Paderborn, were duly carried
  into effect. For Breslau the chapter drew up a list of seven
  candidates, but the government pointed out the Berlin provost,
  Rob. Herzog, as a mild and conciliatory person. The chapter now
  laid its right of election in the hands of the pope, and in May,
  1882, Herzog was raised to the dignity of prince-bishop. There
  now remained vacant only the sees of Cologne, Posen, Limburg
  and Münster, which had been emptied by the depositions of the
  civil courts.--Meanwhile, too, the negotiations carried on at
  the instance of the government by privy councillor Von Schlözer,
  with the curia at Rome for the restoration of the embassy to the
  Vatican had been brought to a close. The chamber voted for this
  purpose an annual sum of 90,000 marks, and Schlözer himself was
  appointed to the post in March, 1882.

  § 197.11. =Conciliatory Negotiations, 1882-1884.=--With January
  1st, 1882, the three enactments of the July law of 1880, which
  might be enforced at the discretion of the government, ceased to
  operate. Von Gossler, minister of public worship since June, 1881,
  on behalf of government, introduced a new bill into the Chamber
  on January 16th, 1882, for their re-enactment and extension,
  which by a compromise between the Conservatives and the Centre,
  after various modifications secured a majority in both houses.
  This second revised law embraced the following points:

    1. Renewal of the three above-named enactments till
       April 1st, 1884;

    2. Restoration of the “Bishop’s Paragraph,” lost in 1880, in
       this new form: If the king has pardoned a bishop set aside
       by the ecclesiastical court, he becomes again the bishop of
       his diocese recognised by the state;

    3. The setting aside of the examination in general knowledge
       (_Kulturexamen_) for those who bring a certificate of
       having passed the Gymnasium exit examination, or have
       attended with diligence lectures on philosophy, history
       and German literature during a three years’ course at a
       German university, or at a Prussian seminary of equal rank,
       and have given proof of this by presenting evidence to the
       chief president;

    4. The setting aside of the rights of the patron and
       congregation of themselves filling the vacant pastorates
       during a vacancy in the episcopal see.

  The new law obtained royal sanction on =May 31st, 1882=. But its
  two most important articles, 2 and 3, remained for a long time
  a dead letter, and even Article 1 was only carried out by the
  resumption of the state emoluments for the Hohenzollerns and the
  five newly instituted bishoprics (§ 197, 10), but not for the
  other seven. But the ill humour of the ultramontane Hotspurs was
  raised to the boiling point by the fate of the bill introduced by
  the Centre into the Reichstag to set aside the Expatriation Law
  of May 4th, 1874, which seemed to the government indispensable
  on account of its applicability to the agitations against the
  empire of the Polish clergy. This bill, after violent debates,
  was carried on January 18th, 1882, by a two-thirds majority;
  but it was cast out by the Federal Council on June 6th, almost
  unanimously, only Bavaria and Reuss _jüngere Linie_ voting in
  its favour. This was the result mainly of the failure of all the
  attempts of Von Schlözer to render the government’s concessions
  acceptable to the papal curia.--On the other hand, the government
  of its own accord brought in a third revision scheme in June,
  1883, by which it sought to relieve as far as possible the
  troubles of the Catholic church. By adopting this law:

    1. The obligation of notification on the part of the bishops
       and the right of the state to protest on the change of
       temporary assistants and substitutes into regular spiritual
       officers, were abolished; as also

    2. the competence of the court for ecclesiastical affairs in
       appeals against the protest of the chief president, which
       now therefore, according to the generally prevailing rule,
       are referred to the minister of worship, the whole ministry,
       the parliament, the king;

    3. the immunity from punishment in the execution of their
       office guaranteed in Article 5 of the July law of 1880
       (§ 197, 10) was extended to all spiritual offices whether
       vacant or not;

    4. the ordaining of individual candidates in vacant dioceses
       by bishops recognised by the state was declared to be legal.

  In spite of repeated declarations of the curia that it could and
  would agree to the notification only after a previous sufficient
  guarantee of perfectly free training of the clergy and free
  administration of the spiritual office, the king while residing
  at the Castle of Mainau on Lake Constance, on July 11th, 1883,
  sanctioned the so-called Mainau Law that had passed both houses,
  and on the 14th, the minister of public worship demanded that
  the Prussian bishops, without making notification, should fill up
  vacancies in pastorates by appointing assistants, and should name
  those candidates who were eligible for such appointment under
  the conditions of the May Law of the previous year (§ 197, 3).
  The pope at last, in September, 1883, allowed the dispensation
  required, but for that time only and without prejudice for the
  future. By the end of May, 1,884 applications had been made to
  the senior of the Prussian episcopate appointed to receive such,
  Marnitz of Kulm, by 1,443 clergymen, of whom the government
  rejected only 178 who had studied at the Jesuit institutions of
  Rome, Louvain, and Innsbrück.--In December, 1883, Bishop Blum of
  Limburg, and in January, 1884, Brinkmann of Münster were restored
  by royal grace, and for both dioceses, as well as for Ermeland,
  Kulm and Hildesheim, and at last also on March 31st, shortly
  before the closing of the door, even for Cologne, in this case,
  however, revocably, the arrest of salaries ceased, so that only
  the two archiepiscopal sees of Cologne and Posen remained vacant,
  and only Posen continued bereft of its endowments. On the other
  hand the government allowed the three discretionary enactments
  that were in operation till April 1st, 1884, to lapse without
  providing for their renewal. Also the proposal for abolishing
  the Expatriation Law of November, 1884, introduced anew by the
  Centre and again adopted by the Reichstag by a great majority,
  was thrown out by the Federal Council; but in the beginning
  of December, on the opening of the new Reichstag, it was again
  brought in by the Centre and passed, but was left quite unnoticed
  by the Federal Council. The repeated motions of the Centre for
  payment of the bishops’ salaries from the state exchequer, as
  well as for immunity to those who read mass and dispensed the
  sacraments, were again thrown out by the House of Deputies in
  April, 1885.

  § 197.12. =Resumption on both sides of Conciliatory Measures,
  1885-1886.=--The next subject of negotiation with the curia was
  the re-institution of the archiepiscopal see of Posen-Gnesen.
  In March, 1884, the pope had nominated Cardinal Ledochowski
  secretary of the committee on petitions, in which capacity he
  had to remain in Rome. He now declared himself willing to accept
  Ledochowski’s resignation of the archbishopric if the Prussian
  government would allow a successor who would possess the
  confidence of the holy see as well as of the Polish inhabitants
  of the diocese. But of the three noble Polish chauvinists
  submitted by the Vatican the government could accept none. Since
  further no agreement could be reached on the question of the
  bishop’s obligation to make notification and the state’s right
  to protest, the negotiations were for a long time at a standstill,
  and were repeatedly on the point of being broken off. But from
  the middle of 1885, a conciliatory movement gained power, through
  the counsels of the more moderate party among the cardinals.
  Archbishop Melchers, who lived as an exile in Maestricht, was
  called to Rome, and as a reward for his assistance was made
  cardinal, and the pope consecrated as his successor in the
  archbishopric of Cologne, Bishop Krementz of Ermeland (§ 197, 2),
  who also was acknowledged by the Prussian government and
  introduced to Cologne on December 15th, 1885, with great pomp,
  with 20,000 torches and twenty bands of music. After a long
  list of candidates had been set aside by one side and the other,
  some here, some there, the pope at last fell from his demand for
  one of Polish nationality, and in March, 1886, appointed to the
  vacant see Julius Dinder, dean of Königsberg, a German by nation
  but speaking the Polish language.--Meanwhile at other points
  advance was made in the peaceful, yea, even friendly, relations
  between the pope and the Prussian government. The diplomatist
  Leo showed his admiring regard for the diplomatist Bismarck
  by sending him a valuable oil-painting of himself by a Münich
  [Munich] master, and the latter astonished the world by making
  the pope umpire in a threatening conflict with Spain on the
  possession of the Caroline islands. His decision on the main
  question was indeed in favour of Spain, but not unimportant
  concessions were also made to Germany. The pope sent the prince
  two Latin poems as _pretium affectionis_, and conferred upon
  him, the first Protestant that had ever been so honoured, at
  the close of 1885 or beginning of 1886, the highest papal order,
  the insignia of the Order of Christ, with brilliants, after the
  cardinal secretary of state Jacobini as president of the papal
  court of arbitration had been rewarded with the Prussian order
  of the Black Eagle, and the other members of the court with other
  high Prussian orders; and at the end of April, 1886, the German
  emperor sent the pope himself thanks for his mediation, with an
  artistic and costly Pectoral (§ 59, 7) worth 10,000 marks.--The
  government had, meanwhile, on February 15th, 1886, brought in
  a new proposal of revision of church polity, the fourth, and in
  order to secure the advice of a distinguished representative of
  the Prussian episcopate, called Bishop Kopp of Fulda to the House
  of Peers. But as his demands for concessions, suggested to him,
  not by the pope, but by the Centre, went far beyond what was
  proposed, they were for the most part decidedly opposed by the
  minister of worship and rejected by the house. The law confirmed
  by the king on May 24th, 1886, made the following changes:
  Complete abolition of the examination in general culture;
  freeing of the seminaries recognised by the minister as suitable
  for clerical training, as well as faculties established in
  universities, seminaries and gymnasia from any special state
  inspection (as laid down in the May Laws), and subjecting such
  to the common laws affecting all similar educational institutions.
  Removal of restrictions requiring ecclesiastical disciplinary
  procedure to be only before German ecclesiastical courts;
  Abolition of the Court for Ecclesiastical Affairs and
  transference of its functions partly to the ministry of worship,
  which now as court of appeal in matters of church discipline
  dealt only with those cases which entailed a loss or reduction
  of official income, partly to the Berlin supreme court, which
  has jurisdiction in case of a breach of the law of the state by
  a church officer as well as in case of a refusal to fulfil the
  oath of obedience; The discretionary enactments of the government
  of 1880 (§ 197, 10) are again enforced and the modifications
  of these in Article 6 of that law are extended to all other
  institutions engaged on the home propaganda; All reading of
  private masses and dispensing of sacraments are no longer
  subjected to the infliction of penalties.--Some weeks before
  royal sanction was given to this law, Cardinal Jacobini had,
  at the instance of the pope, expressed his profound satisfaction
  with the success of the advice in the House of Peers, as also
  particularly at the prospect of other concessions promised by the
  government. In an official communication to the president of the
  House of Deputies, he proposed the addition that the notification
  of new appointments to vacant pastorates should begin from that
  date. In August there followed, on the part of the government,
  the hitherto refused dispensation for those trained by the
  Jesuits in Rome and Innsbrück, and in November, with consent of
  the minister of public worship, the re-opening of the episcopal
  seminaries at Fulda and Treves.

  § 197.13. =Definitive Conclusion of Peace, 1887.=--In February,
  1887, the state journal published a new form of oath for the
  bishops, sanctioned by royal ordinance, in which the obligation
  hitherto enforced “to conscientiously observe the laws of the
  state,” was omitted, and the asseveration added, “that I have
  not, by the oath, taken to his Holiness the pope and the church,
  undertaken any obligation which can be in conflict with the oath
  of fidelity as a subject of his Royal Majesty.”--The promised
  fifth revision, meanwhile accepted by the pope in its several
  particulars and acknowledged by him as sufficient basis for
  a definitive peace, was on February 13th, 1887, contrary to
  precedent, first laid before the House of Peers. Bishop Kopp
  proposed a great number of changes and additions, of which
  several of a very important nature were accepted. The most
  important provisions of this law, which was passed on =April
  29th, 1887=, are the following: The obligation on bishops to
  make notification applies only to the conferring of a spiritual
  office for life, and the right of protest by the state must
  rely upon a basis named and belonging to the civil domain;
  All state compulsion to lifelong reinstatement in a vacant
  office is unlawful; The previously insured immunity for reading
  mass and dispensing the sacraments is now applied to members
  of all spiritual orders again allowed in the kingdom; The
  duty of ecclesiastical superiors to communicate disciplinary
  decisions to the Chief President is given up. Those orders and
  congregations which devote themselves to aiding in pastoral work,
  the administering of Christian benevolence, and, on Bishop Kopp’s
  motion, those which engage in educational work in girl’s high
  schools and similar institutions, as well as those which lead
  a private life, are to be allowed and are to be also restored
  to the enjoyment of their original possessions; The training of
  missionaries for foreign work and the erection of institutions
  for this purpose are to be permitted to the privileged orders
  and congregations.--Bishop Kopp, and also the pope, with lively
  gratitude, accepted these ordinances as making the reconciliation
  an accomplished fact; but they also expressed the hope that
  the success of this peaceful arrangement will be such as shall
  lead to further important concessions to the rightful claims
  of the Catholic church. After this conclusive revision, besides
  the extremely contracted obligation of notification by the
  bishops and the almost completely insignificant right of civil
  protest, there remain of the _Kulturkampf_ laws only: the
  _Kanzelparagraph_, the Jesuit and the exile enactments (all
  of them imperial and not Prussian laws), and the abrogation
  of the three articles of the Prussian constitution (§ 197, 8).
  Insignificant as the concessions of the papal curia may seem
  in comparison to the almost complete surrender of the Prussian
  government, it can hardly be said that Bismarck has been untrue
  to his promise not to go to Canossa. With him the main thing
  ever was to restore within the German empire the peace that
  was threatened by thunderclouds gathering from day to day in
  the political horizon in east and west, and thus, as also by
  nurturing and developing the military forces, to set aside the
  danger of war from without. But for this end, the sovereignty
  of the Centre, which hampered him on every side, allying itself
  with all elements in the Chamber and Reichstag hostile to the
  government and the empire, must be broken. But this was possible
  only if he succeeded in breaking up the unhallowed artificial
  amalgamation of Catholic church interests for which the Centre
  contended with the political tendencies of the party hostile
  to the empire, by recognising those interests in a manner
  satisfactory to the pope and to all right-minded loyal German
  Catholics, and so estranging them from the political schemes of
  the leader of the Centre. This indeed would have scarcely been
  possible with Pius IX., but with the much clearer and sharper
  Leo XIII. there was hope of success. And the statesmanlike
  insight and self-denial of the prince succeeded, though at first
  only in a limited measure, and this was a much more important
  gain for the state than the papal concessions of episcopal
  notification and the state’s right of protest.--When in the
  beginning of 1887, at the same time that the fear was greatest of
  a war with France and Russia, the renewal and enlargement of the
  military budget, hitherto for seven years, was necessary, and its
  refusal by the Centre and its adherents was regarded as certain,
  Bismarck prevailed on the pope to intervene in his favour. The
  pope did it in a confidential communication to the president
  of the Centre, in which he urged acceptance of the septennial
  act in the Reichstag for the security of the Fatherland and the
  conserving of peace on the continent, expressly referring to the
  friendly and promising attitude of the imperial government to
  the papacy and the Catholic church. But the president kept the
  communication secret from the members of his party, and they
  continued strenuously and unanimously opposed to the Septennate.
  The Reichstag was consequently dissolved. The pope now published
  this correspondence with the leaders of the Centre, thirty-seven
  Rhenish nobles separated from the party, and the new elections to
  the Reichstag were mainly favourable to the government. Although
  the Deputy Windthorst as chief leader of the Prussian _Ecclesia
  militans_ had on every occasion protested his and his party’s
  profoundest reverence for and conditional submission to every
  expression of the papal will, and shortly before (§ 186, 3) had
  styled the pope “Lord of the whole world,” he opposed himself,
  as he had done on the Septennate question, on the fifth revision
  of the ecclesiastical laws, to the will of the infallible pope
  by publishing a memorial proving the absolute impossibility of
  accepting this proposed law, which, however, this time also he
  failed to carry out.

  § 197.14. =Independent Procedure of the other German Governments.=

    1. =Bavaria’s= energy in the struggle against ultramontanism
       (§ 197, 4) soon cooled. Yet in 1873 the Redemptorists were
       instructed to discontinue their missionary work (§ 186, 6),
       and all theological students were forbidden to attend the
       Jesuit German College at Rome (§ 151, 1). Also in 1875,
       the jubilee processions organized by the episcopate without
       obtaining the royal _Placet_ were inhibited.

    2. =Württemberg=, which since 1862 possessed more civil
       jurisdiction over Catholic church affairs and exercised it
       more freely (§ 196, 6) than Prussia laid claim to in 1873,
       could all the more easily maintain ecclesiastical peace,
       since its peaceful Bishop Hefele (§ 189, 3, 4; 191, 7)
       avoided all occasion of conflict and strife.

    3. In =Baden= the _Kulturkampf_ that had here previously
       broken out (§ 196, 2) was continued all the more keenly.
       In 1873 public teaching, holding of missions and assisting
       in pastoral work, had been refused to all religious orders
       and fraternities. But the main blow, followed by the
       comprehensive church legislation of February 19th, 1874,
       which closed all boys’ seminaries and episcopal institutions,
       allowed none to hold a clerical office or discharge any
       ecclesiastical function without a three years’ course
       at a German university and a state examination in general
       culture (§ 196, 2), strictly forbad all influencing of
       public elections by the clergy, and made deposition follow
       the second conviction of a church officer. The expedient
       hitherto resorted to of appointing mere deputy priests so
       as to avoid the examination, was consequently frustrated.
       The rapid increase of vacant pastorates, after five years’
       opposition, at last moved the episcopal curia to sue for
       peace at the hands of the government, and when the latter
       showed an exceedingly conciliatory spirit, the curia
       with consent of the pope in February, 1880, withdrew its
       prohibition of the request for dispensation from the state
       examination, and the government now on its part with the
       Chambers passed a law, by which the obligation to undergo
       this examination was abolished, and the certificate of
       the exit examination, three years’ attendance at a German
       university, and diligent attention to at least three
       courses of the philosophical faculty, was held as sufficient
       evidence of general culture. The Baden _Kulturkampf_ seems
       to have been definitely concluded by the election and
       recognition of Dr. Orbin to the see of Freiburg, vacant for
       fourteen years, when he without scruple took the oath of
       allegiance. This, however, did not check, far less put an
       end to the tumults of the fanatical ultramontane Irredenta.

  § 197.15.

    4. =Hesse-Darmstadt= in 1874 followed the example of Prussia
       and Baden in excluding all spiritual orders from teaching
       in public schools, and on April 23rd, 1875, issued five
       ecclesiastical laws which were directed to restoring under
       penal sanctions the state of the law, which before 1850
       (§ 196, 4) had been unquestioned. Essentially in harmony with
       the Prussian May Laws of 1873 and 1874, they go beyond these
       in several particulars. All clergymen receiving appointments,
       _e.g._, must have gone through a full university course;
       all religious orders and congregations were to be allowed
       to die out; public roads and squares could be used
       for ecclesiastical festivals only by permission of the
       government to be renewed on each occasion. The “contentious”
       Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, who stirred up the fire to the
       utmost with the Prussian brand, and had kindled also a
       similar flame in Hesse over the proposal of this law, held
       still that to view martyrdom at a distance was the better
       part, and carefully avoided any overt act of disobedience.
       But he immediately refused to co-operate in restoring the
       Catholic theological faculty at Giessen, and the government
       consequently abandoned the idea. The Mainz see after
       Ketteler’s death in 1877 remained long vacant, as the
       government felt obliged to reject the electoral list
       submitted by the chapter. A candidate satisfactory to the
       Vatican and the government was only found in May, 1886, in
       the person of Dr. Haffner, a member of the chapter. After
       Prussia had concluded its definitive peace with Rome, the
       Hessian government, in May, 1887, laid before the house of
       representatives a revision of ecclesiastical legislation of
       1875, like that of Prussia, only not going so far, for which
       meanwhile the approval of the papal curia had been obtained.
       It agrees to the erection of a Catholic clerical seminary,
       and Catholic students’ residences in this seminary and
       in the state-gymnasia; erection of independent boys’
       institutions preparatory to the seminary for priests is,
       however, still refused; the existing duty of bishops to
       make notification, and the right of the state to protest
       in regard to appointments to vacant pastorates are also
       retained. There is no word of rehabilitating religious
       orders and congregations, nor of any limitation of the law
       about the exercise of ecclesiastical punishment and means
       of discipline.

    5. Last of all among the German states affected by the
       _Kulturkampf_, the kingdom of =Saxony=, with only 73,000
       Catholic inhabitants, at the instance of the second Chamber
       in 1876, came forward with a Catholic church law modelled
       upon the Prussian May Laws, with its several provisions
       modified, in spite of the contention of the talented heir
       to the throne, Prince George, that the power of the state
       in relation to the Catholic church could only be determined
       by a concordat with the Roman curia.


                        § 198. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

  To the emperor of Austria there was left, after the re-organization
of affairs by the Vienna Congress, of the Roman empire, only the
name of defender of the papal see, and the Catholic church, and the
presidency of the German Federal Council. The remnants of the Josephine
ecclesiastical constitution were gradually set aside and Catholicism
firmly established as the state religion; yet the government asserted
its independence against all hierarchical claims, and granted, though
only in a very limited degree, toleration to Protestantism. The
revolution year 1848 removed indeed some of these limits, but the
period of reaction that followed gave, by means of a concordat concluded
with the curia in 1855, to the ultramontane hierarchy of the country
an unprecedented power in almost all departments of civil life, and
prejudicial also to the interests of the Protestant church. After the
disastrous issue of the Italian war in 1859, and still more that of the
German war in 1866, the government was obliged to make an honest effort
to introduce and develop liberal institutions. And after an imperial
patent of 1861 had secured religious liberty, self-administration, and
equal rights to the Protestant church, the constitutional legislation
of 1868 freed Catholic as well as Protestant civil, educational, and
ecclesiastical matters from the provisions of the concordat that most
seriously threatened them, and by the declaration of papal infallibility
in 1870 the government felt justified in regarding the entire concordat
as antiquated and declaring it abolished. In its place a Catholic church
act was passed by the state in 1874. But the _Kulturkampf_ struggle
which was thus made imminent also for Austria was avoided by pliancy on
both sides.

  § 198.1. =The Zillerthal Emigration.=--In the Tyrolese
  =Zillerthal= the knowledge of evangelical truth had spread
  among several families by means of Protestant books and Bibles.
  When the Catholic clergy from 1826 had pushed to its utmost
  the clerical guardianship by means of auricular confession, an
  opposition arose which soon from the refusal to confess passed on
  to the rejection of saint worship, masses for the dead, purgatory,
  indulgences, etc., and ended in the formal secession of many to
  the evangelical church in 1830, with a reference to the Josephine
  edict of toleration. The emperor Francis I., to whom on the
  occasion of his visit to Innsbrück in 1832 they presented their
  petition, promised them toleration. But the Tyrolese nobles
  protested, and the official decision, given at last in 1834,
  ordered removal to Transylvania or return to the Catholic church.
  The petitioners now applied, as those of Salzburg had previously
  done (§ 165, 4), by a deputation to the king of Prussia, who,
  after by diplomatic communications securing the emperor’s
  consent to emigration, assigned them his estate of Erdmannsdorf
  in Silesia for colonization. There now the exiles, 399 in number,
  settled in 1837, and, largely aided by the royal munificence,
  founded a new Zillerthal.

  § 198.2. =The Concordat.=--After the revolution year 1848,
  the government were far more yielding toward the claims of the
  hierarchy than under the old Metternich _régime_. In April, 1850,
  an imperial patent relieved the papal and episcopal decrees of
  the necessity of imperial approval, and on August 18th, 1855,
  a concordat with the pope was agreed to, by which unprecedented
  power and independence was granted to the hierarchy in Austria
  for all time to come. The first article secured to the Roman
  Catholic religion throughout the empire all rights and privileges
  which they claimed by divine institution and the canon law.
  The others gave to the bishops the right of unrestricted
  correspondence with Rome, declared that no papal ordinance
  required any longer the royal _placet_, that prelates are
  unfettered in the discharge of their hierarchical obligations,
  that religious instruction in all schools is under their
  supervision, that no one can teach religion or theology without
  their approval, that in catholic schools there can be only
  catholic teachers, that they have the right of forbidding all
  books which may be injurious to the faithful, that all cases
  of ecclesiastical law, especially marriage matters, belong to
  their jurisdiction, yet the apostolic see grants that purely
  secular law matters of the clergy are to be decided before a
  civil tribunal, and the emperor’s right of nomination to vacant
  episcopal sees is to continue, etc. The inferior clergy, who
  were now without legal protection against the prelates, only
  reluctantly bowed their necks to this hard yoke; the liberal
  Catholic laity murmured, sneered, and raged, and the native press
  incessantly urged a revision of the concordat, the necessity of
  which became ever more apparent from concessions made meanwhile
  willingly or grudgingly to the “Non-Catholics.” But only after
  Austria, by the issue of the German war of 1866, was restricted
  to her own domain, and finally freed from the drag of its
  ultramontane Italian interests, found herself obliged to make
  every effort to reconcile the opposing parties within her own
  territories, could these views prove successful. But since the
  government nevertheless held firmly by the principle that the
  concordat, as a state contract regularly concluded between two
  sovereigns, could be changed only by mutual consent, the liberal
  majority of the house of deputies resolved to make it as harmless
  as possible by means of domestic legislation, and on June 11th,
  1867, the deputy Herbst moved the appointment of a committee for
  drawing up three bills for restoring civil marriage, emancipation
  of schools from the church, and equality of all confessions
  in the eye of the law. The motion was carried by a hundred and
  thirty-four votes against twenty-two. The Cisleithan (_i.e._
  Austrian excluding Hungary) episcopate, with Cardinal Rauscher
  of Vienna at their head, presented an address to his apostolic
  majesty demanding the most rigid preservation of the concordat,
  denouncing civil marriage as concubinage, and the emancipation
  of schools as their dechristianizing. An imperial autograph
  letter to Rauscher rebuked with earnest words the inflammatory
  proceedings of the bishops, and at the same time the ultramontane
  ambassador to Rome, Baron Hübner, was recalled. After the
  arrangement with Hungary was completed, the first Cisleithan, the
  so-called Burger, ministry was constituted under the presidency
  of Prince Auersperg, composed of the most distinguished leaders
  of the parliamentary majority. All the three bills were passed
  by a large majority, and obtained imperial sanction on =May 25th,
  1868=. The papal nuncio of Vienna protested, the pope in an
  allocution denounced the new Austrian constitution as _nefanda
  sane_ and the three confessional laws as _abominabiles leges_.
  “We repudiate and condemn these laws,” he says, “by apostolic
  authority, as well as everything done by the Austrian government
  in matters of church policy, and determine in the exercise of
  the same authority that these decrees with all their consequences
  are and shall be null and void.” But all Vienna, all Austria
  held jubilee, and the Chancellor von Beust rejected with energy
  the assumptions of the curia over the civil domain. The bishops
  indeed issued protests and inflammatory pastorals, and forbad the
  publication of the marriage act, but submitted to the threats of
  compulsion by the supreme court, and Bishop Rudigier of Linz, who
  went furthest in inciting to opposition, was in 1869 taken into
  court by the police, and sentenced to twelve days’ imprisonment,
  but pardoned by the emperor. Toward the Vatican Council Austria
  assumed at first a waiting policy, then in vain remonstrated,
  warned, threatened, and finally, on July 30th, 1870, after the
  proclamation of infallibility, declared that the concordat was
  antiquated and abolished, because by this dogma the position of
  one of the contracting parties had undergone a complete change.

  § 198.3. =The Protestant Church in Cisleithan Austria.=--Down to
  1848 Protestantism of both confessions in Austria enjoyed only a
  very limited toleration. The storms of this year first set aside
  the hated official name of “Non-Catholics,” and won permission
  for Protestant places of worship to have bells and towers.
  But the repeated petitions for permission to found branches
  of the _Gustavus Adolphus Union_, the persistently maintained
  law that Catholic clergymen, even after they had formally become
  Protestants, could not marry, because the _character indelibilis_
  of priestly consecration attached itself even to apostates, and
  many such facts, prove that the government was far from intending
  to grant to the Protestants civil equality with the Catholics.
  But the unfortunate result of the Sardinian-French war of 1859,
  and the fear thereby increased of the falling asunder of the
  whole Austrian federation, induced the government to address
  itself earnestly to the introduction of liberal institutions,
  and also to do justice to the Protestant church. The presidency
  of the two Protestant consistories in Vienna, hitherto given to
  a Catholic, was now assigned to a Protestant; meetings of the
  Gustavus Adolphus Union were now allowed, and a share was given
  to the Protestant party in the ministry of public worship by
  the appointment of three evangelical councillors. After the
  entrance on office of the liberal minister Von Schmerling,
  an imperial patent was issued on April 8th, 1864, by which
  unrestricted liberty of faith, independent administration of
  all ecclesiastical, educational, and charitable matters, free
  election of pastors, even from abroad, full exercise of civil and
  political rights, and complete equality with Catholics was given
  to the Protestants of the German and Slavonian crown territories.
  Also in 1868, under the reactionary ministry of Belcredi,
  on the expiry of the legal term of the Evangelical Supreme
  Church Council, it was reorganized, two evangelical school
  councillorships were created, and the pecuniary position of
  the evangelical clergy considerably improved. But in spite of
  all privileges legally granted to the evangelical church, it
  continued in many cases, in presence of the concordat, which
  down to 1870 still remained in force, exposed to the whims and
  caprice, sometimes of the imperial courts, sometimes of the
  Catholic clergy.

  § 198.4. =The Clerical Landtag Opposition in the Tyrol.=--In the
  =Tyrol=, after the publication of the imperial patent of April,
  1861, a violent movement was set on foot by clerical agitation.
  The Landtag, by a great majority, pronounced the issuing of it
  the most serious calamity which the country, hitherto honest,
  true, and happy in its undivided attachment to the Catholic faith,
  could have suffered, and concluded that Non-Catholics in the
  Tyrol should only by way of dispensation be allowed, but that
  publicity of Protestant worship and formation of Protestant
  congregations should be still forbidden. The Schmerling ministry,
  indeed, refused to confirm these resolutions. The agitation
  of the clergy, however, which fanned in all possible ways the
  fanaticism of the people, grew from year to year, until at last
  the Belcredi ministry of 1866 came to an agreement with the
  Landtag, sanctioned by the emperor, according to which the
  creation of an evangelical landed proprietary in the Tyrol was
  not indeed formally forbidden, but permission for an evangelical
  to possess land had in each case to be obtained from the Landtag.
  The ecclesiastical laws of 1868 next called forth new conflicts.
  Twice was the Landtag closed because of the opposition thus
  awakened, until finally in September, 1870, the estates took
  the oath to the new constitution with reservation of conscience.
  But now, when in December, 1875, the ministry of worship
  gave approval to the formal constituting of two evangelical
  congregations in the Tyrol, at Innsbrück and Meran, the clerical
  press was filled with burning denunciations, and the majority
  of the Landtag meeting in the following March thought to give
  emphasis to their protest by leaving the chamber, and so bringing
  the assembly to a sudden close. In June, 1880, the three bishops
  of the Tyrol uttered in the Landtag a fanatical protest against
  the continuance of the meanwhile established congregations, which
  the Landtag majority renewed in July, 1883.

  § 198.5. =The Austrian Universities.=--Stremayr, minister
  of public worship, introduced in 1872 a scheme of university
  reorganization, by which the exclusively Catholic character which
  had hitherto belonged to the Austrian universities, especially
  those of Vienna and Prague, should be removed. Up to this time
  a Non-Catholic could there obtain no sort of academical degree,
  but this was now to be obtainable apart from any question of
  confession. The office of chancellor, held by the archbishops
  of Prague and Vienna, was restricted to the theological faculty,
  to the state was assigned the right of nominating all professors,
  even in the theological faculty, and the German language
  was recommended as the medium of instruction. Candidates of
  theology have to pass through a full and comprehensive course
  of theological science in a three years’ university curriculum,
  before they can be admitted into an episcopal seminary for
  practical training. In spite of the opposition of the superior
  clergy, the bill passed even in the House of Peers, and became
  law in 1873.--In Innsbrück, where according to ancient custom
  the rector was chosen from the four faculties in succession, the
  other faculties protested against the election when, in 1872,
  the turn came to the theological (Jesuit) faculty, and they
  carried their point. The new organization law gave the choice
  of rector to the whole professoriate, and a subsequent imperial
  order withdrew from the general of the Jesuits the right of
  nominating all theological professors.--Much was done, too, for
  the elevation of the evangelical theological faculty in Vienna
  by bringing able scholars from Germany, by giving a right to
  the promotion to the degree of doctor of theology, etc. But its
  incorporation in the university, though often moved for, was
  hindered by the continued opposition of the Catholic theologians
  as well as philosophers, and in 1873 it did not meet with
  sufficient support in the House of Peers. Even the use of certain
  halls in the university buildings, promised by the minister,
  could not yet be obtained.

  § 198.6. =The Austrian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1874-1876.=--At last
  the government in January, 1874, introduced the long-promised
  Catholic church legislation into the Reichstag, intended to
  supply blanks occasioned by the setting aside of the concordat.
  Its main contents are these:

      I. The concordat, hitherto only diplomatically dealt with,
         is now legislatively annulled; the bishops have to present
         all their manifestoes not before but upon publication to
         the state government for its cognisance; every vacancy of
         an ecclesiastical office, as well as every new appointment
         to such, is to be notified to the civil court, which
         can raise objections against such appointment within
         thirty days; the minister of worship then decides on the
         admissibility or inadmissibility of the candidate; legal
         deposition of a church officer involves withdrawal of the
         emoluments; the performance of unusual practices in public
         worship of a demonstrative character can be prohibited by
         the civil court; any misuse of ecclesiastical authority in
         restraining any one from obeying the laws of the land or
         from exercising his civil rights is strictly interdicted.

     II. The ecclesiastical revenues and the income of the
         cloisters are subjected to a progressive taxation on
         behalf of a religious fund, mainly for improving the
         condition of the lower clergy, for which the episcopate
         hitherto, in spite of all entreaties, had done practically
         nothing.

    III. Newly formed religious societies received state
         recognition if their denomination and principles contain
         nothing contrary to law and morality or offensive to those
         of another faith.

     IV. The state grants or refuses its approval of the
         establishment of spiritual orders, congregations, and
         ecclesiastical societies; institutions and legacies for
         them amounting to over three thousand gulden require
         state sanction; any member is free to quit any order;
         all orders must report annually on the personal changes
         and disciplinary punishments that have taken place; at any
         time when occasion calls for it they may be subjected to
         a visitation by the civil court.[551]

  In vain did the pope by an encyclical seek to rouse the
  episcopate to violent opposition, in vain did he adjure the
  emperor in a letter in his own hand not to suffer the church
  to be put into such disgraceful bondage; the House of Deputies
  approved the four bills, and the emperor in =May, 1874=,
  confirmed at least the first three, while the fourth was being
  debated in the House of Peers. The bishops now issued a joint
  declaration that they could obey these laws only in so far as
  they “were in harmony with the demands of justice as stated
  in the concordat.” But it did not go to the length of actual
  conflict. Neither to the pope and episcopate, nor to the
  government was such a thing convenient at the time. Hence the
  attitude of reserve on both sides, which kept everything as
  it had been. And when notwithstanding Bishop Rudigier of Linz,
  threatened with fines on account of his refusal to notify the
  newly appointed priests, appealed to the pope, he obtained
  through the Vienna nuncio permission to yield on this point,
  “_non dissentit tolerari posse_.” But all the more urgently did
  the nuncio strive to prevent the passing of the sweeping cloister
  law. In January, 1876, it was passed in the House of Peers with
  modifications, to which, however, the emperor refused his assent.
  Also the revised marriage law of the same date, which removed
  the hindrances to marriage incorporated even in the book of civil
  law, and no longer recognised differences of religion, Christians
  and non-Christians, the remarriage of separated parties of whom
  at the time of the first marriage only one party belonged to the
  Catholic church, higher consecration and the vows of orders, did
  not pass the House of Peers.

  § 198.7. =The Protestant Church in the Transleithan
  Provinces.=--In =Hungary= since 1833 the Reichstag had by bold
  action won for the Protestants full equality with the Catholics,
  but in consequence of the revolution, the military lordship
  of the Protestant Haynau in 1850 again put in fetters all
  independent life in both Protestant churches. The Haynau decree
  was, indeed, again abrogated in 1854, but full return to the
  earlier autonomy of the church, in spite of all petitions and
  deputations, could never be regained, all the less as Hungary in
  all too decided a manner rejected the constitutional proposals
  submitted by the Government in 1856. The liberal imperial patent
  of September 1st, 1859, which secured independent administration
  and development to the Protestant church in the crown possessions
  of Hungary, got no better reception. In the German-Slavonian
  districts of North Hungary, as well as in Croatia, Slavonia, and
  Austrian Servia, it was greeted with jubilation and gratitude,
  but the Magyar Hungarians declined on many, for the most part
  frivolous, grounds, mainly because it emanated from the emperor,
  and did not originate in an autonomous synod. When the government
  showed its intention of going forward with it, the opposition was
  carried to the utmost extreme, so that the emperor was obliged
  temporarily to suspend proceedings in May, 1860. Still the
  ecclesiastical joined with the political movement continued
  to increase until in 1867 the imperial chancellor, Von Beust,
  succeeded in quieting both for a time by the Hungarian Agreement.
  On June 8th of that year, the emperor, Francis Joseph, on
  ratifying the agreement, was solemnly crowned King of Hungary.
  The hated patent had been shortly before revoked by an
  imperial edict, with the direction to order church matters
  in a constitutional way. After a complete reconciliation, at
  a General Protestant Convention in December, 1867, with the
  Patent congregations, hitherto denounced as unpatriotic, it was
  concluded that to the state belonged only a right of protection
  and oversight of the church, which is autonomous in all its
  internal affairs, but to all confessions perfect freedom in law,
  and that there should be not a separate religious legislation
  for each, but a common one for all confessions. A committee
  first appointed in 1873 for this purpose, with the motto, “A
  Free Church in a Free State,” constituted, and then adjourned
  _ad kalendas Græcas_.


                          § 199. SWITZERLAND.

  The Catholic church of Switzerland, after long continued troubles,
obtained again a regular hierarchical organization in 1828. Since that
time the Jesuits settled there in crowds, and assumed to themselves in
most of the Catholic cantons the whole direction of church and schools.
The unfortunate issue of the cantonal war of 1847 led indeed to their
banishment by law, but, favoured by the bishops, they knew how still to
re-enter by back doors and secretly to regain their earlier influence.
The city of Calvin was the centre of their plots, not only for
Switzerland, but also for all Cisalpine Europe, until at last the
overstrained bow broke, and the Swiss governments became the most
decided and uncompromising opponents of the ultramontane claims. In
1873 the papal nuncio, in consequence of a papal encyclical insulting
the government, was banished.--In Protestant Switzerland, besides the
destructive influence of the Illumination, antagonistic to the church,
and radical liberalism, there appeared a soil receptive of pietism,
separatism, and fanaticism, whose first cultivation has been ascribed
to Madame Krüdener (§ 176, 2). In the Protestant church of German
Switzerland the religious and theological developments stood regularly
in lively connexion with similar movements in Germany, while those in
the French cantons received their impulse and support from France and
England. From France, to which they were allied by a common language,
they learned the unbelief of the encyclopædists (§ 165, 14), while
travelling Englishmen and those residing in the country for a longer
period introduced the fervour and superstition of Methodism and other
sects.

  § 199.1. =The Catholic Church in Switzerland till 1870.=--The
  ecclesiastical superintendence of Catholic Switzerland was
  previously subject to the neighbouring foreign bishoprics.
  But for immediate preservation of its interests the curia had
  appointed a nunciature at Lucerne in 1588. When now, in 1814, the
  liberal Wessenberg (§ 187, 3), already long suspected of heresy,
  was called as coadjutor to Constance, the nuncio manœuvred with
  the Catholic confederates till these petitioned the pope for the
  establishment of an independent and national bishopric. But when
  each of the cantons interested claimed to be made the episcopal
  residence negotiations were at last suspended, and in 1828 six
  small bishoprics were erected under immediate control of Rome.
  At the end of 1833 the diocesan representatives of Basel and
  St. Gall assembled in Baden to consult about the restoration
  of a national Swiss Metropolitan Union and a common state
  church constitution for securing church and state against the
  encroachments of the Romish hierarchy. But Gregory XIV. condemned
  the articles of conference here agreed upon, which would have
  given to Switzerland only what other states had long possessed,
  as false, audacious, and erroneous, destructive of the church,
  heretical, and schismatic, and among the Catholic people a revolt
  was stirred up by ultramontane fanaticism, under the influence
  of which the whole action was soon frustrated. On the occasion of
  a revision of the constitution of the canton of Aargau, a revolt,
  led by the cloisters, broke out in 1841. But the rebels were
  defeated, and the grand council resolved upon the closing of all
  cloisters, eight in number. Complaint made against this at the
  diet was regarded as satisfied by the Aargau Agreement of 1843
  restoring three nunneries. An opposition was organized against
  the revision of the constitution of Canton =Lucerne= in 1841.
  The liberal government was overthrown, and the new constitution,
  in which the state insisted on its _placet_ in ecclesiastical
  matters and the granting of cantonal civil rights to those
  only who professed attachment to the Roman Catholic church, was
  submitted to the pope for approval. At last, in 1844, the academy
  of Lucerne was given over to the Jesuits, for which Joseph Leu,
  the popular agitator, as member of the grand council, had wrought
  unweariedly since 1839. In Canton =Vaud= the parties of old or
  clerical and young Switzerland contended with one another for
  the mastery. The latter suffered an utter defeat in 1844, and the
  constitution which was then carried allowed the right of public
  worship only to the Catholic church. In consequence of this
  victory of the clerical party Catholic Switzerland with Lucerne
  at its head became a main centre of ultramontanism and Jesuitism.
  At the diet of 1844, indeed, Aargau, supported by numerous
  petitions from the people, moved for the banishment of all
  Jesuits from all Switzerland, but the majority did not consent.
  The Jesuit opponents expelled from Lucerne now organized twice
  over a free volunteer corps to overthrow the ultramontane
  government and force the expulsion of the Jesuits, but on both
  occasions, in 1844 and 1845, it suffered a sore defeat. In face
  of the threateningly growing increase of the excitement, which
  made them fear a decisive intervention of the diet, the Catholic
  cantons formed in 1845 a =separate league= (_Sonderbund_) for
  the preservation of their faith and their sovereign rights. This
  proceeding, irreconcilable with the Act of Federation, led to
  a civil war. The members of the _Sonderbund_ were defeated, the
  ultramontane governments had to resign, and the Jesuits departed
  in 1847. The new Federal constitution which Switzerland adopted
  in 1848, secured unconditional liberty of conscience and equality
  of all confessions, and the expulsion of the Jesuits in terms
  of the law. But since that time ultramontanism has gained the
  supremacy in Catholic Switzerland, and in spite of the existing
  law against the Jesuits all the threads of the ultramontane
  clerical movements in Switzerland were in the Jesuits’ hands.
  These were never more successful than in Canton =Geneva=, where
  the radical democratic agitator Fazy leagued himself closely with
  ultramontanism to compass the destruction of the old Calvinistic
  aristocracy, and by bringing in large numbers the lower class
  Catholics from the neighbouring France and Savoy he obtained a
  considerable Catholic majority in the canton, and in the capital
  itself made Catholics and Protestants nearly equal.

  § 199.2. =The Geneva Conflict, 1870-1883.=--The Catholic church
  of Canton Geneva, on the founding of the six Swiss bishoprics
  by a papal bull, had been incorporated “for all time to
  come,” after the style of the concordat, with the bishopric of
  Freiburg-Lausanne. But the government made no objection when the
  newly elected priest of Geneva, Mermillod, a Jesuit of the purest
  water, assumed the title and rank of an episcopal vicar-general
  for the whole canton. But when in 1864 the pope nominated him
  bishop of Hebron _in partibus_ and auxiliary bishop of Geneva, it
  made a protest. Nevertheless, when, in the following year, Bishop
  Marilley of Freiburg by papal orders transferred to him absolute
  power for the canton with personal responsibility, and in 1870
  formally renounced all episcopal rights over it, so that the pope
  now appointed the auxiliary bishop independent bishop of Geneva,
  it was evident a step had been taken that could not be recalled.
  The government renewed its protest and made it more vehement, in
  consequence of which, in January, 1873, by a papal brief which
  was first officially communicated to the government after it
  had already been proclaimed from all Catholic pulpits, Mermillod
  was appointed apostolic vicar-general with unlimited authority
  for Canton Geneva, and the district was thus practically made
  a Catholic mission field. A demand made of him by the state
  to resign this office and title and divest himself of every
  episcopal function, was answered by the declaration that he
  would obey God rather than man. The _Bund_ then expelled him
  from Federal territory until he would yield to that demand.
  From Ferney, where he settled, he unceasingly stirred up the
  fire of opposition among the Genevan clergy and people, but the
  government decidedly rejected all protests, and by a popular vote
  obtained sanction for a Catholic church law which restricted the
  rights of the diocesan bishop who might reside in Switzerland,
  but not in Canton Geneva, and without consent of the government
  could not appoint there any episcopal vicar, and transferred the
  election of priests and priests’ vicars to the congregations. The
  next elections returned Old Catholics, since the Roman Catholic
  population did not acknowledge the law condemned by the pope and
  took no part in the voting. By decision of the grand council of
  1875 the abolition of all religious corporations was next enacted,
  and all religious ceremonies and processions in public streets
  and squares forbidden. Leo XIII. made an attempt to still
  the conflict, for in 1879 he gave Bishop Marilley the asked
  for discharge, and confirmed his elected successor, Cosandry,
  as bishop of Freiburg, Lausanne, and Geneva, without however
  removing Mermillod from his office of vicar apostolic of Geneva.
  But this actually took place after the death of Cosandry in 1882
  by the appointment of Mermillod as his successor in 1883. As
  he now ceased to style himself a vicar apostolic, the Federal
  council removed the decree of banishment as the occasion of
  it had ceased, but left each canton free as to whether or not
  it should accept him as bishop. Freiburg, Neuenburg, and Vaud
  accepted him, and Mermillod had a brilliant entry into Freiburg,
  which he made his episcopal residence. But Geneva refused to
  recognise him, because it had already officially attached itself
  to the Old Catholic Bishop Herzog of Berne, and Mermillod went so
  far in his ostentatious love of peace as to declare that he would
  not in future enter Genevan territory.

  § 199.3. =Conflict in the Diocese of Basel-Soleure,
  1870-1880.=--Bishop Lachat of Soleure, whose diocese comprised
  the Cantons Bern, Soleure, Aargau, Basel, Thurgau, Lucerne, and
  Zug, had been previously in conflict with the diocesan conference,
  _i.e._ the delegates of the seven cantons entrusted with the
  oversight of the ecclesiastical administration, on account of
  introducing the prohibited handbook on morals of the Jesuit Gury
  (§ 191, 9), which ended in the closing of the seminary aided
  by the government, and the erection of a new seminary at his
  own cost. Although the diocesan conference next forbad the
  proclamation of the new Vatican dogma, the bishop threatened
  excommunicated Egli in Lucerne in 1871, and Geschwind in
  Starrkirch in 1872, who refused. The conference ordered the
  withdrawal of this unlawful act, and on the bishop’s refusal,
  deposed him in January, 1873. The dissenting cantons, Lucerne and
  Zug, indeed declared that after as well as before they would only
  recognise Lachat as lawful bishop, the chapter refused to make
  the required election of administrator of the diocese, the clergy
  in Soleure and in =Bernese Jura= without exception took the
  side of the bishop, as also by means of a popular vote the
  great majority of Catholics in Thurgau. But amid all this the
  conference did not yield in the least. Lachat was compelled by
  the police to quit his episcopal residence, and withdrew to a
  village in Canton Lucerne. The council of the Bernese government
  resolved to recall the refractory clergy of the Jura, took their
  names off the civil register and forbad them to exercise any
  clerical functions. The outbreaks incited by rebel clergy in
  the Jura were put down by the military, sixty-nine clergymen
  were exiled, and, so far as the means allowed, replaced by
  liberal successors introduced by the Old Catholic priest Herzog
  (§ 190, 3) in Olten. In November, 1875, permission to return home
  was granted to the exiles in consequence of the revised Federal
  constitution of 1874, according to which the banishment of Swiss
  burghers was no longer allowed. The Bernese government felt all
  the more disposed to carry out this enactment of the National
  Council, as it believed that it had obtained the legal means for
  checking further rebellion and obstinacy among those who should
  return. On January, 1874, by popular vote a law was sanctioned
  reorganizing the whole ecclesiastical affairs of the =Canton
  Bern=. By it all clergy, Catholic as well as Protestant, are
  ranked as civil officers, the choice of whom rests with the
  congregations, the tenure of office lasting for six years. All
  purely ecclesiastical affairs for the canton rest in the last
  instance with a synod of the particular denomination, for the
  several congregations with a church committee, both composed of
  freely elected lay and clerical members. But if a dispute in a
  particular congregation should arise about a synodal decree, the
  congregational assembly decides on its validity or non-validity
  for the particular congregation. All decrees of higher church
  courts and pastorals must have state approval, which must never
  be refused on dogmatic grounds. If a congregation splits over any
  question, the majority claims the church property and pastor’s
  emoluments, etc. And this law was next extended in October 31st,
  1875, in the matter of penal law by the so-called Police
  Worship Law. It imposes heavy fines up to 1000 francs or a
  year’s imprisonment for any clerical agitation against the law,
  institutions or enactments of the civil courts, as well as for
  every outbreak of hostilities against members of other religious
  bodies, refuses to allow any interference of foreign spiritual
  superiors without leave granted by government in each particular
  case, forbids all processions and religious ceremonies outside
  of the fixed church locality, etc. In the same year the first
  Catholic Cantonal Synod declared its attachment to the Christian
  or Old Catholic church of Switzerland. But it was otherwise
  after the newly elected Grand Council of the canton of its
  own accord, on September 12th, 1878, granted the returned Jura
  clergy complete amnesty for all the past, and on the assumption
  of future submission to existing laws of state, recognised
  them again eligible for election to spiritual offices which had
  previously been denied them. Not only did the Roman Catholic
  people regularly take part in elections of priests, church
  councils, and synods, undoubtedly with the approval of the new
  pope Leo XIII., who had in February addressed a conciliatory
  letter to the members of the Federal Council, but also the
  extremest of the Jura now submitted without scruple to the new
  election required by the law, and won therein for the most part
  the majority of votes. In the Catholic Cantonal Synod convened in
  Bern, in January, 1880, were found seventy-five Roman Catholics
  and only twenty-five Old Catholic deputies. The latter were
  naturally defeated in all controversies. The synod declared
  that the connexion with the Christian Catholic national bishopric
  was annulled, that auricular confession was obligatory, that
  marriages of priests were forbidden, etc. Since now the law
  assigns the state pay of the priest as well as all the church
  property in the case of a split to the majority for the time
  being, the inevitable consequence was that Old Catholics of the
  Jura district were deprived of all share in these privileges,
  and had to make provision for their own support. Also in Canton
  =Soleure=, the law that all pastors must be re-elected after
  the expiry of six years, came in force in 1872, and then the
  thirty-two Roman Catholic clergymen concerned were with only two
  exceptions re-elected, while, on the other hand, the Old Catholic
  priest Geschwind of Starrkirch was rejected.--But all efforts
  to restore the bishopric of Basel-Soleure came to grief over the
  person of Bishop Lachat, whom the curia would not give up and the
  Federal Council would not again allow, until at last a way out of
  the difficulty was found. The canton Tessin, which previously in
  church matters belonged to the Italian dioceses of Milan and Como,
  was, in 1859, by decree of the Federal Council, detached from
  these. But Tessin insisted on the founding of a bishopric of its
  own, while the Federal Council wished to join it to the bishopric
  of Chur. Thus the matter remained undecided, till in September,
  1884, the papal curia came to an understanding with the Federal
  Council that Lachat should be appointed vicar-apostolic for
  the newly founded bishopric of Tessin, and that to the vacated
  bishopric of Basel-Soleure the “learned as well as mild” Provost
  Fiala of Soleure should be called. In this way all the cantons
  referred to, with the exception of Bern, were won.[552]

  § 199.4. =The Protestant Church in German Switzerland.=--Among
  all the German cantons, =Basel= (§ 172, 5), which unweariedly
  prosecuted the work of home and foreign missions, fell most
  completely under the influence of rationalism and then of the
  liberal Protestant theology. While pietism obtained powerful
  support and encouragement in its missionary institutions and
  movements, and there, though developing itself on Reformed soil,
  assumed, in consequence of its manifold connection with Germany,
  a colour almost more Lutheran than Reformed, the university by
  eminent theological teachers of scientific ability represented
  the Mediation school in theology of a predominantly Reformed type.
  In the Canton =Zürich=, on the other hand, the advanced theology,
  theoretical and practical, obtained an increasing and finally
  an almost exclusive mastery in the university and church. But
  yet, when in 1839 the Grand Council called Dr. David Strauss
  to a theological professorship, the Zürich people rose to a man
  against the proposal, the appointment was not enforced, the Grand
  Council was overthrown, and Strauss pensioned. The victory and
  ascendency of this reaction, however, was not of long continuance.
  Theological and ecclesiastical radicalism again won the upper
  hand and maintained it unchecked. In the other German cantons the
  most diverse theological schools were represented alongside of
  one another, yet with steadily increasing advantage to liberal
  and radical tendencies. The theological faculty at =Bern=
  favoured mainly a liberal mediation theology, and an attempt
  of the orthodox party in 1847, to set aside the appointment of
  Professor E. Zeller by means of a popular tumult, miscarried.
  From 1860 ecclesiastical liberalism prevailed in German
  Protestant Switzerland, frequently going the length of
  the extremest radicalism and showing its influence even in
  the cantonal and synodal legislation. The starting of the
  “_Zeitstimmen für d. ref. Schweiz_,” in 1859, by Henry Lang,
  who had fled in 1848 from Württemberg to Switzerland, and died
  in 1876 as pastor in Zürich, marked an epoch in the history of
  the radical liberal movement in Swiss theology. In Fred. Langhans,
  since 1876 professor at Bern, he had a zealous comrade in the
  fight. During 1864-1866, Langhans published a series of violent
  controversial tracts against the pietistic orthodox party in
  Switzerland, which zealously prosecuted foreign missions, and in
  1866 he founded the _Swiss Reform Union_, while Alb. Bitzius, son
  of the writer known as Jer. Gotthelf (§ 174, 8) started as its
  organ the “_Reformblätter aus d. bernischen Kirche_,” which was
  subsequently amalgamated with the _Zeitstimmem_.--After more or
  less violent conflicts with pietistic orthodoxy, still always
  pretty strongly represented, especially in the aristocracy, the
  emancipation of the schools from the church and the introduction
  of obligatory civil marriage were accomplished in most cantons,
  even before the revised Federal constitution of 1874 and the
  marriage law of 1875 gave to these principles legal sanction
  throughout the whole of Switzerland. In almost all Protestant
  cantons the re-election or new election to all spiritual offices
  every six years was ordained by law, in many the freeing of
  the clergy from any creed subscription with the setting aside
  of confessional writings as well as of the orthodox liturgy,
  hymnbooks and catechisms was also carried, and the withdrawing
  of the Apostles’ Creed from public worship and from the baptismal
  formula was enjoined. The Basel synod in 1883, by thirty-six to
  twenty-seven votes, carried the motion to make baptism no longer
  a condition of confirmation; and although the Zürich synod in
  1882 still held baptism obligatory for membership in the national
  church, the Cantonal Council in 1883, on consulting the law of
  the church, overturned this decision by 140 against 19 votes.

  § 199.5. =The Protestant Church in French Switzerland.=--The
  French philosophy of the eighteenth century had given to the
  Reformed church of =Geneva= a prevailingly rationalistic tendency.
  Notwithstanding, or just because of this, Madame Krüdener, in
  1814, with her conventicle pietism, found an entrance there,
  and won in the young theologian Empaytaz a zealous supporter and
  an apostle of conversion preaching. In the next year a wealthy
  Englishman, Haldane, appeared there as the apostle of methodistic
  piety, and inspired the young pastor Malan with enthusiasm for
  the revival mission. Empaytaz and Malan now by speech and writing
  charged the national church with defection from the Christian
  faith, and won many zealous believers as adherents, especially
  among students of theology. The _Vénérable Compagnie_ of the
  Geneva clergy, hitherto resting on its lees in rationalistic
  quiet, now in 1817 thought it might still the rising storm by
  demanding of theological candidates at ordination the vow not to
  preach on the two natures in Christ, original sin, predestination,
  etc., but thereby they only poured oil on the fire. The adherents
  of the daily increasing evangelical movement withdrew from
  the national church, founded free independent communities and
  _Réunions_ under the banner of the restoration of Calvinistic
  orthodoxy, and were by their enemies nicknamed _Momiers_, _i.e._
  mummery traders or hypocrites. The government imprisoned and
  banished their leaders, while the mob, unchecked, heaped upon
  them all manner of abuse. The persecution came to an end in
  1830. Thereafter settling down in quiet moderation, it founded
  in 1831 the _Société évangélique_, which, in 1832, established
  an _Ecole de Théologie_, and became the centre of the Free church
  evangelical movement. From that time the _Eglise libre_ of Geneva
  has existed unmolested alongside of the _Eglise Nationale_, and
  the opposition at first so violent has been moderated on both
  sides by the growth of conciliatory and mediating tendencies.
  Since 1850, two divergent parties have arisen within the bosom
  of the free church itself, which without any serious conflict
  continued alongside of one another, until in May, 1883, the
  majority of the presbytery resolved to make a peaceful separation,
  the stricter forming the congregation of the _Pelisserie_, and
  the more liberal that of the _Oratoire_. At the same time a
  committee was appointed to draw up a confession upon which both
  could unite in lasting fellowship. But when this failed, a formal
  and complete separation was agreed upon at the new year.--From
  Geneva the Methodist revival spread to =Vaud=. The religious
  movement got a footing, especially in Lausanne. The Grand
  Council, however, did not allow the contemplated formation of
  an independent congregation, and in 1824 forbad all “sectarian”
  assemblies, while the mob raged even more wildly than at Geneva
  against the “_Momiers_.” The excitement increased when, in 1839,
  by decision of the Grand Council, the Helvetic Confession was
  abrogated. When in 1845 a revolutionary radical government came
  into office at Lausanne, the refusal of many clergymen to read
  from the pulpit a political proclamation, caused a thorough
  division in the church, for the preachers referred to were in
  a body driven out of the national church. A Free church of Vaud
  now developed itself alongside of the national church, sorely
  oppressed and persecuted by the radical government, and spread
  into other Swiss cantons. It owed its freedom from sectarian
  narrowness mainly to the influence of the talented and thoroughly
  independent Alex. Vinet, who devoted his whole energies and
  brilliant eloquence to the interests of religious freedom and
  liberty of conscience and to the struggle for the separation
  of church and state. Vinet was from 1817 teacher of the French
  language and literature in Basel, then from 1837 to 1845
  professor of practical theology at Lausanne, but on the
  reconstruction of the university he was not re-elected. He died
  in 1847.[553]--In the canton =Neuchatel= the State Council in
  1873 introduced a law, which granted unconditional liberty of
  conscience, freedom in teaching and worship without any sort
  of restriction on clergy, teachers and congregations. The Grand
  Council by forty-seven votes to forty-six gave it its sanction,
  notwithstanding the almost unanimous protest of the evangelical
  synod, and refused to appeal to a popular vote. When an appeal
  to the Federal Council proved fruitless, somewhere about one half
  of the pastors, including the theological professors and all the
  students, left the state church, and formed an _Eglise libre_;
  while the other half regarded it as their duty to remain in the
  national church so long as they were not hindered from preaching
  God’s word in purity and simplicity. Both parties had a common
  meeting point in the _Union évangélique_, and a law originally
  passed in favour of the Old Catholics, which secured to all
  seceders a right to the joint use of their respective churches,
  proved also of advantage to the Free church.--The canton =Geneva=
  issued, in 1874, a Protestant law of worship, which with dogma
  and liturgy also threw overboard ordination, and maintained that
  the clergy are answerable only to their conscience and their
  electors. Yet at the new election of the consistory in 1879,
  at the close of the legal term of four years, the evangelical
  and moderate party again obtained the supremacy, and a law
  introduced by the radical party in the Grand Council, demanding
  the withdrawal of the budget of worship and the separation of
  church and state, was, on July 4th, 1880, thrown out by universal
  popular vote, by a majority of 9,000 to 4,000.


                      § 200. HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.

  Among the most serious mistakes in the new partition of states at
the Vienna Congress was the combining in one kingdom of the United
Netherlands the provinces of Holland and Belgium, diverse in race,
language, character, and religion. The contagion of French Revolution
of July, 1830, however, caused an outbreak in Brussels, which ended in
the separation of Catholic Belgium from the predominantly Protestant
Holland. Belgium has since then been the scene of unceasing and
changeful conflicts between the liberal and ultramontane parties, whose
previous combination was now completely shattered. And while, on the
other hand, in the Reformed state church of Holland, theological studies,
leaning upon German science, have taken a liberal and even radical
destructive course, the not inconsiderable Roman Catholic population has
fallen, under Jesuit leading, more and more into bigoted obscurantism.

  § 200.1. =The United Netherlands.=--The constitution of the
  new kingdom created in 1814 guaranteed unlimited freedom to all
  forms of worship and complete equality of all citizens without
  distinction of religious confession. Against this the Belgian
  episcopate protested with bishop Maurice von Broglie, of Ghent,
  at their head, who refused, in 1817, the prayers of the church
  for the heretical crown princess and the _Te Deum_ for the
  newborn heir to the throne. As he went so far as to excite
  the Catholic people on all occasions against the Protestant
  government, the angry king, William I., summoned him to answer
  for his conduct before the court of justice. But he eluded
  inquiry by flight to France, and as guilty of high treason
  was sentenced to death, which did not prevent him from his
  exile unweariedly fanning the flames of rebellion. The number
  of cloisters grew from day to day and also the multitude of
  clerical schools and seminaries, in which the Catholic youth
  was trained up in the principles of the most violent fanaticism.
  The government in 1825 closed the seminaries, expelled Jesuit
  teachers, forbad attendance at Jesuit schools abroad, and founded
  a college at Louvain, in which all studying for the church were
  obliged to pass through a philosophical curriculum. The common
  struggle for maintaining the liberty of instruction promised by
  the constitution made political radicalism and ultramontanism
  confederates, and the government, intimidated by this combination,
  agreed, in a concordat with the pope in 1827, to modify the
  obligatory into a facultative attendance at Louvain College.
  The inevitable consequence of this was the speedy and complete
  decay of the college. But the confederacy of the radicals
  and ultramontanes continued, directing itself against other
  misdeeds of the government, and was not broken up until in 1830
  it attained its object by the disjunction of Belgium and Holland.

  § 200.2. =The Kingdom of Holland.=--In the prevailingly =Reformed=
  national church rationalism and latitudinarian supernaturalism
  had to such an extent blotted out the ecclesiastical distinctions
  between Reformed, Remonstrants, Mennonites, and Lutherans,
  that the clergy of one party would unhesitatingly preach in the
  churches of the others. Then rose the poet Bilderdijk, driven
  from political into religious patriotism, to denounce with
  glowing fury the general declension from the orthodoxy of Dort.
  Two Jewish converts of his, the poet and apologist Isaac da Costa,
  and the physician Cappadose, gave him powerful support. A zealous
  young clergyman, Henry de Cock, was theological mouthpiece of
  the party. Because he offended church order, especially by
  ministering in other congregations, he was suspended and finally
  deposed in 1834. The greater part of his congregation and four
  other pastors with him formally declared their secession from the
  unfaithful church, as a return to the orthodox Reformed church.
  As separatists and disturbers of public worship, they were fined
  and imprisoned, and were at last satisfied with the recognition
  granted them of royal grace in 1839, as a separate or =Christian
  Reformed Church=. It consists now of 364 congregations, embracing
  about 140,000 souls, with a flourishing seminary at Kampen. The
  =Reformed State Church=, with three-fourths of all the Protestant
  population, persevered in and developed its liberalistic
  tendencies. The State Synod of 1883 expressly declared that
  the Netherland Reformed Church demands from its teachers not
  agreement with all the statements of the confessional writings,
  but only with their spirit, gist, and essence; and the synod
  of 1877, by the vote of a majority, stated that no sort of
  formulated confession should be required even of candidates for
  confirmation. Yet even amid such proceedings from various sides,
  a churchly and evangelical reaction of considerable importance
  set in. Three great parties within the state church carried on
  a life and death struggle with one another:

    1. The Strict Calvinists, whose leader is Dr. Kuyper, formerly
       pastor in Amsterdam;

    2. The so-called Middle Party, which falls into two divisions:
       the, just about expiring, Ethical Irenical Party, with
       the Utrecht professor Van Oosterzee (died 1882), and the
       Evangelical Party with the Gröningen professor Hofstede de
       Groot, since 1872 Emeritus, as leaders, of which the former,
       subordinating the confession, regards the Christian life
       as the main thing in Christianity, and the latter declares
       itself prepared to take the gospel alone for its creed and
       confession; and

    3. The so-called Modern Party, which, with Professors Scholten
       and Kuenen as leaders, has its centre at Leyden, and in
       theology carries out with reckless energy the destructive
       critical principles of the school of Baur and Wellhausen
       (§ 182, 7, 18).

  The “_Moderns_” are also the founders and leaders of the
  “_Protestant Federation_” after the German model (§ 180),
  with its annual assemblies since 1873, in opposition to which
  a “_Confessional Union_” holds its annual meetings at Utrecht,
  and operates by means of evangelists and lay preachers in places
  where there are only “Modern” pastors. The higher and cultured
  classes in the congregations mostly favour the Gröningen and
  some also the Leyden school, but the great majority of the middle
  and lower classes are adherents of Kuyper, and have frequently
  secured majorities in the Congregational Church Council.--The
  Dutch school law of 1856 banished every sort of confessional
  religious education from public schools supported by the state,
  and so called forth the erection of numerous denominational
  schools independent of the state, and the founding of a “_Union
  for Christian Popular Education_,” which has spread through
  the whole country. The university law sanctioned, after violent
  debates in the chamber, in 1876, establishes in place of the old
  theological faculties, professorships for the science of religion
  generally, with the exception of dogmatics and practical theology,
  and left it with the Reformed State Synod to care for these two
  subjects, either in a theological seminary or by founding for
  itself the two theological professorships in the universities
  and supporting them from the sums voted for the state church.
  The synod decided on the latter course, and appointed to the new
  chairs men of moderate liberal views. The adherents of the strict
  Calvinistic party, however, founded a Free Reformed University
  at Amsterdam, which was opened in autumn, 1880. Its first rector
  was Kuyper.--The =Lutheran Church= of fifty congregations and
  sixty-two pastors, with about 60,000 souls, has also had since
  1816 a theological seminary. In it neological tendencies prevail.

  § 200.3. The founding of the Free University at Amsterdam,
  referred to above, led to a series of violent conflicts
  which threatened to break up the whole Reformed church of
  the Netherlands by a wild schism. The Reformed State Synod,
  consisting mainly of Gröningen theologians, but also numbering
  many members belonging to the Modern or Leyden school, and
  constituting the supreme ecclesiastical court, had, in spite of
  its eleventh rule, which makes “the maintenance of the doctrine”
  a main task of all church government, for a long time admitted
  the principle of unfettered freedom of teaching, and ordained
  that even evidence of orthodoxy on the part of candidates for
  confirmation would no longer be regarded as a condition of their
  acceptance, their examination referring only to their knowledge,
  the examining clergy and not the assisting elders being judges
  in this matter. When now the Free University had been founded
  in direct opposition to the synod, the latter resolved to reject
  all its pupils at the examination of candidates, and when, in
  the summer of 1885, its first student presented himself, actually
  carried out this resolution. Thereupon the university transferred
  the examination to a committee, elected by itself, consisting
  of orthodox Reformed pastors and elders, and a small village
  congregation agreed to elect the candidate for its poorly
  endowed, and so for seventeen years vacant, pastorate. But the
  synod refused him ordination. Therefore the director of a strict
  Calvinistic Gymnasium, formerly a pastor, performed the ceremony,
  and the congregation announced its secession from the synodal
  union. At the same time in Amsterdam a second conflict arose over
  the question of candidates for confirmation. Three pastors of the
  “modern” school demanded the elders subject to them, among them
  Dr. Kuyper, to take part as required in the examining of their
  candidates; but these refused to give their assistance, because
  the previous training had not been according to Scripture and the
  confession, and also the majority of the church council approved
  of this refusal, as the parents had complained, and declared
  that the certificate of morality demanded by other pastors could
  be made out only if candidates for confirmation had previously
  formally and solemnly confessed their genuine and hearty faith in
  Jesus Christ as the only and all-sufficient Saviour, which these,
  however, in accordance with the Dutch practice of the eighteenth
  century, declined to do. The controversy was carried by appeal
  through all the church courts, and finally the State Synod
  ordered the church council to make delivery of the certificates
  within six weeks on pain of suspension. But this was brought
  about before the expiry of that period by the outbreak of a
  far more serious conflict over matters of administration. In
  Amsterdam the administration of church property lay with a
  special commission, responsible to the church council, consisting
  of members, one half from the church council and the other half
  from the congregations. If in the beginning of January, 1886,
  the threatened suspension and deposition of the church council
  should be carried out, in accordance with proper order until
  the appointment of a new council all the rights of the same,
  therefore also that of supervising that commission, would fall
  to the “classical board” (§ 143, 1) as the next highest court.
  In order to avoid this, the fateful resolution was passed on
  December 14th, 1885, to alter § 41 of the regulations, so that,
  if the church council in the discharge of its duty to govern
  the community in accordance with God’s word and the legalized
  church confession, it would be so hindered therein that it
  might feel in conscience obliged to obey God rather than man
  and accept suspension and deposition, and a church council should
  be appointed, the administrative commission would be obliged
  to remain subject, not to this, but to the original commission.
  The “classical board” annulled this resolution, suspended on
  January 4th, 1886, for continued obstinacy the previous church
  council, and constituted itself, pending decision on the part of
  discipline, interim administrator of all its rights and duties.
  The suspended majority, however, called a meeting for the same
  day, and when it found the doors of its meeting place closed,
  sent for a locksmith to break them open. They were prevented by
  the police, who then, by putting on a safety lock, strengthening
  the boards of the door by mailed plates, and setting a watch,
  greatly reduced the chances of an entrance. But the opposition
  sent to the watchers a letter by a policeman demanding that
  the representatives of the church council should be allowed to
  pass; upon which these, regarding it as an order of the police,
  withdrew. They then had the mailed plates sawn, took possession
  of the hall and the archives and treasure box lying there, and
  refused admission to the classical board. While then the question
  of law and possession was referred to the courts of law, and
  there the final decision would not be given before the lapse
  of a year, the disciplinary procedure took its course through
  all the ecclesiastical courts and ended in the deposition of all
  resisting elders and pastors. The latter preached now to great
  crowds in hired halls. From the capital the excitement increased
  by means of violent publications on both sides, spread over the
  whole land and produced discord in many other communities. Wild
  and uproarious tumults first broke out in Leidendorf, a suburb of
  Leyden. The pastor and the majority of the church council refused
  to enter on their congregational list two girls who had been
  confirmed by liberal churchmen elsewhere, and with by far the
  greater part of the congregation seceded from the synodal union.
  The classical board now, in July, 1886, declared the pastorate
  vacant, and ordered that a regular interim service should be
  conducted on Sundays by the pastors of the circuit. The uproar
  among the people, however, was thereby only greatly increased,
  so that the civil authorities were obliged to protect the deputed
  preachers, by a large military escort, from rude maltreatment,
  and to secure quiet during public worship by a company of police
  in church. And similar conflicts soon broke out on like occasions
  and with similar consequences in many other places throughout
  all parts of the land. In December, 1886, the Amsterdam church
  council also declared its secession from the state church, and a
  numerously attended “Reformed Church Congress” at Amsterdam, in
  January, 1887, summoned by Kuyper in the interests of the crowd
  of seceders, resolved to accept the decision of the law in regard
  to church property.[554]

  § 200.4. Even after the separation of Belgium there was still
  left a considerable number of =Catholics=, about three-eighths of
  the population, most numerous in Brabant, Limburg, and Luxemburg,
  and these were, as of old, inclined to the most bigoted
  ultramontanism. This tendency was greatly enhanced when the new
  constitutional law of 1848 announced the principle of absolute
  liberty of belief, in consequence of which the Jesuits crowded
  in vast numbers, and the pope in 1853 organized a new Catholic
  hierarchy in the land, with four bishops and an archbishop at
  Utrecht, under the control of the propaganda. The Protestant
  population went into great excitement over this. The liberal
  ministry of Thorbecke was obliged to resign, but the chambers
  at length sanctioned the papal ordinance, only securing the
  Protestant population against its misapplication and abuse.--On
  the withdrawal of the French in 1814 there were only eight
  cloisters remaining; but in 1861 there were thirty-nine for monks
  and 137 for nuns, and since then the number has considerably
  increased.--The Dutch =Old Catholics= (§ 165, 8), on account
  of their protest against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
  (§ 185, 2), enjoined upon the Catholic church by the pope, were
  anew excommunicated, and joined the German Old Catholics in
  rejecting the decrees of the Vatican Council (§ 190, 1).

  § 200.5. =The Kingdom of Belgium.=--Catholic Belgium obtained
  after its separation from Holland a constitution by which
  unlimited freedom of religious worship and education, and the
  right of confessing opinion and of associating, were guaranteed,
  and to the state was allowed no interference with the affairs
  of the church beyond the duty of paying the clergy. Also in
  Leopold I., 1830-1865, of the house of Saxe-Coburg, it had a king
  who though himself a Protestant was faithful to the constitution,
  and, according to agreement, had his children trained up in
  the Roman Catholic church. The confederacy of radicalism and
  ultramontanism, however, was broken by the irreconciliable enmity
  and violent conflict in daily life and in the chambers among
  clerical and liberal ministers. The ultramontanes founded
  at Louvain in 1834 a strictly Catholic university, which was
  under the oversight of the bishops and the patronage of the
  Virgin; while the liberals promoted the erection of an opposition
  university for free science at Brussels. That the Jesuits used
  to the utmost for their own ends the liberty granted them by the
  constitution by means of missions and the confessional, schools,
  cloisters, and brotherhoods of every kind is what might have been
  expected. But liberalism also knew how to conduct a propaganda
  and to bring the clergy into discredit with the educated classes
  by unveiling their intrigues, legacy-hunting, etc., while
  these exercised a great influence chiefly upon bigoted females.
  The number of cloisters, which on the separation from Holland
  amounted only to 280, had risen in 1880 in that small territory
  to 1,559, with 24,672 inmates, of whom 20,645 were nuns.

  § 200.6. After the ultramontane party had enjoyed eight years
  of almost unchallenged supremacy, the Malou ministry favourable
  to it was overthrown in June, 1878, and a liberal government,
  under the presidency of Frère-Orban, took its place. Then began
  the =Kulturkampf= in Belgium. The charge of public education was
  taken from the ministry of the interior, and a special minister
  appointed in the person of Van Humbeeck. He began by changing
  all girls’ schools under the management of sisters of spiritual
  orders into communal schools, and in January, 1879, brought in
  a bill for reorganizing elementary education, which completely
  secularized the schools; deprived the clergy of all official
  influence over them, and relegated religious instruction to the
  care of the family and the church, the latter, however, having
  the necessary accommodation allowed in the school buildings.
  The chambers approved the bill, and the king confirmed it, in
  spite of all protests and agitation by the clergy. The clerical
  journals put a black border on their issue which published it;
  the provincial councils under clerical influence nullified as
  far as possible all money bequests for the public schools, and
  the bishops assembled in August at Mechlin resolved to found
  free schools in all communities, and to refuse absolution to all
  parents who entrusted their children to state schools and all
  teachers in them, in order thus to cause a complete decay of the
  public schools, which indeed happened to this extent that within
  a few months 1,167 communal schools had not a single Catholic
  scholar. On complaint being made by the government to Leo XIII.,
  he expressed through the Brussels nuncio his regret and
  disapproval of the proceedings of the bishops; but, on the
  other hand, he not only privately praised them on account of
  their former zeal in opposing the school law, but also incited
  them to continued opposition. When this double dealing of the
  curia was discovered, the government in June, 1880, broke off
  all diplomatic relations with the Vatican by recalling their
  ambassador and giving the nuncio his passports. The ministerial
  president publicly in the chamber of deputies characterized
  the action of the Holy See as “_fourberie_.” Whereupon the pope
  at the next consistory called princes and peoples as witnesses
  of this insult. In May, 1882, the results of the inquiry into
  clerical incitements against the public was read in the chamber,
  where such startling revelations were made as these: Priests
  taught the children that they should no longer pray for the king
  when he had committed the mortal sin of confirming the school law;
  the ministers are worse than murderers and true Herods; a priest
  even taught children to pray that God might cause their “liberal”
  parents to die, etc. Amid such conflicts the Catholic party
  in parliament split into the parties of the _Politici_, who
  were willing to submit to the constitution, and that of the
  _Intransigenti_, who, under the direction of the bishops and the
  university of Louvain, held high above everything the standard
  of the syllabus. The latter fought with such passionateness, that
  the pope felt obliged in 1881 to enjoin upon the episcopate “that
  prudent attitude” which the church in such cases always maintains
  in “enduring many evils” which for the time cannot be overcome.
  But undeterred, the government continued to restrict the claims
  of the clergy, so far as these were not expressly guaranteed by
  the constitution.--In June, 1884, as the result of the elections
  for the chamber of deputies, the clerical party again were in
  power. Malou was once more at the head of a ministry in favour of
  the clericals, caused the king to dissolve the senate, and in the
  new elections won there also a majority for his party. No sooner
  were they in power than the clerical ministry, in conjunction
  with the majority in the chambers, proceeded with inconsiderate
  haste, amid the most violent, almost daily repeated explosions
  from the now intensely embittered liberal and radical section
  of the population, which only seemed to increase their zeal,
  to employ their absolute power to the utmost in the interest of
  clericalism. The restoration of diplomatic relations with the
  papal curia in the spirit of absolute acquiescence in its schemes
  was the grand aim of the reaction, as well as a new school law
  by which the schools were completely given over again to the
  clergy and the orders. But when at the next communal elections
  a liberal majority was returned, and protests of the new communal
  councils poured in against the school law on behalf of the vast
  number of state certificated teachers reduced by it to hunger and
  destitution, the Malou ministry found itself obliged to resign in
  October, 1884. Its place was taken by the moderate ultramontane
  Beernaert ministry, which sought indeed to quiet the excitement
  by mild measures, but held firmly in all essential points to the
  principles of its predecessor.

  § 200.7. An exciting episode in the Belgium _Kulturkampf_ is
  presented by the appearance of Bishop =Dumont of Tournay=, who,
  previously an enthusiastic admirer of Pius IX. and a vigorous
  defender of the infallibility dogma, also a zealous patron of
  stigmatization miracles at Bois d’Haine (§ 188, 4), now suddenly
  turned round on the school question and refused to obey the papal
  injunction. For this he was first suspended, and then in 1880
  formally deposed by the pope. He afterwards wrote letters in the
  most advanced liberal journals with violent denunciations of the
  pope, whom he would not recognise as pope, but only as Bishop of
  Rome, and so styled him not Leo, but only Pecci. In these letters
  Dumont makes the interesting communication that the virgin Louise
  Lateau, favoured of God, has threatened with excommunication the
  “intruder” Durousseaux, nominated by the pope as his successor,
  because she continues to reverence Dumont as the only legitimate
  Bishop of Tournay. The Vatican pronounced him insane, and the
  chapter appealed to the civil authorities to have him declared
  incapable in the sight of the law, which, however, they refused,
  because they could not regard Dumont’s insanity as proved. On
  the other hand, Dumont refused to renounce his episcopal office,
  and accused Durousseaux of having by night, with the help of a
  locksmith, obtained entrance to his episcopal palace, and having
  taken forcible possession of a casket lying there, which, besides
  the diocesan property to the value of five millions, contained
  also about one and a half millions of his own private means.
  Pending the issue of the conflict, as to which of the two should
  be regarded as the true bishop, the palace was now officially
  sealed up. The attempt to arrest the robbed casket had to be
  abandoned, because meanwhile the canon Bernard, as keeper of the
  treasures of the diocese, had fled with its contents to America.
  He was, however, on legal warrant imprisoned in Havanna and
  brought back to Belgium in 1882. In April, 1884, the dispute
  of the bishops was definitively closed by the judgment of
  the supreme tribunal, according to which Dumont, having been
  legitimately deposed, has no more claim to the title and revenues
  of his earlier office; and in 1886 the supreme court of appeal
  at Brussels condemned Bernard “on account of serious breach of
  trust” to three years’ imprisonment.

  § 200.8. =The Protestant Church= was represented in Belgium
  only by small congregations in the chief cities and some Reformed
  Walloon village congregations. But for several decades, by the
  zealous exertions of the Evangelical Society at Brussels with
  thirty-four pastors and evangelists, the work of evangelization
  not only among Catholic Walloons, but also among the Flemish
  population, has made considerable progress, notwithstanding all
  agitation and incitement of the people by the Catholic clergy,
  so that several new evangelical congregations, consisting mostly
  of converts, have been formed. In two small places indeed the
  whole communities, roused by episcopal arbitrariness, have gone
  over.--The pastor Byse employed by the Evangelical Society at
  Brussels has taken up the idea that all men by the fall have
  lost their immortality, and that it could be restored again by
  faith in Christ, while all the unreconciled are given over to
  annihilation, the second death of Revelation ii. 11, xx. 15. So
  long as he maintained this theory merely as a private opinion
  the society took no offence at it, but when he began to proclaim
  it in his preaching and in his instruction of the young, and
  declined to yield to all advice on the matter, the synod of 1882
  resolved upon his dismissal. But a great part of his congregation
  still remain faithful to him.


                   § 201. THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES.

  Notwithstanding the common Scandinavian-national and
Lutheran-ecclesiastical basis on which the civil and religious life is
developed, it assumed in the three Scandinavian countries a completely
diversified course. While in Denmark the civil life bore manifold traces
of democratic tendencies and thereby the relations between church and
state were loosened, Sweden, with a tenacity almost unparalleled in
Protestant countries, has for a long period held fast in exclusive
attachment to the idea of a state church. On the other hand Denmark
was far more open to influences from without hostile to the church,
on the one side those of rationalism, on the other, those of the
anti-ecclesiastical sects, especially of the Baptists and Mormons, than
Sweden, which in its certainly barren, if not altogether dead orthodoxy
till after the middle of the century was almost hermetically sealed
against all heterogeneous influences, but yet could not altogether
over-master the pietistically or methodistically coloured movements
of religious yearning that arose among her own people. Norway, again,
although politically united with Sweden, has, both in national character
and in religious development, shown its more intimate relationship with
Denmark.

  § 201.1. =Denmark.=--From the close of last century rationalism
  has had a home in Denmark. In 1825 Professor Clausen, a moderate
  adherent of the neological school, published a learned work on
  the opposition of “Catholicism and Protestantism,” identifying
  the latter with rationalism. First of all in that same year
  Pastor =Grundtvig= (died 1872), “a man of poetic genius, and
  skilled in the ancient history of the land,” inspired with
  equal enthusiasm for the old Lutheranism of his fathers and for
  patriotic Danism, entered the lists and replied with powerful
  eloquence, lamenting the decay of Christianity and the church.
  He was condemned by the court of justice as injurious, after he
  had during the process resigned his pastoral office. A like fate
  befell the orientalist Lindberg, who charged Clausen with the
  breach of his ordination vow. The adherents of Grundtvig met
  for mutual edification in conventicles, until at last in 1832
  he obtained permission again to hold public services. Not less
  influential was the work of Sören =Kierkegaard= (died 1855), who,
  largely in sympathy with Grundtvig, without ecclesiastical office,
  in his writings earnestly pled for a living subjective piety
  and unweariedly maintained an uncompromising struggle against
  the official Christianity of the secularized clergy. The wild,
  unmeasured Danomania of 1848-1849, during the military conflict
  with Germany, drew opponents together and made them friends.
  Grundtvig declaimed against everything German, and of the two
  factors, which he had formerly regarded as the pivots on which
  universal history turned, Danism and Lutheranism, he now let
  go Lutheranism as of German origin. He therefore proposed the
  abrogation of the distinctive German-Lutheran confessions, placed
  the Apostles’ Creed before and above the Bible and, pressing
  in a one-sided manner the doctrine of baptismal grace, demanded
  a “joyous Christianity,” denied the necessity of continued
  preaching and exercise of repentance, and wished especially to
  introduce into the schools the Norse mythology as introductory
  to the study of Christianity. His adherents wrought with the
  anti-church party for the abolition of the union of church
  and state. The Danish constitutional law of 1849 abolished
  the confessional churches of the state church, and Catholics,
  Reformed, Moravians, and Jews were granted equal civil rights
  with the Lutherans. Since then the Catholic church has made slow
  but steady progress in the country, and the increasing Baptist
  movement was also favoured by a law of the Volkthing of 1857,
  which abolished compulsory baptism, and only required the
  enrolment of all children in the church books of their respective
  districts within the period of one year. Civil marriage had also
  been granted to dissenters in 1851, and in 1868 the peculiar
  institution of “electing communities” was founded, by means of
  which twenty families from one or more parishes which declare
  themselves dissatisfied with the pastors appointed them,
  may, without leaving the national church, form an independent
  congregation under pastors chosen by themselves and maintained
  at their own cost. The =Schleswig-Holstein= revolution in
  1848, occasioned enormous confusion and disturbance in the
  ecclesiastical conditions of the district. Over a hundred German
  pastors were expelled and forty-six Schleswig parishes deprived
  of the use of the German language in church and school. In 1864
  both provinces were at last by the Austrian and Prussian alliance
  rent from the Danish government, and in consequence of the German
  war of 1866 were incorporated with Prussia.

  § 201.2. =Sweden.=--In Sweden there was formed in 1803, in
  opposition to the barren orthodoxy of the state church, a
  religious association which, if not altogether free of pietistic
  narrowness, was yet without any heretical doctrinal tendency,
  and exercised a quiet and wholesome influence. From the diligent
  _reading_ of Scripture and the works of Luther that prevailed
  among its members it obtained the name of _Läsare_. The state
  proceeded against its members with fines and imprisonment,
  according to the old conventicle law of 1726, and the mob treated
  them with insults and violence. But in 1842 a fanatical tendency
  began to show itself under the leadership of a peasant, Erich
  Jansen, who induced many “_Readers_” to quit the church and to
  cast into the fire even Luther’s Postils and Catechism as quite
  superfluous alongside of Holy Scripture. They mostly emigrated
  to America in 1846. The law of the land since 1686 threatened
  every Swede who seceded from the Lutheran state church with
  imprisonment and exile, loss of civil privileges and the right
  of inheritance. As might therefore be supposed the French Marshal
  Bernadotte, who in 1818, under the name of Charles XIV., ascended
  the throne of Sweden, had been previously in 1810 obliged to
  repudiate the Catholic confession. Even in 1857 the Reichstag
  rejected a royal proposal to set aside the Secession as well
  as the Conventicle Act. But in the very next year, the holding
  of conventicles under clerical supervision, and in 1860, the
  secession to other ecclesiastical denominations, were allowed by
  law. The constitution of 1865 still indeed made adherence to the
  Lutheran confession a condition of qualification for a seat in
  either of the chambers. The Reichstag of 1870 at last sanctioned
  the admission of all Christian dissenters and also of Jews to all
  offices of state as well as to the membership of the Reichstag.
  On behalf of dissenters, especially of the numerous Baptists
  and Methodists, the right of civil marriage was granted in
  1879. In 1877, Waldenström, head-master of the Latin school
  at Gefle, without ecclesiastical ordination, began zealously
  and successfully by speech and writings (to secure the widest
  possible circulation of which a joint stock company with large
  capital was formed) to work for the revival of the Christian life
  in the Lutheran national church. He vigorously contended against
  the church doctrine of atonement and justification, repudiating
  the idea of vicarious penal suffering, and broke through all
  church order by allowing the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to
  be dispensed by laymen. He thus put himself, with his numerous
  following, directed by lay preachers in their own prayer meetings
  and mission halls, into direct opposition to the church, but by
  the wise forbearance of the ecclesiastical authorities he has not
  yet been formally ejected.[555]

  § 201.3. =Norway.=--In Norway, toward the end of last century,
  rationalism was dominant in almost all the pulpits, and only a
  few remnants of Moravian revivalism raised a voice against it.
  But in 1796, a simple unlearned peasant =Hans Nielsen Hauge=,
  then in his twenty-fifth year, made his appearance as a revival
  preacher, creating a mighty spiritual movement that spread among
  the masses throughout the whole land. He had obtained his own
  religious knowledge from the study of old Lutheran practical
  theology, and arising at a period of extraordinary spiritual
  excitement, “his call,” as Hase says, “to be a prophet was
  like that of the herdsman of Tekoa.” From 1799 he continued
  itinerating for five years, persecuted, reproached, and
  calumniated by the rationalistic clergy, ten times cast into
  prison, under a law of 1741, which forbad laymen to preach, and
  then set free, until he had gone over all Norway even to its
  farthest and remotest corners, preaching unweariedly everywhere
  in houses and in the open air often three or four times a
  day, and nourishing besides the flame which he had kindled by
  voluminous writings and an extensive correspondence. He directed
  his preaching not only against the rationalism of the state
  clergy, but also against the antinomian religion of feeling, of
  “Blood and Wounds” theology introduced in earlier days by the
  Moravians, with a one-sided emphasis and exaggeration indeed, but
  still in all essentials maintaining the basis and keeping within
  the lines of Lutheran orthodoxy. In 1804 he was charged with
  tendencies dangerous to church and state, obtaining money from
  peasants on false pretences, inciting the people against the
  clergy, etc., and again cast into prison. The trial this time was
  carried on for ten years, until at last in 1814 the supreme court
  sentenced him on account of his invectives against the clergy to
  pay a fine, but pronounced him not guilty on the other charges.
  Broken down in spirit and body by his long imprisonment, he could
  not think of engaging again in his former work. He died in 1824.
  Numerous peasant preachers, however, issuing from his school
  were ready to go forth in his footsteps, and till this day the
  salutary effects of his and their activity are seen in wide
  circles. The law of 1741 which had been made to tell against them
  was at last abrogated by the Storthing in 1842. In 1845 the right
  of forming Christian sects was recognised, and in 1851 even the
  Jews were allowed the right of settlement previously refused them,
  and the security of all civil privileges. Since that time even
  in Norway the Catholic church has made considerable progress;
  in June, 1878, it had eleven churches and fourteen priests.


                   § 202. GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

  During the course of the century a breach from without was made upon
the stronghold of the Anglican established church and its legal standing
throughout the United Kingdom. The strong coherence of the Anglican
episcopal church had already been weakened internally by the rise within
its own bosom of High, Low, and Broad tendencies. The advance of the
first-named party to tractarianism and ritualism opened the door to
Romish sympathies, while in the last-named school German rationalism and
criticism found favour, and the low church party was not ashamed to go
hand-in-hand with the evangelical pietistic and methodistic tendencies
of the dissenters. There followed numerous conversions to Rome,
especially from the aristocratic ranks of the upper ten thousand. The
Emancipation Act of 1829 opened the door to both Houses of Parliament to
the Catholics, and in 1858 the same privileges were extended to the Jews.
Also the bulwarks which the state church had in the old universities
of Oxford and Cambridge were undermined, and in 1871 were completely
overthrown by the legal abolition of all confessional tests. Down to
1869 the hierarchy of the episcopal state church, though clearly alien
to the country, maintained its legal position in Catholic Ireland, till
at last the Irish Church Bill brought it there to an end. Repeatedly
have bills been introduced in the House of Commons, though hitherto
without success, by members of the incessantly agitating Liberation
Society, to disestablish the churches of England, Scotland, and
Wales.[556]

  § 202.1. =The Episcopal State Church.=--The two opposing parties
  of the state church corresponded to the two political parties
  of Tories and Whigs. The _high church party_, which has its most
  powerful representatives in the aristocracy, holds aloof from
  the dissenters, seeks to maintain the closest connexion between
  church and state, and eagerly contends for the retention of all
  old ecclesiastical forms and ordinances in constitution, worship,
  and doctrine. On the other hand the _evangelical or low church
  party_, which is more or less methodistically inclined, holds
  free intercourse with dissenters, associating with them in
  home and foreign mission work, etc., and with various shades
  of differences advocates the claims of progress against those
  of immobility, the independence of the church against its
  identification with the state, the evangelical freedom and
  general priesthood of believers against orthodoxy and hierarchism.
  From their midst arose a movement in 1871, occasioned by the
  Oxford “Essays and Reviews” and the works of Bishop Colenso,
  which resulted in the publication, under the authority of
  the bishops, of the “Speaker’s Commentary,” so-called because
  suggested by Denison, who had long been speaker of the House
  of Commons. It is a learned, thoroughly conservative commentary
  on the whole Bible by the ablest theologians of England. On the
  revision of the English translation of the Bible see § 181, 4.
  Besides these two parties, however, there has arisen a third,
  the broad church party. It originated with the distinguished
  poet and philosopher, Coleridge (died 1834), and includes many of
  the most excellent and scholarly of the clergy, especially those
  most eminent for their acquaintance with German theology and
  philosophy. They do not form an organized ecclesiastical party
  like the evangelicals and high church men, but endeavour not
  only to overcome the narrowness and severity of the former, but
  also to secure a broader basis and a wider horizon for theology
  as well as for the church.[557]--The struggle for the legalizing
  of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister has been energetically
  pressed since 1850, but though the House of Commons has
  repeatedly passed the bill, it has been hitherto by small
  majorities, under the influence of the bishops, rejected by
  the House of Lords.--A non-official =Pan-Anglican Council=
  of English bishops from all parts of the world, excluding
  the laity and inferior clergy, with pre-eminently anti-Romish
  and anti-ritualistic tendencies, was held in London in 1867
  (cf. § 175, 5). When it met the second time in 1878, it was
  attended by nearly one hundred bishops, one of them a negro. Of
  the three weeks’ debates and their results, however, no detailed
  account has been published.

  § 202.2. =The Tractarians and Ritualists.=--The activity of
  the dissenters and the episcopal evangelical party’s attachment
  to them stirred up the adherents of the high church party to
  vigorous guarding of their interests, and drove them into a
  one-sided exaggerated accentuation of the Catholic element. The
  centre of this movement since 1833 was the university of Oxford.
  Its leaders were Professors Pusey and Newman, its literary organ
  the _Tracts for the Times_, from which the party received the
  name of =Tractarians=. This was a series of ninety treatises,
  published 1833-1841, on the basis of Anglo-Catholicism, which
  sought, while holding by the Thirty-nine Articles, to affirm
  with equal decidedness the genuine Protestantism over against
  the Roman papacy, and, in the importance which it attached to
  the apostolical succession of the episcopate and priesthood
  and the apostolical tradition for the interpretation of
  Scripture, the genuine Catholicism over against every form
  of ultra-Protestantism. In this way, too, their dogmatics in
  all the several doctrines, as far as the Thirty-nine Articles
  would by any means allow, was approximated to the Roman Catholic
  doctrine, and indeed by-and-by passed over entirely to that type
  of doctrine. Newman’s Tract 90 caused most offence, in which,
  with thoroughly jesuitical sophistry, it was argued that the
  Thirty-nine Articles were capable of an explanation on the basis
  of which they might be subscribed even by one who occupied in
  regard to the church doctrine and practice an essentially Roman
  Catholic standpoint. The university authorities now felt obliged
  to declare publicly that the tracts were by no means sanctioned
  by them, and that especially the application of the principles of
  Tract 90 to the conduct of students in the matter of subscription
  of the Thirty-nine Articles is not allowable. Bishop Bagot of
  Oxford, hitherto favourable to the tractarians, refused to permit
  the continued issue of the tracts. The other bishops also for
  the most part spoke against them in their pastorals, and a flood
  of controversial pamphlets roused the wrath of the non-Catholic
  populace. But on the other hand tractarianism still found favour
  among the higher clergy and the aristocracy. In 1845 Newman went
  over to the Catholic church, and has since led a retired life
  devoted to theological study. Pius IX. paid him no attention,
  but in 1879 Leo XIII. acknowledged and rewarded his services to
  the Catholic church by elevating him to the rank of cardinal.
  The majority of the tractarians disapproved of Newman’s step and
  remained in the Anglican church. Thus acted Pusey (died 1882),
  the recognised leader of the party, after whom they were now
  called =Puseyites=. Many, however, followed Newman’s example,
  so that by the end of 1846 no less than one hundred and fifty
  clergymen and prominent laymen were received into the widely
  opened door of the Catholic church.[558]--The following twelve
  years, 1846-1858, were occupied by two dogmatico-ecclesiastical
  conflicts vitally affecting the interests of the tractarians.

    1. =The Gorham Case.= The Thirty-nine Articles took essentially
       Lutheran ground in treating of baptism, recognising it
       as a vehicle of regeneration and divine sonship, and the
       tractarians laid uncommonly great stress upon this article.
       So also the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Philpotts, refused to
       institute the Rev. Cornelius Gorham because of his views on
       this subject. Gorham accused him before the Archbishop of
       Canterbury, but the Court of Arches decided in favour of the
       bishop. The Court of Appeal, however, the judicial committee
       of the Privy Council, annulled the episcopal judgment, and
       ordered that Gorham should be installed in his office. In
       vain did Philpotts, by a protest before the Court of Queen’s
       Bench, and then before the Court of Common Pleas, against
       the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in this case, in
       vain, too, did Blomfield, Bishop of London, insist upon the
       revival of Convocation, which for one and a half centuries
       had been inoperative as a spiritual parliament with upper
       and lower houses, and in vain did a tractarian assembly of
       more than 1,500 distinguished clergymen and laymen lodge
       a solemn protest. The judgment of the Privy Council stood,
       and Gorham was inducted to his office in 1850. Many of
       the protesters now went over to the Catholic church, and
       about 600 others, like the Puritan Pilgrim Fathers 230
       years before (§ 143, 4), under ecclesiastical oppression,
       emigrated to New Zealand.

    2. =The Denison Eucharist Case.=--The Puseyite Archdeacon
       Denison of Taunton, in the diocese of Bath and Wells, had
       in 1851 in open defiance of the Thirty-nine Articles, which
       represent Calvin’s views of the Lord’s Supper, affirmed in
       preaching and writing that unbelievers as well as believers
       eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord. Over this
       he was involved in a sharp discussion with a neighbouring
       clergyman called Ditcher. In 1854 Ditcher accused Denison
       before his bishop, who, after vain efforts to reconcile
       the parties, referred the matter to the Court of Arches,
       which sought, but in vain, to end the strife by compromise.
       Ditcher now in 1856 brought his complaint before the
       _Queen’s Bench_, which obliged the archbishop to take up the
       matter again. A commission appointed by him declared that
       the complaint was quite justifiable, and threatened Denison,
       when he refused any sort of retraction, with deposition.
       But the Court of Appeal in 1858 stayed the judgment on
       the ground of a technical error in procedure, and Denison
       remained in office.

  § 202.3. From the middle of 1850 the tractarians, who had
  hitherto confined themselves to the development of the Romanizing
  system of doctrine, began to apply its consequences to the church
  ritual and the Christian life, and so won for themselves the name
  of =Ritualists=, which has driven out their earlier designation.
  Wherever possible they showed their Catholic zeal by introducing
  images, crucifixes, candles, holy water, mass dresses, mass
  bells, and boy choristers, urged the restoration of the seven
  sacraments, especially of extreme unction, auricular confession,
  the sacrificial theory and Corpus Christi day, of prayers for
  the dead and masses for souls, invocation of saints and the
  blessed Virgin; they also praised celibacy and monasticism,
  etc. Ritualism has from the first shown singular skill in party
  organization. The _English Church Union_, founded in 1860, has
  now nearly 200,000 members, of these about 3,000 clergymen and
  50 bishops, and it embraces 300 branches over the whole domain
  of the Anglican church. Numerous brotherhoods and sisterhoods,
  guilds and orders, organized after the style of Roman Catholic
  monasticism, promote the interests of ritualism, and zealously
  prosecute home and foreign mission work. The _Confraternity
  of the Blessed Sacrament_ originated in 1862, was able in 1882
  to celebrate Corpus Christi day in 250 churches along with the
  Romish church, dispensing only with the procession. The _Society
  of the Holy Cross_, founded in 1873 consists only of priests,
  and forms a kind of directory for all branches of the ritualistic
  propaganda. The _English Order of St. Augustine_ has a threefold
  division, into spiritual brothers who are preparing for priests’
  orders, lay brothers who are being qualified as lay preachers,
  both under the strictest vows, and a sort of tertiaries, who are
  free from vows. Among the sisterhoods which already supply nurses
  to all the great hospitals of the capital, the most important is
  that called “by the name of Jesus.” They take, like the Beguines
  of the middle ages, the three vows, but not as binding for life.
  By the ultra high church party the genuine apostolic succession
  of the ordination of the first Protestant archbishop, Matthew
  Parker, and so the genuineness of all subsequent ordinations
  going back to him, were doubted; three Anglican bishops are
  said to have had episcopal consecration anew conferred on them
  by a Greek Catholic bishop. The reckless and wilful procedure
  of the ritualists in imitating the Roman Catholic ritual in
  public worship called forth frequent violent disturbances at
  their services, and noisy crowds flocked to their churches.
  Most frequent and violent were the riots in 1859 and 1860 in the
  parish of St. George’s, London, where scarcely any service was
  held without disgraceful scenes of hissing, whistling, stamping,
  and cries of “No popery.” The offscouring of all London flocked
  to the Sunday services as to a public entertainment. Instead of
  hymns, street songs were sung, instead of responses blasphemous
  cries were shouted forth, while cushions and prayer-books
  were hurled at the altar decorations, etc. These unseemly
  proceedings were caused by the ritualistic rector, Bryan King,
  who had introduced the objectionable ceremonial, and obstinately
  continued it in spite of the decided opposition and protests
  of his colleague, Mr. Allen. King’s removal in 1860 first
  put an end to these disturbances, which police interference
  proved utterly unable to check. The ritualistic _Church Union_,
  called into existence by these proceedings, was opposed by an
  anti-ritualistic _Church Association_, and from both multitudes
  of complaints and appeals were brought before the ecclesiastical
  and civil tribunals. The first case they brought up was that of
  Rev. A. H. MacConochie, of Holborn, who, having been admonished
  by the ecclesiastical courts on account of his ritualistic
  practices in 1867, appealed to the Privy Council. And although
  this court decided in 1869 that all ceremonies not authorized
  by the prayer-book are to be regarded as forbidden, he and
  his followers continued to act on the principle that whatever
  is not there expressly prohibited ought to be permitted. The
  _Public Worship Regulation Bill_, introduced by Archbishop Tait,
  and passed by Parliament, which legislatively determined the
  procedure in ritualistic cases, did not prevent the constant
  advance of this movement. The _Court of Arches_ now issued a
  suspension against the accused, and condemned them to prison
  when they continued to officiate, until they declared themselves
  ready to obey or to demit their office. Tooth of Hatcham, Dale of
  London, Enraght of Bordesdale, and Green of Miles Platting were
  actually sent to prison in 1880. But the first three were soon
  liberated by the Court of Appeal finding some technical flaw
  in the proceedings against them, while Green, in whose case no
  such flaw appeared, lay in confinement for twenty months. The
  ritualists still persistently continued their practice, and their
  opponents renewed their prosecutions; these were followed by
  appeals to the higher courts, presenting of petitions to both the
  Houses of Parliament, addresses with vast numbers of signatures
  for and against to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to Convocation
  which had meanwhile been restored, to the Cabinet, to the
  Queen, etc. The result was that many cases were abandoned, some
  obnoxious parties transferred elsewhere, and a very few deposed.

  § 202.4. =Liberalism in the Episcopal Church.=--The more liberal
  tendency of the broad church party had also many supporters who
  scrupled not to pass beyond the traditional bounds of English
  orthodoxy. In opposition to the orthodoxy zealousy inculcated
  at Oxford, rationalism found favour at the rival university of
  Cambridge, and vigorous support was given to the views of the
  Tübingen school of Baur in the London _Westminster Review_. And
  even in high church Oxford, there were not wanting teachers in
  sympathy with the critical and speculative rationalism of Germany.
  Great excitement was caused in 1860 by the “_Essays and Reviews_,”
  which in seven treatises by so many Oxford professors contested
  the traditional apologetics and hermeneutics of English theology,
  and set a sublimated rationalism in its place. In Germany these
  not very important treatises would probably have excited little
  remark, but in the English church they roused an unparalleled
  disturbance; more than nine thousand clergymen of the episcopal
  church protested against the book, and all the bishops
  unanimously condemned it. The excitement had not yet subsided
  when from South Africa oil was poured upon the flames. Bishop
  Colenso of Natal (died 1883), who had zealously carried on the
  mission there, but had openly expressed the conviction that
  it is unwise, unscriptural, and unchristian to make repudiation
  by Caffres living in polygamy, of all their wives but one, a
  condition of baptism, had occasioned still greater offence by
  publishing in 1863 in seven vols. a prolix critical disquisition
  on the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, in which he contested
  the authenticity and unconditional credibility of these books
  by arguments familiar long ago but now quite antiquated and
  overthrown in Germany. During a journey to England undertaken for
  his defence he was excommunicated and deposed by a synod of the
  South African bishops in Capetown. The Privy Council, as supreme
  ecclesiastical court in England, cleared him, as well as the
  authors of the Essays, from the charge of heresy. An important
  aid for the dissemination of liberal religious views is afforded
  by the Hibbert Lectureship. Robert Hibbert (died 1849), a wealthy
  private gentleman in London, assigned the yearly interest of
  a considerable sum for “the spreading of Christianity in its
  simplest form as well as the furthering of the unfettered
  exercise of the individual judgment in matters of religion.”
  The Hibbert trustees are eighteen laymen who dispense the
  revenues in supplementing the salaries of poorly paid clergymen
  of liberal views, in providing bursaries for theological students
  at home and abroad, and in other such like ways, but since 1878
  especially, by advice of distinguished scholars, in the endowment
  of annual courses of lectures, afterwards published, on subjects
  in the domain of philosophy, biblical criticism, the comparative
  science of religion and the history of religion. The first
  Hibbert Lecturer was the celebrated Oxford professor, Max Müller,
  in 1878. Among other lecturers may be named Renan of Paris in
  1880; Kuenen of Leyden in 1882; Pfleiderer of Berlin, in 1885.
  The battle waged with great passionateness on both sides since
  1869 for and against the removal of the Athanasian Creed, or at
  least its anathemas, from the liturgy has not yet been brought
  to any decided result.

  § 202.5. =Protestant Dissenters in England.=--Down nearly to the
  end of the eighteenth century all the enactments and restrictions
  of the Toleration Act of 1689 (§ 155, 3) continued in full force.
  But in 1779 the obligation of Protestant dissenters to subscribe
  the Thirty-nine Articles was abolished, and the acknowledgment
  of the Bible as God’s revealed word substituted. The right of
  founding schools of their own, hitherto denied them, was granted
  in 1798. In 1813 the Socinians were also included among the
  dissenters who should enjoy these privileges. After a severe
  struggle the _Corporation and Test Acts_ were set aside in 1826,
  affording all dissenters entrance to Parliament and to all civil
  offices. The necessity of being married and having their children
  baptized in an episcopal church was removed by the Marriage and
  Registration Act of 1836 and 1837, and divorce suits were removed
  from the ecclesiastical to a civil tribunal in 1857. In 1868
  compulsory church rates for the episcopal parish church were
  abolished. Lord Russell’s University Bill of 1854, by restricting
  subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles to the theological
  students, opened the universities of Oxford and Cambridge
  to dissenters, while the University Tests Bill of 1871 made
  the adherents of all religious confessions eligible for all
  university honours and emoluments at both seminaries. Thus
  one restriction after another was removed, so that at last the
  episcopal church has nothing of her exclusive privileges left
  beyond the rank and title of a state church, and the undiminished
  possession of all her ancient property, from which her prelates
  draw princely revenues.

  § 202.6. =Scotch Marriages in England.=--The saints of the
  English Revolution had indeed resolved in 1653 to introduce
  civil marriage (§ 162, 1). But the reaction under Cromwell set
  this unpopular law aside, and the Restoration made marriage by
  an Anglican clergyman, even for dissenters, an indispensable
  condition of legal recognition. But in no country, especially
  among the higher orders, were private marriages, without the
  knowledge and consent of the family, so frequent as here,
  and clergymen were always to be found unscrupulous enough to
  celebrate such weddings in taverns or other convenient places.
  When an end had been put to such irregularities on English soil
  by an Act of Parliament of 1753, lovers seeking secret marriage
  betook themselves to Scotland. In that country there prevailed,
  and still prevails, the theory that a declaration of willingness
  on both sides constitutes a perfectly valid marriage. The
  Scottish ecclesiastical law indeed requires church proclamation
  and ceremony, but failure to observe this requirement is
  followed only by a small pecuniary fine. Fugitive English couples
  generally made the necessary declaration before a blacksmith
  at Gretna-Green, who was also justice of the peace in this
  small border village, and were then legitimately married people
  according to Scottish law. Only in 1856 were all marriages
  performed in this manner without previous residence in Scotland
  pronounced by Act of Parliament invalid.

  § 202.7. =The Scottish State Church.=--The Presbyterian Church of
  Scotland, from the beginning strictly Calvinistic in constitution,
  doctrine and practice, has, generally speaking, preserved
  this character. Only in recent times has the endeavour of the
  so-called _Moderates_ to introduce a milder type of doctrine won
  favour. The Established Church, as a national church properly
  so-called and recognised by law, dates from the political union of
  England and Scotland in the kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, and
  the Anglican Episcopal Church there was then reduced to a feebly
  represented dissenting denomination. Patronage, set aside indeed
  in the Reformation age, but restored under Queen Anne in 1712,
  and since then, in spite of all opposition from the stricter
  party, continued, because often misused to secure the intrusion
  of inacceptable ministers upon congregations, gave occasion
  to repeated secessions. Thus the _Secession Church_ broke off
  in 1732, and the _Relief Church_ in 1752, the latter going
  beyond the former’s protest against patronage by unconditional
  repudiation of Erastianism, _i.e._ the theory of the necessary
  connection of Church and State (§ 144, 1), and the assertion
  of the spiritual independence of the church, and expressed
  firmly the principles of Voluntaryism, _i.e._ the payment of all
  ecclesiastical officers, etc., by voluntary contributions. Both
  parties united in 1847 in the _United Presbyterian Church_, which
  now embraces one-fifth of the population.--Twice that number
  joined the secession of the Free Church in 1843. The General
  Assembly of the Church of Scotland granted to congregations in
  1834 the right of vetoing presentations to vacancies. The civil
  courts, however, upheld the absolute right of patrons, and at
  the Assembly of 1843 about two hundred of the most distinguished
  ministers, with the great Dr. Chalmers (died 1847) at their head,
  left the state church, and, as _Non-Intrusionists_, founded
  the _Free Church of Scotland_, which at its own cost formed new
  parishes and distinguished itself by Christian zeal in every
  direction. It differs from the _United Presbyterian Church_ in
  restricting its opposition to the abuse of patronage, without
  repudiating right off every sort of state aid and endowment as
  unevangelical. But even to it the law passed in 1846, granting
  to all congregations the right of veto, seemed now no longer
  a sufficient motive to return to the state church. Even when
  in 1874, parliament, at the call of the government, formally
  abolished the rights of patronage through all Scotland and gave
  to the congregations the right of choosing their own ministers,
  the General Assembly of the Free Church by a great majority
  refused to reunite with the state church brought so near
  it, because it conceded to the civil courts unwarrantable
  interference with its internal affairs, especially the right
  of suspending its clergy.[559]

  § 202.8. =Scottish Heresy Cases.=--The Glasgow presbytery
  lodged before the United Presbyterian Synod in Edinburgh of
  1878 a charge against the Rev. Fergus Ferguson of heresy,
  because his teaching was in conflict with the church doctrine
  of the atonement in saying that sinners, apart from Christ’s
  intervention, would not suffer eternal punishment but extinction,
  and that the same fate still lay before unbelievers and the
  impenitent. After five days’ violent discussion, the majority of
  the synod, while strongly dissenting from his views and urging
  him to avoid it in his preaching and catechising, resolved
  to retain him in office as having proved his adherence to the
  orthodox doctrine of the atonement. But when, at next year’s
  synod, the Rev. D. Macrae of Gourock asserted that, in spite of
  the Westminster Confession, it was allowable for ministers to
  deny the eternity of punishment, and would not promise to preach
  otherwise, he was unanimously deposed.--Far more exciting and
  long continued were the proceedings begun in the Free Church
  in 1876, against Professor Robertson Smith of Aberdeen, who was
  charged before his presbytery with offensive statements about
  angels, but especially with contradicting the inspiration of
  Scripture by contesting the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.
  After various proposals of deposition, suspension, rebuke,
  acquittal, had been made, the General Assembly of 1880, after
  much deliberation and discussion, by a majority found the charge
  of heterodoxy not proven, but earnestly exhorted the accused
  to greater circumspection and moderation, and the decision was
  greeted with thundering applause from the students and waving of
  handkerchiefs from the ladies present. But when, very soon after
  this acquittal, several other contributions by him appeared
  in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, on the Hebrew Language and
  Literature, and Haggai, in the spirit of the Wellhausen criticism
  (§ 182, 18), as also an article on Animal Worship among the
  Arabians and in the Old Testament, in the _Journal of Philology_,
  the _Commission_ sitting in Edinburgh reinstituted proceedings
  against him. In October, 1880, Smith vindicated before that court
  his scientific attitude toward the Old Testament, maintaining
  that a moderate criticism of the biblical books was reconcilable
  with the maintenance of their inspired authority. The majority of
  the Commission, however, voted for his expulsion from his chair.
  Smith protested both against the competence and against the
  judgment of the Commission, but declared himself ready to submit
  to the judgment of the General Assembly. Meanwhile he accepted
  an invitation from Glasgow to deliver public lectures there on
  the Old Testament, which were received with extraordinary favour.
  This course was published under the title: “_The Old Testament
  in the Jewish Church_.” The General Assembly of May, 1881, now
  decided by a large majority to remove him from his academical
  chair, with retention of his license and his professor’s
  salary, which latter, however, Smith declined. But his numerous
  sympathizers presented him with a scientific library worth
  £3,000, and promised an annual stipend equal to his former salary.
  In 1883 he received the appointment as Professor of Arabic in
  Cambridge and the large revenues of that office allowed him to
  decline the offer of his friends.[560]

  § 202.9. =The Catholic Church in Ireland.=--The Catholic
  inhabitants of Ireland under Protestant proprietors, and forced
  to pay tithes for the support of the Protestant clergy, were
  always deprived of civil rights. In 1809 O’Connell (died 1847),
  an agitator of great popular eloquence, placed himself at the
  head of the oppressed people, in order in a constitutional way
  to secure religious and political freedom and equality. At last,
  in 1829, the Emancipation Bill, supported by Peel and Wellington,
  was passed, which on the basis of the formal declaration of the
  whole Catholic episcopate that papal infallibility and papal
  sovereignty in civil matters was not part of the Catholic faith
  nor could be joined therewith either in Ireland or anywhere else
  in the Catholic world, gave to Catholics admission to parliament
  and to all civil and military appointments. But the hated tithes
  remained, and were enforced, when refused, by military force.
  After long debates in both houses of parliament, the Tithes Bill
  was adopted in 1838, which transferred the tithe as a land-tax
  from tenants to proprietors, which, however, was only a
  postponing of the question. It was thus regarded by O’Connell. He
  declared that justice for Ireland could only be got by abolishing
  the legislative union with Great Britain existing since 1800,
  and restoring her independent parliament. For this purpose
  he organized the Repeal Association. In 1840 another no less
  powerful popular agitator arose in the person of the Irish
  Capuchin, Father Mathew, the apostle of temperance, who with
  unparalleled success persuaded thousands of those degraded by
  drink to take vows of abstinence from spirituous liquors. He
  kept apart from all political agitation, but the fruits of his
  exertions were all in its favour. O’Connell in 1843 organized
  monster meetings, attended by hundreds of thousands. The
  government had him tried, the jury found him guilty, but the
  House of Lords quashed the conviction and liberated him from
  prison in 1844. The Peel ministry now sought to soothe the
  excitement by passing in 1845 the Legacy Act, which allowed
  Catholics to hold property in their own names, and the Maynooth
  Bill, by which the theological seminary at Maynooth received a
  rich endowment from the State. Continued famine, and consequent
  emigration of several hundreds of thousands to America and
  Australia, relieved Ireland of a considerable portion of its
  Catholic population, while Protestant missions by Bible and
  tract circulation and by schools had some success in evangelizing
  those who remained. On November 5th, 1855, the anniversary of
  the Gunpowder Plot, the Redemptorists at Kingstown, near Dublin,
  erected and burnt a great bonfire in the public streets of Bibles
  which they had seized, and the primate archbishop of Ireland
  justified it by reference to the example of the believers at
  Ephesus (Acts xix. 19).

  § 202.10. The Fenian movement, originating among the American
  Irish, which since 1863 created such terror among the English,
  was the result of political rather than religious agitation.
  Although this movement failed in its proper end, namely the
  complete separation of Ireland from England, it yet forced
  upon the government the conviction of the absolute necessity of
  meeting the just demands of the Irish by thorough-going reforms
  and putting an end to the oppressions which the native farmers
  suffered at the hands of foreign landowners, and the grievances
  endured by the Catholic church by the maintenance of the Anglican
  church established in Ireland. The carrying out of these reforms
  was the service rendered by the Gladstone ministry. By the Irish
  Land Bill of 1870 the land question was solved according to
  the demands of justice, and by the Irish Church Bill of 1869,
  which deprived the Anglican church in Ireland of the character
  of a state church and put it on the same footing as other
  denominations, the church question was similarly settled. The
  dignitaries of the Anglican church thus lost their position as
  state officials and their seats in the House of Lords. The rich
  property of the hitherto established church was calculated and
  applied partly to compensating for losses caused by this reform,
  partly to creating benevolent institutions for the general
  good. But neither the Church Bill, nor the Land Bill, nor the
  Universities Bill, which in 1880 founded by state aid a Catholic
  university in Dublin, secured the reconciliation of the Irish.
  “Eternal hatred of England” was and is the battle cry; “Ireland
  for the Irish, and only for them,” is their watchword. In order
  to carry out this scheme an Irish “National League” was formed,
  and innumerable secret “Moonlighters,” under the supposed
  leadership of “Captain Moonshine,” committed atrocities by
  burning farm steadings and mutilating cattle, murdering and
  massacring by dagger and revolver, petroleum and dynamite, and
  directed their operations against the representatives of the
  government, against proprietors who sought rent, against tenants
  who paid rent, against officials who endeavoured to enforce it,
  and against everything that was, or was called, English. In order
  to cut at the root of this lawlessness, which by proclamation
  of a state of siege was only restricted, not overthrown, the
  government of 1881 passed further agrarian reforms: All tenant
  rights were to be purchased by the surplus of the fund formed by
  the disestablishment of the Irish church, and where this did not
  suffice, by state grants, and the right to conclude contracts
  for rent and to determine its amount was transferred from the
  proprietors to a newly-constituted land court, without whose
  permission, after the lapse of the fifteen years’ term, no rent
  contract could be made. But even this did not stop almost daily
  repeated murders and acts of destruction. The government now
  sought the aid of the pope through the mediation of a Catholic
  member of parliament on a visit to Rome; but these merely
  confidential negotiations led to no considerable result. In May,
  1883, the curia, on the occasion of a collection promoted by the
  National League as a magnificent national present to the great
  (Protestant) leader of the agitation, Mr. Parnell, in a circular
  letter, forbad “_proprio motu_,” the bishops in the strictest
  manner taking any part in the movement, and urged them to
  dissuade their members from doing so. But only Archbishop McCabe
  of Dublin (died 1885), from the first an opponent of the League,
  issued a pastoral against it to be read in all the pulpits of his
  diocese. The other bishops ignored the papal command, and among
  the Catholic people the opinion obtained that they owed to the
  pope obedience in spiritual but not in political matters. The
  collections for the Parnell fund were continued with redoubled
  zeal. The attempts of dynamitards, supplied with materials by
  their American compatriots, and other agrarian offences have not
  yet been finally stopped.

  § 202.11. =The Catholic Church in England and Scotland.=--The
  Emancipation Act, passed mainly for the relief of the Irish,
  naturally also benefited English Catholics, who in 1791 had been
  allowed to hold Catholic services. Led by the numerous accessions
  of Puseyites to entertain the most extravagant hopes, Pius IX.
  in 1850 issued a bull, by which the Roman Catholic hierarchy
  in England was reinstituted with twelve suffragan bishoprics
  under one archbishop of Westminster. The bull occasioned great
  excitement in the Protestant population (_Anti-Papal Aggression_),
  and the _Ecclesiastical Titles Bill_ forbade the use of
  ecclesiastical titles not sanctioned by the law of the land.
  After the first excitement had passed, the Catholic bishops,
  at their head the learned and brilliant and zealous ultramontane
  Cardinal Archbishop Wiseman (died 1865), and his successor,
  surpassing him, if not in genius and learning, at least in
  ultramontane zeal, the Puseyite convert Manning, made a cardinal
  in 1875, used with impunity their condemned titles, until in 1871
  the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was formally revoked by act of
  parliament. Conversions in noble families were particularly
  numerous in the later decades. Since 1850 the number of Catholics
  in England and Scotland has quadrupled. This has been caused in
  great part by Irish emigration, for the middle and lower ranks of
  the English have scarcely been affected by the conversion fever,
  which as the latest form of the fitful humour of the English had
  so rich a harvest in the families of the nobility. In 1780 all
  London had only one Catholic place of worship, the chapel of the
  Sardinian embassy, which on June 2nd of that year was wrecked and
  burnt by a raging mob. Now the English capital has two episcopal
  dioceses, ninety-four Catholic churches and chapels (besides
  about 900 Anglican churches) with 313 clergymen, and forty-four
  cloisters. In the House of Lords sit twenty-eight Roman Catholic
  peers, and in both countries there are forty-seven Catholic
  baronets. Since 1847 England has a specifically Catholic
  university at Kensington, under the episcopate, and with the
  pope as its supreme head, which, however, with its poor staff
  of teachers and its expensive course attracts but a few of
  the Catholic youth of England. Since the Anti-Papal Aggression
  of 1850 failed, the Protestant people have shown themselves
  comparatively indifferent to such assumptions of the papacy.--In
  the Act of Union of 1707 (§ 155, 3), =Scotland= was guaranteed
  the absolute exclusion of every sort of Roman Catholic hierarchy
  for all time to come. But in recent times the number of its
  Catholic inhabitants so greatly increased, that Pius IX. in his
  last years, not unaided by the English government, eagerly urged
  the re-establishment of the hierarchy, and Leo XIII. was able at
  his first consistory of the college of cardinals in March, 1878,
  to make appointments to the two newly-erected archdioceses and
  their bishoprics. On the following Easter Sunday the allocution
  relating thereto was read in all Catholic churches in Scotland.
  The restoration was thus carried out in spite of all protests and
  demonstrations of Scottish Protestants.

  § 202.12. =German Lutheran Congregations in Australia.=--Besides
  the dominant Anglican church, emigration has led to the formation
  of a considerable number of German Lutheran congregations, which
  are distributed in three synods.

    1. The Victoria Synod was founded in 1852 by pastor Göthe.
       It adopted at first the union platform, but subsequently
       attached itself more decidedly to the Lutheran confession.

    2. Pastor Karch, who in 1830 emigrated with a number of Prussian
       Lutherans, in order to avoid the union, laid the foundation
       of the Immanuel Synod. Since 1875 it has been supplied with
       preachers from the missionary institute of Neuendettelsau.
       It is distinguished by its missionary zeal for the conversion
       of the natives, pursues with special interest the study of
       the prophetic word, and makes chiliasm an open question which
       need not rend the church.

    3. The South Australian Synod, on the other hand, is the decided
       opponent of any sort of chiliasm, and has assumed an attitude
       of violent antagonism to the Immanuel Synod.


                             § 203. FRANCE.

  In France, lauded as the eldest daughter of the church after the
overthrow of the first Empire, ultramontanism, under the secret and
open co-operation of the Jesuits, has ever arisen with revived youth
and vigour out of all the political convulsions which have since passed
over the land. And though indeed Gallicanism seemed again to obtain
strength under the second Empire and, down to the close of that period,
found many able champions among learned theologians like Bishop Maret
(§ 189, 1), and even among exalted prelates like the noble Archbishop
Darboy of Paris, a martyr of his office under the Commune (§ 212, 4),
its influence faded gradually, and in the latest phase of France’s
political development, the third republic, seems utterly to have
disappeared, so that even the “_Kulturkampf_” which broke out in 1879
could not give it life again.--The number of Protestant churches and
church members, in spite of bloody persecutions during the Bourbon
restoration, and many arbitrary restrictions by Catholic prefects under
the citizen king and the second Empire, by numerous accessions of whole
congregations and groups of congregations through zealous evangelization
efforts, by means of school instruction, itinerant preaching, and Bible
colportage, has increased during the century fourfold. In the Reformed
church the opposition of methodistically tinctured orthodoxy, reinforced
from England and French Switzerland, and rationalistic freethinking,
led to sharp conflicts. Also in the Lutheran church, more strongly
influenced by Germany, similar discussions arose, but a more
conciliatory spirit prevailed and violent struggles were avoided.

  § 203.1. =The French Church under Napoleon I.=--In 1801 Napoleon
  as Consul concluded with Pius VII. a =Concordat= which, adopting
  the concordat of Francis I. (§ 110, 14), abandoning the pragmatic
  sanction of Bourges, and only haggling about the limits to be
  fixed for the two powers, gave no consideration to the idea of
  a wholesome internal reform of the French Church: Catholicism is
  the acknowledged religion of the majority of the French people;
  the church property belongs to the state, with the obligation to
  maintain the clergy and ordinances; the clergy who had taken the
  oath and those who were expatriated were all to resign, but were
  eligible for election; new boundaries were to be marked out for
  the episcopal dioceses with reference to the political divisions
  of the country; the government elects and the pope confirms the
  bishops, and these, with approval of the government, appoint the
  priests. The one-sided =Organic Articles= of the first Consul of
  1802, which were annexed to the publication of the Concordat as
  a code of explanatory regulations, made any proclamation of papal
  orders and decrees of all foreign councils dependent on previous
  permission of the government, as also the calling of synods and
  consultative assemblies of the clergy. They further ordained that
  all official services of the clergy should be gratuitous, and
  transferred to the civil council the right and duty of strict
  inquiry into any clerical breach of civil laws and any misuse
  or excessive exercise of clerical authority. The thirty-first
  article, however, created that unhappy order of _Desservants_
  or curates, the result of which was that interim appointments
  were made to most of the benefices in order to squeeze state pay
  in supplement to the inadequate ecclesiastical endowments, and
  so their holders were at the absolute mercy of the bishops who
  could transport or dispense with them at any moment. For further
  particulars about the friendly and hostile relations of Napoleon
  and the pope, see § 185, 1. By an imperial decree of 1810, the
  four articles of the Gallican Church (§ 156, 3) were made laws
  of the Empire; and a French National Council of 1811 sought to
  complete the reconstruction of the church according to Napoleon’s
  ideas, but proved utterly incapable for such a task, and was
  therefore dissolved by the emperor himself.--To pacify the
  Protestants, dissatisfied with the Concordat, amid flattering
  acknowledgment of their services to the state, to science and
  to the arts, an appendix was attached to the Organic Articles,
  securing to them liberty of religious worship and political and
  municipal equality with Catholics. For training ministers for the
  Reformed Church a theological seminary was founded at Montauban,
  and for Lutherans an academy with a seminary at Strassburg.
  Napoleon also afterwards proved himself on every occasion ready
  to help the Protestants. He was equally forward in recognising
  public opinion in France. The National Institute of France in
  1804 offered a prize for an essay on the influence of Luther’s
  Reformation on the formation and advance of European national
  life, and awarded it to the treatise of the Catholic physician
  Villers (_Essai sur l’influence de la réf. de Luther_, etc.),
  which in all respects glorified Protestantism. Even the Catholic
  clergy during the first Empire exhibited an easy temper and
  tolerance such as was never shown before or since. The obligatory
  civil marriage law introduced by the Revolution in 1792, obtained
  place in the _Code Napoléon_ in 1804, and was with it introduced
  in Belgium and the provinces of the Rhine.[561]

  § 203.2. =The Restoration and the Citizen Kingdom.=--The =Charter=
  of the Bourbon Restoration under Louis XVIII. (1814-1824) and
  Charles X. (1824-1830) made Catholicism the state religion and
  granted toleration and state protection to the other confessions.
  A new concordat concluded with Pius VII. in 1817, by which that
  of Napoleon of 1801, with the Organic Articles of the following
  year, were abrogated, and the state of matters previous to 1789
  restored, was so vigorously opposed by the nation, that the
  ministry were obliged to withdraw the measure introduced in both
  chambers for giving it legislative sanction. Ultramontanism,
  however, in its boldest form, steadily favoured by the
  government, soon prevailed among the clergy to such an extent
  that any inclination to Gallicanism was denounced as heresy and
  intolerance of Protestantism lauded as piety. In southern France
  the rekindled hatred of the Catholic mob against the Reformed
  broke out in 1815 in brutal and bloody persecution. The
  government kept silence till the indignation of Europe obliged
  it to put down the atrocities, but the offenders were left
  unpunished. Connivance in such lawlessness on the part of the
  government contributed largely to its overthrow in the July
  revolution of 1830. The Catholic Church then lost again the
  privilege of a state religion, and the hitherto persecuted and
  oppressed Protestants obtained equal rights with the Catholics.
  But even under the new constitutional government of Orleans,
  ultramontanism soon reasserted itself. The Protestants had to
  complain of much injury and injustice from Catholic prefects,
  and the Protestant minister Guizot claimed for France the
  protectorate of the whole Catholic world. The Reformed Church
  meanwhile flourished, though vacillating between methodistic
  narrowness and rationalistic shallowness, growing both inwardly
  and outwardly, and also the Lutheran communities, which outside
  of Alsace were only thinly scattered, enjoyed great prosperity.
  In the February revolution of 1848 the Catholic clergy readily
  yielded obedience to the citizen king Louis Philippe, and,
  on the ground that the Catholic church is suited to any form
  of government which only grants liberty to the church, did
  not refuse their benediction to the tree of freedom with the
  sovereign people at the barricades.

  § 203.3. =The Catholic Church under Napoleon III.=--Louis
  Napoleon, as president of the new republic (1848-1852), and still
  more decidedly as emperor (1852-1870), inclined to follow the
  traditions of his uncle, regarded the concordat of 1801 as still
  legally in force and seemed specially anxious to arouse zeal
  for the Gallican liberties. Although his bayonets secured the
  pope’s return to Rome (§ 185, 2) and even afterwards supported
  his authority there, he did not fulfil the heart’s wish of the
  emperor by the people’s grace to place the imperial crown upon
  his head in his own person. Severely strained relations between
  the imperial court and the episcopate resulted in 1860 from a
  pamphlet against the papacy inspired by the government (§ 185, 3).
  Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, was one of the oldest and most
  determined defenders of the interests of the papal see, and from
  Poitiers the emperor was pretty openly characterized as a second
  Pilate. The government did not venture directly to interfere
  between the two, but reminded the bishops that the emperor’s
  differences with the pope referred only to temporal affairs. It
  also forbade the forming of separate societies for the collecting
  of Peter’s pence, and dissolved the societies of St. Vincent,
  instituted for benevolent purposes, but misused for ultramontane
  agitations. When Archbishop Desprez of Toulouse, like his
  predecessors in 1662 and 1762, on May 16th, 1862, with pompous
  phrases of piety appointed the jubilee festival of the “_fait
  glorieux_,” by which at Toulouse three hundred years before,
  by means of shameful treachery and base breach of pledges 4,000
  Protestants were murdered (§ 139, 15), a shout of indignation
  rose from almost all French journals and the government forbade
  the ceremonial. It also refused permission to proclaim the papal
  encyclical with the syllabus (§ 185, 2) and condemned several
  bishops who disobeyed for misuse of their office. Under the
  influence of the ultramontane empress Eugenie, however, the
  relation of the government to the curia and the higher clergy of
  the empire, since the one could not do without the other, became
  more friendly and intimate, till the day of Sedan, September 2nd,
  1870, put an end to the Napoleonic empire and the temporal power
  of the papacy which it had maintained.

  § 203.4. =The Protestant Churches under Napoleon III.=--After the
  revolution of 1848, the Lutherans at an assembly in Strassburg
  and the Reformed in Paris consulted about a new organization of
  their churches. But as the latter resolved in order to maintain
  constitutional union amid doctrinal diversity, entirely to set
  aside symbol and dogma, pastor Fr. Monod and Count Gasparin,
  the noble defenders of French Protestantism, lodged a protest,
  and with thirty congregations of the strict party constituted
  a new council at Paris in 1849, independent of the state, as the
  _Union des églises évangéliques de France_ with biennial synods.
  Louis Napoleon gave to the Reformed Church a central council in
  Paris with consistories and presbyteries; to the Lutheran, an
  annual general consistory as a legislative court and a standing
  directory as an administrative court. The Lutheran theological
  faculty at Strassburg with its vigorous unconfessional science
  represents the westernmost school of Schleiermacher’s theology.
  The academy at Montauban, with Adolph Monod at its head,
  represents Reformed orthodoxy, not strictly confessional but
  coloured by methodistic piety, and Coquerel in Paris, was the
  head of the rationalistic party of the Reformed national church.
  The lead in the reaction against rationalism since 1830 has
  been taken by the _Société évangélique_ at Paris, which, aiming
  at the Protestantising of France, and using for this end Bible
  colportage, tract distribution, the sending out of evangelists,
  school instruction, etc., has developed an extraordinarily
  restless and successful activity. It has been powerfully
  supported by the evangelical society of Geneva. The number of
  Protestant clergymen in France has steadily risen, and almost
  every year in and out of the Catholic population new evangelical
  congregations have been formed, in spite of endless difficulties
  put in the way by Catholic courts. In Strassburg, in 1854, the
  Jesuits persuaded the Catholic prefects to recall and arrest
  the revenues of the former St. Thomas institute, which since the
  Reformation had been applied to the maintenance of a Protestant
  gymnasium. The prefect of Paris, however, was instructed to
  desist from his claims. In the speech from the throne in 1858,
  the emperor declared that the government secured for Protestants
  full liberty of worship, without forgetting, however, that
  Catholicism is the religion of the majority, and the _Moniteur_
  commented on this imperial speech so evidently in the spirit
  of the _Univers_, that the prefects could not be in doubt how
  to understand it. By General Espinasse, who, after the Orsini
  attempt on the emperor’s life in 1858, officiated for a long
  time as Minister of the Interior, the prefects were expressly
  instructed, to extend their espionage of the ill-affected press
  to the proceedings of the evangelical societies, and to prohibit
  the colportage of Protestant Bibles. On a change of minister,
  however, the latter enactment was withdrawn, and only agents
  of foreign Bible societies were interfered with. By an imperial
  decree of 1859, the right of permitting of the opening of new
  Protestant churches and chapels was taken from the local courts
  and transferred to the imperial council of state. For every
  Protestant congregation, so soon as it numbered 400 souls, the
  legal state salary for the clergymen would be paid.

  § 203.5. =The Catholic Church in the Third French
  Republic.=--The Gambetta government, the national vindication
  of the 4th September, 1870, resigned its power in February, 1871,
  into the hands of the National Assembly elected by the whole
  nation, which, although through clerical influence upon the
  electors predominantly monarchical and clerical, appointed
  the old Voltairean Thiers (died, 1877), formerly ministerial
  president under Louis Philippe, as alone qualified for the
  difficult post of president of the republic. In the necessary
  second vote, indeed, there was a considerable increase of the
  republican and as such thoroughly anti-clerical party; but even
  in its ranks it was admitted that the establishment of France
  as leader of all Europe in the fight against ultramontanism
  and the co-operation therein of the clergy were the absolutely
  indispensable means for the political _Revanche_, after which
  the hearts of all Frenchmen longed as the hart for the water
  streams. A petition from five bishops and other dignitaries
  to the National Assembly for the restoration of the temporal
  power of the pope was set aside as inopportune. But Archbishop
  Guibert of Paris, without asking the government, proclaimed the
  infallibility dogma, and the minister of instruction, Jules Simon,
  contented himself with warning the episcopate in a friendly way
  against any further illegal steps of that kind. The clerical
  party was also successful in its protest to the National Assembly
  against the education law, which by raising the standard of
  instruction, placing it under the supervision of the state and
  making inspection of schools obligatory, proposed to put an end
  to the terrible ignorance of the French people as the chief cause
  of their deep decay. Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans was appointed
  president of the commission for examining it, and so its fate
  was sealed. Meanwhile the people, by frequent manifestations of
  the Virgin, were roused to a high pitch of religious excitement.
  Crowds of pilgrims encouraged by miraculous healings flocked
  to our Lady of La Salette, at Lourdes, etc. (§ 188, 6), and the
  consecration of _Notre Dame de la Deliverance_ at Bayeux was
  celebrated as a brilliant national festival. When in May, 1873,
  Thiers gave way before the machinations of his opponents and,
  under the new president, Marshal Macmahon, the thoroughly
  clerical ministry of the Duc de Broglie got the helm of affairs,
  the pilgrimage craze, mariolatry and ultramontane piety, aided
  by the prefects and mayors, increased to an unparalleled extent
  among all ranks. Under the Buffet ministry of 1875 the influence
  of clericalism was unabated. To him it owed its most important
  acquisition, the right of creating free Catholic universities
  wholly independent of the State, with the privilege of conferring
  degrees. But when in 1876 the new elections for the National
  Assembly gave an anti-clerical majority, Buffet was obliged to
  resign. The new Dufaure ministry, with the Protestant Waddington
  as minister of instruction, declared indeed that it continued
  the liberty of instruction, but decidedly refused the right
  of conferring degrees. The proposal to this effect met with
  the hearty support of the new chamber of deputies. But all the
  greater was the jubilation of the clericals when the senate by
  a small majority refused its consent, and all the more eagerly
  was the founding of new free Catholic universities carried on,
  at Paris, Angers, Lyons, Lille and Toulouse, but notwithstanding
  every effort they only attracted a very small number of
  scholars,--in 1879, when they flourished most, at all the five
  there were only 742 students.

  § 203.6. =The French “Kulturkampf,” 1880.=--The Dufaure ministry
  was succeeded in December, 1876, by the semi-liberal ministry
  of Jules Simon, which again was driven out in a summary fashion
  by president Macmahon on May 16th, 1877, and replaced, on the
  dissolution of the chamber, by a clerical ministry under Duc
  de Broglie. But in the newly elected chamber the republican
  anti-clerical majority was so overwhelming that Macmahon, on
  January 30th, 1879, abandoning his motto of government, _J’y
  suis et j’y reste_, was at last obliged, between the alternatives
  offered him by Gambetta, _Se soumettre ou se démettre_, to choose
  the latter. His successor was Grévy, president of the Chamber,
  who entrusted the protestant Waddington with the forming of a new
  ministry in which Jules Ferry was minister of instruction. Ferry
  brought in a bill in March to abolish the representation of the
  clergy in the High Council of Education by four archiepiscopal
  deputies, continuing indeed the free Catholic universities,
  but requiring their students to enroll in a state university
  which alone could hold examinations and give degrees, and
  finally enacting by Article 7 that the right of teaching in all
  educational institutions should be refused to members of all
  religious orders and congregations not recognised by the state.
  The chamber deputies accepted this bill without amendment on
  July 9th, but the senate on March 7th, 1880, after passing
  six articles refused to adopt the seventh. On March 29th, the
  president of the republic issued on his own authority two decrees,
  based indeed upon earlier enactments (1789-1852), gone into
  desuetude indeed, but never abrogated (§ 186, 2), demanded the
  dissolution of the Society of Jesus, containing 1,480 members
  in 56 institutions, within three months, and insisted that the
  orders and congregations not recognised by the State, embracing
  14,033 sisters in 602 institutions and 7,444 brothers in 384
  institutions, in the same time should by production of their
  statutes and rules seek formal recognition or else be broken
  up. A storm of protests on the part of the bishops greeted these
  “_March Decrees_,” and riotous demonstrations made before the
  Minister of Instruction at his residence at Lille expressed the
  protests of the students of the Catholic university there. The
  pope now broke his reserve and by a nuncio sent the president
  of the republic a holograph letter in which he declared that he
  must interfere on behalf of the Jesuits and the threatened orders,
  because they were indispensably necessary to the wellbeing of
  the church. He did not wish that they should have recourse to
  unlawful means, but it must be understood that they would appeal
  to the courts for protection of their threatened civil liberties.
  When therefore on the morning of June 30th the police began their
  work of expelling the Jesuits from their houses, these lodged a
  complaint before the courts of invasion of their domestic peace
  and infringement of their personal liberty. Their schools were
  closed on August 31st, the end of the school year; meanwhile
  they had taken the precaution to transfer most of them to such as
  would be ready afterwards to restore them. The enforcement of the
  second of the March Decrees against the other orders was delayed
  for a while. A compromise proposed by the episcopate, favoured
  by the pope and not absolutely rejected even by the minister
  Freycinet, Waddington’s successor, according to which instead
  of the required application for recognition all these orders
  should sign a declaration of loyalty, undertaking to avoid all
  participation in political affairs and to do nothing opposed to
  existing order, brought about the overthrow of this ministry in
  September, 1880, by the machinations from other motives of the
  president of the chamber and latent dictator, Leon Gambetta. At
  the head of the new ministry was Ferry, who held the portfolio of
  instruction, and under him the carrying out of the second March
  Decree began on October 16th, 1880. Up to the meeting of the
  chamber in November 261 monasteries had been vacated; the rest,
  as from the first all female congregations, were spared, so that
  France with its colonies and mission stations still number
  4,288 male and 14,990 female settlements of spiritual orders,
  the former with about 32,000, the latter with about 166,200
  inmates.--The expulsion of the Jesuits, as well as the more
  recent of the other orders, was, however, stoutly opposed. The
  police told off for this duty found doors shut and barricaded
  against them or defended by fanatical peasants and mobs of
  shrieking women, so that they had often to be stormed and broken
  up by the military. Still more threatening than this opposition
  was the reaction which began to assert itself at the instance
  of the almost thoroughly ultramontane jurists of the country, a
  survival of the times of Napoleon III. and Macmahon. An advocate
  Rousse, who publicly stated the opinion that the March Decrees
  were illegal and therefore not binding, was supported by 2,000
  attorneys and over 200 corporations of attorneys and by many
  distinguished university jurists. More than 200 state officials
  and many judiciary and police officers, together with several
  officers of the army, tendered their resignations so as to avoid
  taking part in the execution of the decrees. When it became clear
  that unfavourable verdicts would be given by the courts invoked
  by the Jesuits against the executors of the decree, as indeed was
  soon actually done by several courts, the government lodged an
  appeal against their competence before the tribunal of conflicts
  which also actually in regard to all such cases pronounced them
  incompetent and their decisions therefore null and void; but the
  complainers insisted that their complaints should be taken to a
  Council of State as the only court suitable to deal with charges
  against officials, which, as might be expected, was not done.

  § 203.7. In the future course of the French “Kulturkampf” the
  most important proceedings of the government were the following:
  The abolition of the institute of military chaplains, highly
  serviceable in ultramontanizing the officers, was carried out
  in 1880, as well as the requirement that the clergy and teachers
  should give military service for one year, and subsequently also
  military escorts to the Corpus Christi procession were forbidden.
  In 1880 the Municipal Council of Paris, with the concurrence of
  the prefect of the Seine, forbad the continuance of the beautiful
  building of the church of the Heart of Jesus begun in 1875 on
  Montmartre (§ 188, 12), confiscating the site that had been
  granted for it. In 1881 the churchyards were relieved of their
  denominational character, and the following year the right of
  managing them, with permission of merely civil interment without
  the aid of a clergyman, was transferred from the ecclesiastical
  to the civil authorities. By introducing in 1880 high schools
  for girls with boarding establishments an end was put to the
  education of girls of the upper ranks in nunneries, which had
  hitherto been the almost exclusive practice. Far more sweeping
  was the School Act brought in by the radical minister of worship,
  Paul Bert, and first enforced in October, 1886, which made
  attendance compulsory, relegated religious instruction wholly to
  the church and home, and absolutely excluded all the clergy from
  the right of giving any sort of instruction in the public schools,
  and demanded the removal of all crucifixes and other religious
  symbols from the school buildings. In December, 1884, a tax was
  imposed on the property of all religious orders, also the state
  allowance for the five Catholic seminaries with only thirty-seven
  students was withdrawn, and many other important deductions made
  upon the budget for Catholic worship, which at first the senate
  opposed, but at last agreed to. The Divorce Bill frequently
  introduced since 1881, which permitted parties to marry again,
  and gave disposal of the matter to the civil court, got the
  assent of the senate only in the end of July, 1884. The clericals
  were also greatly offended by the decree passed in May, 1885,
  which closed the church of St. Genoveva, the former Pantheon,
  as a place of worship and made it again a burial place for
  distinguished Frenchmen. This resolution was first carried out
  by placing there the remains of Victor Hugo. Amid these and many
  other injuries to its interests the Roman curia, concentrating
  all its energies upon the German “Kulturkampf,” endeavoured to
  keep things back in a moderate way. Yet in July, 1883, the pope
  addressed to president Grévy a friendly but earnest remonstrance,
  which he treated simply as a private letter and, without
  communicating it officially to his cabinet, answered that apart
  from parliament he could not act, but that so far as he and
  his ministry were able they would seek to avoid conflict with
  the holy see. And in fact the government, especially after the
  overthrow of the Gambetta ministry in 1882, often successfully
  opposed the proposal of the radical chamber, _e.g._ the
  separation of church and state, the abrogation of the concordat,
  the recall of the embassy to the Vatican, the abolition of
  religious oaths in the proceedings of the courts, the stopping of
  the state subvention of a million francs for payment of salaries
  in seminaries for priests, etc.

  § 203.8. =The Protestant Churches under the Third
  Republic.=--Since the French Reformed began to emulate their
  Catholic countrymen in wild Chauvinism, fanatical hatred of
  Germany and unreasoning enthusiasm for the _Revanche_, they
  were left by the advancing clerical party unmolested in respect
  of life, confession and worship during the time of war. The
  Lutherans on the other hand, consisting, although on French
  territory, mainly of German emigrants and settlers, even their
  French members not so disposed to Chauvinistic extravagance,
  were obliged to atone for this double offence by expulsion from
  house and home and by various injuries to their ecclesiastical
  interests. After the conclusion of peace, especially under
  Thiers’ moderate government, this fanaticism gradually cooled
  down, so that the expelled Germans returned and the churches and
  institutions that had been destroyed were restored, so far as
  means would allow. By the decree of Waddington, the minister
  of instruction, of date March 27th, 1877, instead of the
  theological faculty of Strassburg, now lost for the French
  Lutheran church, one for both Protestant churches was founded
  in Paris.--The =Lutheran Church=, in consequence of the cession
  of Alsace-Lorraine, had only sixty-four out of 278 pastorates
  and six out of forty-four consistories remaining. At the general
  synod convened at Paris, in July, 1872, by the government for
  reorganising the Lutheran church it was resolved: To form two
  inspectorates independent of each other--Paris, predominantly
  orthodox, Mömpelgard, predominantly liberal; the general assembly,
  which meets every third year alternately at Mömpelgard and Paris,
  to consist of delegates from both. The two inspectorates are to
  correspond in administrative matters directly with the minister
  of public instruction, but in everything referring to confession,
  doctrine, worship and discipline, the general assembly is the
  supreme authority. In regard to the confessional question they
  agreed to the statement, that the holy Scripture is the supreme
  authority in matters of faith, and the Augsburg Confession
  the basis of the legal constitution of the church. An express
  undertaking on the part of the clergy to this effect is not,
  however, insisted upon. Only in 1879 could this constitution
  obtain legal sanction by the State, and that only after
  considerable modification in the direction of liberalism,
  especially in reference to electoral qualification. In
  consequence of this the first ordinary general assembly held
  in Paris in May, 1881, found both parties in a conciliatory
  mood.--=The Reformed Church=, with about 500 pastorates and
  105 consistories, summoned by order of government a newly
  constituted General Assembly at Paris, in June, 1872. Prominent
  among the leaders of the orthodox party was the aged ex-minister
  Guizot; the leaders of the liberals were Coquerel and Colani.
  The former supported the proposal of Professor Bois of Montauban,
  who insisted on the frank and full confession of holy Scripture
  as the sovereign authority in matters of faith, of Christ as
  the only Son of God, and of justification by faith as the legal
  basis of instruction, worship and discipline; while the latter
  protested against every attempt to lay down an obligatory and
  exclusive confession. The orthodox party prevailed and the
  dissenters who would not yield were struck off the voting lists.
  When now in consequence of the complaint of the liberal party
  the summoning of an ordinary general assembly was refused by
  the government, the orthodox party repeatedly met in “official”
  provincial and general assemblies without state sanction. The
  council of state then declared all decisions regarding voting
  qualifications passed by the synod of 1872 to be null and void,
  the minister of worship, Ferry, ordered the readmission of
  electors struck from the lists, and his successor Bert legalized,
  by a decree of March 25th, 1882, the division of the Parisian
  consistorial circuit into two independent consistories of Paris
  and Versailles, moved for by the liberal party but opposed by the
  orthodox. But upon the elections for the new consistory of Paris,
  ordered in spite of all protests, and for the presbyteries of the
  eight parishes assigned to it, contrary to all expectation, in
  seven of these the elections with great majorities were in favour
  of the orthodox, and the first official document issued by the
  new consistory was a solemn protest against the decree to which
  it owed its existence. Under such circumstances the government
  as well as the liberal party had no desire for the calling of an
  official general assembly, and the latter resolved at a general
  assembly at Nimes, in October, 1882, to institute official
  synods of their own for consultation and protection of their
  own interests.


                             § 204. ITALY.

  In Italy matters returned to their old position after the
restoration of 1814. But liberalism, aiming at the liberty and unity
of Italy, gained the mastery, and where for the time it prevailed, the
Jesuits were expelled, and the power of the clergy restricted; where
it failed, both came back with greatly increased importance. The arms
of Austria and subsequently also of France stamped out on all sides
the revolutionary movements. Pius IX., who at first was not indisposed,
contrary to all traditions of the papacy, to put himself at the head of
the national party, was obliged bitterly to regret his dealings with the
liberals (§ 185, 2). Sardinia, Modena and Naples put the severest strain
upon the bow of the restoration, while Parma and Tuscany distinguished
themselves by adopting liberal measures in a moderate degree. Sardinia,
however, in 1840 came to a better mind. Charles Albert first broke
ground with a more liberal constitution, and in 1848 proclaimed himself
the deliverer of Italy, but yielded to the arms of Austria. His son
Victor Emanuel II. succeeded amid singularly favourable circumstances
in uniting the whole peninsula under his sceptre as a united kingdom of
Italy governed by liberal institutions.

  § 204.1. =The Kingdom of Sardinia.=--Victor Emanuel I. after
  the restoration had nothing else to do but to recall the Jesuits,
  to hand over to them the whole management of the schools, and,
  guided and led by them in everything, to restore the church and
  state to the condition prevailing before 1789. Charles Felix
  (1821-1831) carried still further the absolutist-reactionary
  endeavours of his predecessor, and even Charles Albert (1831-1849)
  refused for a long time to realize the hopes which the liberal
  party had previously placed in him. Only in the second decade
  of his reign did he begin gradually to display a more liberal
  tendency, and at last in 1848 when, in consequence of the French
  Revolution, Lombardy rose against the Austrian rule, he placed
  himself at the head of the national movement for freeing Italy
  from the yoke of strangers. But the king gloried in as “the sword
  of Italy” was defeated and obliged to abdicate. Victor Emanuel II.
  (1849-1878) allowed meanwhile the liberal constitution of his
  father to remain and indeed carried it out to the utmost. The
  minister of justice, Siccardi, proposed a new legislative code
  which abolished all clerical jurisdiction in civil and criminal
  proceedings, as also the right of asylum and of exacting
  tithes, the latter with moderate compensation. It was passed
  by parliament and subscribed by the king in 1850. The clergy,
  with archbishop Fransoni of Turin at their head, protested with
  all their might against these sacrilegious encroachments on the
  rights of the church. Fransoni was on this account committed for
  a month to prison and, when he refused the last sacrament to a
  minister, was regularly sentenced to deposition and banishment
  from the country. Pius IX. thwarted all attempts to obtain a
  new concordat. But the government went recklessly forward. As
  Fransoni from his exile in France continued his agitation, all
  the property of the archiepiscopal chair was in 1854 sequestered
  and a number of cloisters were closed. Soon all penalties in
  the penal code for spreading non-Catholic doctrines were struck
  out and non-Catholic soldiers freed from compulsory attendance
  at mass on Sundays and festivals. The chief blow now fell on
  March 2nd, 1855, in the Cloister Act, which abolished all orders
  and cloisters not devoted to preaching, teaching, and nursing
  the sick. In consequence 331 out of 605 cloisters were shut up.
  The pope ceased not to condemn all these sacrilegious and church
  robbing acts, and when his threats were without result, thundered
  the great excommunication in July, 1855, against all originators,
  aiders, and abettors of such deeds. Among the masses this indeed
  caused some excitement, but it never came to an explosion.

  § 204.2. =The Kingdom of Italy.=--Amid such vigorous progress
  the year 1859 came round with its fateful Franco-Italian war.
  The French alliance had not indeed, as it promised, made Italy
  free to the Adriatic, but by the peace of Villafranca the whole
  of Lombardy was given to the kingdom of Sardinia as a present
  from the emperor of the French. In the same year by popular vote
  Tuscany, including Modena and Parma, and in the following year
  the kingdom of the two Sicilies, as well as the three provinces
  of the States of the Church, revolted and were annexed, so that
  the new kingdom of Italy embraced the whole of the peninsula,
  with the exception of Venice, Rome and the Campagna. Prussia’s
  remarkable successes in the seven days’ German war of 1866 shook
  Venice like ripe fruit into the lap of her Italian ally, and the
  day of Sedan, 1870, prepared the way for the addition of Rome
  and the Campagna (§ 185, 3).--In Lombardy and then also in
  Venice, immediately after they had been taken possession of, the
  concordat with Austria was abrogated and the Jesuits expelled.
  Ecclesiastical tithes on the produce of the soil were abolished
  throughout the whole kingdom, begging was forbidden the mendicant
  friars as unworthy of a spiritual order, ecclesiastical property
  was put under state control and the support of the clergy
  provided for by state grants. In 1867 the government began
  the appropriation and conversion of the church property; in
  1870 all religious orders were dissolved, with exception for
  the time being of those in Rome, wherever they did not engage
  in educational and other useful works. In May, 1873, this law
  was extended to the Roman province, only it was not to be applied
  to the generals of orders in Rome. Nuns and some monks were
  also allowed to remain in their cloisters situated in unpeopled
  districts. The amount of state pensions paid to monks and nuns
  reached in 1882 the sum of eleven million lire, at the rate
  of 330 lire for each person. The abolition of the theological
  faculties in ten Italian universities in 1873, because these
  altogether had only six students of theology, was regarded by
  the curia rather as a victory than a defeat. The newly appointed
  bishops were forbidden by the pope to produce their credentials
  for inspection in order to obtain their salaries from the
  government. The loss of temporalities thus occasioned was made
  up by Pius IX. out of Peter’s pence flowing in so abundantly from
  abroad; each bishop receiving 500 and each archbishop 700 lire in
  the month. Leo XIII., however, felt obliged in 1879, owing to the
  great decrease in the Peter’s pence contributions, to cancel this
  enactment and to permit the bishops to accept the state allowance.
  In consequence of the civil marriage law passed in 1866 having
  been altogether ignored by the clergy, nearly 400,000 marriages
  had down to the close of 1878 received only ecclesiastical
  sanction, and the offspring of such parties would be regarded
  in the eye of the law as illegitimate. To obviate this difficulty
  a law was passed in May, 1879, which insisted that in all cases
  civil marriage must precede the ecclesiastical ceremony, and
  clergymen, witnesses and parties engaging in an illegal marriage
  should suffer three or six months’ imprisonment; but all
  marriages contracted in accordance merely with church forms
  before the passing of this law might be legitimized by being
  entered on the civil register.--Finally in January, 1884, the
  controversy pending since 1873 as to whether the rich property of
  the Roman propaganda (§ 156, 9) amounting to twenty million lire
  should be converted into state consols was decided by the supreme
  court in favour of the curia, which had pronounced these funds
  international because consisting of presents and contributions
  from all lands. But not only was the revenue of the propaganda
  subjected to a heavy tax, but also all increase of its property
  forbidden. In vain did the pope by his nuncios call for the
  intervention of foreign nations. None of these were inclined to
  meddle in the internal affairs of Italy. The curia now devised
  the plan of affiliating a number of societies outside of Italy to
  the propaganda for receiving and administering donations and
  presents.

  § 204.3. =The Evangelization of Italy.=--Emigrant Protestants
  of various nationalities had at an early date, by the silent
  sufferance of the respective governments, formed small
  evangelical congregations in some of the Italian cities;
  in Venice and Leghorn during the seventeenth century, at Bergamo
  in 1807, at Florence in 1826, at Milan in 1847. Also by aid of
  the diplomatic intervention of Prussia and England, the erection
  of Protestant chapels for the embassy was allowed at Rome in 1819,
  at Naples in 1825, and at Florence in 1826. When in 1848 Italy’s
  hopes from the liberal tendencies of Pius IX. were so bitterly
  disappointed, Protestant sympathies began to spread far and
  wide through the land, even among native Catholics, fostered by
  English missionaries, Bibles and tracts, which the governments
  sought in vain to check by prisons, penitentiaries and exile.
  Persecution began in 1851 in Tuscany, where, in spite of the
  liberty of faith and worship guaranteed by the constitution of
  1848, Tuscan subjects taking part in the Italian services in the
  chapel of the Prussian embassy at Florence were punished with
  six months’ hard labour, and in the following year the pious pair
  Francesco and Rosa Madiai were sentenced to four years’ rigorous
  punishment in a penitentiary for the crime of having edified
  themselves and their household by reading the Bible. In vain did
  the Evangelical Alliance remonstrate (§ 178, 3), in vain did even
  the king of Prussia intercede. But when, stirred up by public
  opinion in England, the English premier Lord Palmerston offered
  to secure the requirement of Christian humanity by means of
  British ships of war, the grand-duke got rid of both martyrs by
  banishing them from the country in 1853. In proportion as the
  union of Italy under Victor Emanuel II. advanced, the field for
  evangelistic effort and the powers devoted thereto increased.
  So it was too since 1860 in Southern Italy. But when in 1866 a
  Protestant congregation began to be formed at Barletta in Naples,
  a fanatical priest roused a popular mob in which seventeen
  persons were killed and torn in pieces. The government put down
  the uproar and punished the miscreants, and the nobler portion of
  the nation throughout the whole land collected for the families
  of those murdered. The work of evangelization supported by
  liberal contributions chiefly from England, but also from Holland,
  Switzerland, and the German _Gustav-Adolf-Verein_ (§ 178, 1),
  advanced steadily in spite of occasional brutal interferences
  of the clergy and the mob, so that soon in all the large cities
  and in many of the smaller towns of Italy and Sicily there were
  thriving and flourishing little evangelical congregations of
  converted native Catholics, numbering as many as 182 in 1882.

  § 204.4. The chief factor in the evangelization of Italy as far
  as the southern coast of Sicily was the old =Waldensian Church=,
  which for three hundred years had occupied the Protestant
  platform in the spirit of Calvinism (§ 139, 25). Remnants
  consisting of some 200,000 souls still survived in the valleys
  of Piedmont, almost without protection of law amid constant
  persecution and oppressions (§ 153, 5), moderated only by
  Prussian and English intervention. But when Sardinia headed
  Italian liberalism in 1848 religious liberty and all civil
  rights were secured to them. A Waldensian congregation was then
  formed in the capital, Turin, which was strengthened by numerous
  Protestant refugees from other parts of Italy. But in 1854 a
  split occurred between the two elements in it. The new Italian
  converts objected, not altogether without ground, against the old
  Waldensians that by maintaining their church government with its
  centre in the valleys, the so-called “Tables” and their old forms
  of constitution, doctrine and worship, much too contracted and
  narrow for the enlarged boundaries of the present, they thought
  more of Waldensianizing than of evangelizing Italy. Besides,
  their language since 1630, when a plague caused their preachers
  and teachers to withdraw from Geneva, had been French, and
  the national Italian pride was disposed on this domain also to
  unfurl her favourite banner “_Italia farà da se_.” The division
  spread from Turin to the other congregations. At the head of the
  separatists, afterwards designated the “_Free Italian Church_”
  (_Chiesa libera_), stood Dr. Luigi Desanctis, a man of rich
  theological culture and glowing eloquence, who, when Catholic
  priest and theologian of the inquisition at Rome, became
  convinced of the truth of the evangelical confession, joined
  the evangelical church at Malta in 1847 and wrought from 1852
  with great success in the congregation at Turin. After ten years’
  faithful service in the newly formed free church he felt obliged,
  owing to the Darbyite views (§ 211, 11) that began to prevail
  in it, to attach himself again in 1864 to the Waldensians, who
  meanwhile had been greatly liberalised. He now officiated for
  them till his death in 1869 as professor of theology at Florence,
  and edited their journal _Eco della verità_. This journal was
  succeeded in 1873 by the able monthly _Rivista Cristiana_, edited
  at Florence by Prof. Emilio Comba.--After Desanctis left the
  _Chiesa libera_ its chief representative was the ex-Barnabite
  father Alessandro Gavazzi of Naples. Endowed with glowing
  eloquence and remarkable popularity as a lecturer, he appeared
  at Rome in 1848 as a politico-religious orator, attached himself
  to the evangelical church in London in 1850, and undertook the
  charge of the evangelical Italian congregation there. He returned
  to Italy in 1860 and accompanied the hero of Italian liberty,
  Garibaldi, as his military chaplain, preaching to the people
  everywhere with his leonine voice with equal enthusiasm of Victor
  Emanuel as the only saviour of Italy and of Jesus Christ as
  the only Saviour of sinners. He then joined the _Chiesa libera_,
  and, as he himself obtained gradually fuller acquaintance
  with evangelical truth, wrought zealously in organizing the
  congregations hitherto almost entirely isolated from one another.
  At a general assembly at Milan in 1870, deputies from thirty-two
  congregations drew up a simple biblical confession of faith,
  and in the following year at Florence a constitutional code was
  adopted which recognised the necessity of the pastoral office,
  of annual assemblies, and a standing evangelization committee.
  They now took the name “=Unione della Chiesa libere in Italia=.”
  The predominantly Darbyist congregations, which had not taken
  part in these constitutional assemblies, have since formed a
  community of their own as =Chiesa Cristiana=, depending only on
  the immediate leading of the Holy Spirit, rejecting every sort of
  ecclesiastical and official organization, and denouncing infant
  baptism as unevangelical.--Besides these three national Italian
  churches, English and American Methodists and Baptists carry on
  active missions. On May 1st, 1884, the evangelical denominations
  at a general assembly in Florence, with the exception only of the
  Darbyist _Chiesa Cristiana_, joined in a confederation to meet
  annually in an “Italian Evangelical Congress” as a preparation
  for ecclesiastical union. When, however, the various Methodist
  and Baptist denominations began to check the progress of the work
  of union, the two leading bodies, the Waldensians and the Free
  Church party, separated from them. A committee chosen from these
  two sketched at Florence in 1885 a basis of union, according to
  which the Free Church adopted the confession and church order
  of the Waldensians, subject to revision by the joint synods,
  their theological school at Rome was to be amalgamated with the
  Waldensian school at Florence, and the united church was to take
  the name of the “Evangelical Church of Italy.” But a Waldensian
  synod in September, 1886, resolved to hold by the ancient name
  of the “Waldensian Church.” Whether the “Free Church” will agree
  to this demand is not yet known.


                       § 205. SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

  No European country has during the nineteenth century been the
scene of so many revolutions, outbreaks and civil wars, of changes
of government, ministries and constitutions, sometimes of a clerical
absolutist, sometimes of a democratic radical tendency, and in none
has revolution gone so unsparingly for the time against hierarchy,
clergy and monasticism, as in unfortunate Spain. Portugal too passed
through similar struggles, which, however, did not prove so dreadfully
disordering to the commonwealth as those of Spain.

  § 205.1. =Spain under Ferdinand VII. and Maria Christina.=--Joseph
  Bonaparte (1808-1813) had given to the Spaniards a constitution
  of the French pattern, abolishing inquisition and cloisters.
  The constitution which the Cortes proclaimed in 1812 carried
  out still further the demands of political liberalism, but still
  declared the apostolic Roman Catholic religion as alone true to
  be the religion of the Spanish nation and forbad the exercise of
  any other. Ferdinand VII., whom Napoleon restored in December,
  1813, hastened to restore the inquisition, the cloisters and
  despotism, especially from 1815 under the direction of the
  Jesuits highly esteemed by him. The revolution of 1820 indeed
  obliged him to reintroduce the constitution of 1812 and to banish
  the Jesuits; but scarcely had the feudal clerical party of the
  apostolic Junta with their army of faith in the field and Bourbon
  French intervention under the Duke of Angoulême again made his
  way clear, than he began to crush as before by means of his
  Jesuit Camarilla every liberal movement in church and state.
  But all the more successful was the reaction of liberalism in
  the civil war which broke out after Ferdinand’s death under
  the regency of his fourth wife, the intriguing Maria Christina
  (1833-1837). The revolution now erected an inquisition, but it
  was one directed against the clergy and monks, and celebrated
  its _autos de fe_; but these were in the form of spoliation of
  cloisters and massacres of monks. Ecclesiastical tithes were
  abolished, all monkish orders suspended, the cloisters closed,
  ecclesiastical goods declared national property, and the papal
  nuncio sent over the frontier. A threatening papal allocution
  of 1841 only increased the violence of the Cortes, and when
  Gregory XVI. in 1842 pronounced all decrees of the government
  null and void, it branded all intercourse with Rome as an offence
  against the state.

  § 205.2. =Spain under Isabella II., 1843-1865.=--Ferdinand VII.,
  overlooking the right of his brother Don Carlos, had, by
  abolishing the Salic law, secured the throne to Isabella, his
  own and Maria Christina’s daughter. After the Cortes of 1843
  had declared Isabella of age in her thirteenth year, the Spanish
  government became more and more favourable to the restoration.
  After long negotiations and vacillations under constantly
  changing ministries a concordat was at last drawn up in 1851,
  which returned the churches and cloisters that had not been
  sold, allowed compensation for what had been sold, reduced the
  number of bishoprics by six, put education and the censorship of
  the press under the oversight of the bishops, and declared the
  Catholic religion the only one to be tolerated. But although
  in 1854 the Holy Virgin was named generalissima of the brave
  army and her image at Atocha had been decorated by the queen
  with a band of the Golden Fleece, a revolution soon broke
  out in the army which threatened to deal the finishing stroke
  to ultramontanism. Meanwhile it had not fully permeated the
  republican party. The proposal of unrestricted liberty to all
  forms of worship was supported by a small minority, and the new
  constitution of 1855 called upon the Spanish nation to maintain
  and guard the Catholic religion which “the Spaniards profess;”
  yet no Spaniard was to be persecuted on account of his faith, so
  long as he did not commit irreligious acts. A new law determined
  the sale of all church and cloister property, and compensation
  therefore by annual rents according to the existing concordat.
  Several bishops had to be banished owing to their continued
  opposition; the pope protested and recalled his legates. Clerical
  influence meanwhile regained power over the queen. The sale of
  church and cloister property was stopped, and previous possessors
  were indemnified for what had been already sold. Owing to
  frequent change of ministry, each of which manifested a tendency
  different from its predecessor, it was only in 1859 that matters
  were settled by a new concordat. In it the government admitted
  the inalienability of church property, admitted the unrestricted
  right of the church to obtain new property of any kind, and
  declared itself ready to exchange state paper money for property
  that had fallen into decay according to the estimation of the
  bishops. The queen proved her Catholic zeal at the instigation
  of the nun Patrocinio by fanatical persecution of Protestants,
  and hearty but vain sympathies for the sufferings of the pope
  and the expatriated Italian princes. Pius IX. rewarded Isabella,
  who seemed to him adorned with all the virtues, by sending her
  in 1868 the consecrated rose at a time when she was causing
  public scandal more than ever by her private life, and by her
  proceedings with her paramour Marforio had lost the last remnant
  of the respect and confidence of the Spanish nation. Eight months
  later her reign was at an end. The provisional government now
  ordered the suppression of the Society of Jesus, as well as
  of all cloister and spiritual associations, and in 1869 the
  Cortes sanctioned the draught of a new civil constitution, which
  required the Spanish nation to maintain the Catholic worship,
  but allowed the exercise of other forms of worship to strangers
  and as cases might arise even to natives, and generally made all
  political and civil rights independent of religious profession.

  § 205.3. =Spain under Alphonso XII., 1875-1885.=--When Isabella’s
  son returned to Spain in January, 1875, in his seventeenth
  year, he obtained the blessing of his sponsor the pope on his
  ascending the throne, promised to the Catholic church powerful
  support, but also to non-Catholics the maintenance of liberty
  of worship. How he meant to perform both is shown by a decree
  of 10th February, 1875, which, abolishing the civil marriage law
  passed by the Cortes in 1870, gave back to the Catholic church
  the administration of marriage and matters connected therewith;
  for all persons living in Spain, however, “who professed another
  than the true faith,” as well as for “the bad Catholics,” to whom
  ecclesiastical marriage on account of church censures is refused,
  liberty was given to contract a civil marriage; but this did not
  apply to apostate priests, monks, and nuns, to whom any sort of
  marriage is for ever refused, and whose previously contracted
  marriages are invalid, without, however, affecting the legitimacy
  of children already born of such connections.--Against the
  draught of the new constitution, whose eleventh article indeed
  affords toleration to all dissenting forms of worship, but
  prohibits any public manifestation thereof outside of their place
  of worship and burial grounds, Pius IX. protested as infringing
  upon the still existing concordat in its “noblest” part, and
  aiming a serious blow at the Catholic church. The Cortes, however,
  sanctioned it in 1876.

  § 205.4. =The Evangelization of Spain.=--A number of Bibles
  and tracts, as well as a religious paper in Spanish called _el
  Albo_, found entrance into Spain from the English settlement at
  Gibraltar, without Spain being able even in the most flourishing
  days of the restoration to prevent it, and evangelical sympathies
  began more or less openly to be expressed. Franc. Ruat, formerly
  a lascivious Spanish poet, who was awakened at Turin by the
  preaching of the Waldensian Desanctis, and by reading the Bible
  had obtained knowledge of evangelical truths, appeared publicly
  after the publication of the new constitution of 1855 as a
  preacher of the gospel in Spain. The reaction that soon set in,
  however, secured for him repeated imprisonments, and finally in
  1856 sentence of banishment for life. He then wrought for several
  years successfully in Gibraltar, next in London, afterwards in
  Algiers among Spanish residents, till the new civil constitution
  of 1868 allowed him to return to Spain, where, in the service
  of the German mission at Madrid, he gathered around him an
  evangelical congregation, to which he ministered till his death
  in 1878. While labouring in Gibraltar he won to the evangelical
  faith among others the young officer Manuel Matamoros, living
  there as a political refugee. This noble man, whose whole career,
  till his death in exile in 1866, was a sore martyrdom for the
  truth, became the soul of the whole movement, against which
  the government in 1861 and 1862 took the severest measures. By
  intercepted correspondence the leaders and many of the members
  of the secret evangelical propaganda were discovered and thrown
  into prison. The final judgment condemned the leaders of the
  movement to severe punishment in penitentiaries and the galleys.
  Infliction of these sentences had already begun when the
  queen found herself obliged, by a visit to Madrid in 1863 of a
  deputation of the Evangelical Alliance (§ 178, 3), consisting of
  the most distinguished and respected Protestants of all lands, to
  commute them to banishment.--After Isabella’s overthrow in 1868,
  permission was given for the building of the first Protestant
  church in Madrid, where a congregation soon gathered of more than
  2,000 souls. In Seville an almost equally strong congregation
  obtained for its services what had been a church of the Jesuits.
  Also at Cordova a considerable congregation was collected, and
  in almost all the other large cities there were largely attended
  places of worship. Several of those banished under Isabella,
  who had returned after her overthrow, Carrasco, Trigo, Alhama,
  and others, increased by new converts who had received their
  theological training at Geneva, Lausanne, etc., and supported
  by American, English and German fellow-labourers, such as the
  brothers F. and H. Fliedner, wrought with unwearied zeal as
  preachers and pastors, for the spreading and deeper grounding
  of the gospel among their countrymen. With the restoration of the
  monarchy in 1875, the oppression of the Protestants was renewed
  with increasing severity. The widest possible interpretation
  was given to the prohibition of every public manifestation
  of dissenting worship in Article XI. of the constitution. The
  excesses and insults of the mob, whose fanaticism was stirred up
  by the clergy, were left unpunished and uncensured. Even the most
  sorely abused and injured Protestants were themselves subjected
  to imprisonment as disturbers of the peace. No essential
  improvement in their condition resulted from the liberal ministry
  of Sagasta in 1881. Nevertheless the number of evangelical
  congregations continued steadily though slowly to increase, so
  that now they number more than sixty, with somewhere about 15,000
  native Protestant members.--Besides these an _Iglesia Española_
  arose in 1881, consisting of eight congregations, which may
  be regarded to some extent as a national Spanish counterpart
  to the Old Catholicism of Germany. Its founder and first bishop
  is Cabrera, formerly a Catholic priest, who, after having
  wrought from 1868 in the service of the Edinburgh (Presbyterian)
  Evangelization Society as preacher in Seville, and then in Madrid,
  received in 1880 episcopal consecration from the Anglican bishop
  Riley of Mexico (§ 209, 1), then visiting Madrid. Although thus
  of Anglican origin, the church directed by him wishes not to be
  Anglican, but Spanish episcopal. It attaches itself therefore,
  while accepting the thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church,
  in the sketch of its order of service in the Spanish language,
  more to the old Mozarabic ritual (§ 88, 1) than to the Anglican
  liturgy.[562]

  § 205.5. =The Church in Portugal.=--Portugal after some months
  followed the example of the Spanish revolution of 1820. John VI.
  (1816-1826) confirmed the new constitution, drawn up after the
  pattern of the democratic Spanish constitution of 1812, enacting
  the seizure of church property and the suppression of the
  monasteries. But a counter revolution, led by the younger son of
  the king, Dom Miguel, obliged him in 1823 to repudiate it and to
  return to the older constitution. But he persistently resisted
  the reintroduction of the Jesuits. After his death in 1826, the
  legitimate heir, Pedro I. of Brazil, abandoned his claims to the
  Portuguese throne in favour of his daughter Donna Maria II. da
  Gloria, then under a year old, whom he betrothed to his brother
  Dom Miguel. Appointed regent, Dom Miguel took the oath to
  the constitution, but immediately broke his oath, had himself
  proclaimed king, recalled the Jesuits, and, till his overthrow
  in 1834, carried on a clerical monarchical reign of terror. Dom
  Pedro, who had meanwhile vacated the Brazilian throne, as regent
  again suppressed all monkish orders, seized the property of
  the church, and abolished ecclesiastical tithes, but died in
  the same year. His daughter Donna Maria, now pronounced of age
  and proclaimed queen (1834-1853), amid continual revolutions
  and changes of the constitution, manifested an ever-growing
  inclination to reconciliation with Rome. In 1841 she negotiated
  about a concordat, and showed herself so submissive that the pope
  rewarded her in 1842 with the consecrated golden rose. But the
  liberal Cortes resisted the introduction of the concordat, and
  maintained the right of veto by the civil government as well as
  the rest of the restrictions upon the hierarchy, and the _Codigo
  penal_ of 1882 threatened the Catholic clergy with heavy fines
  and imprisonment for every abuse of their spiritual prerogatives
  and every breach of the laws of the State. In 1857 a concordat
  was at last agreed to, which, however, was adopted by the
  representatives of the people not before 1859, and then only by
  a small majority. Its chief provisions consist in the regulating
  of the patronage rights of the crown in regard to existing and
  newly created bishoprics. The relation of government to the curia,
  however, still continued strained. The constitution declares
  generally that the Catholic Apostolic Romish Church is the
  state religion. A Portuguese who passes over from it to another
  loses thereby his civil rights as a citizen. Yet no one is to be
  persecuted on account of his religion. The erection of Protestant
  places of worship, but not in church form, and also of burial
  grounds, where necessary, is permitted.--Evangelization has
  made but little progress in Portugal. The first evangelical
  congregation, with Anglican episcopal constitution, was founded
  at Lisbon by a Spanish convert, Don Angelo Herrero de Mora, who
  in the service of the Bible Society had edited a revision of the
  old Spanish Bible in New York, and had there been naturalized
  as an American citizen. Consisting originally of American and
  English Protestants, about a hundred Spanish and Portuguese
  converts have since 1868 gradually attached themselves to it,
  the latter after they had been made Spanish instead of Portuguese
  subjects. After the pattern of this mother congregation, two
  others have been formed in the neighbourhood of Lisbon and one
  at Oporto.


                             § 206. RUSSIA.

  The Russian government since the time of Alexander I. has sought
amid many difficulties to advance the education and enlightenment of
the people, and to elevate the orthodox church by securing a more highly
cultured clergy, and to increase its influence upon the life of the
people; a task which proved peculiarly difficult in consequence of the
wide-spread anti-ecclesiastical spirit (§ 210, 3) and the incomparably
more dangerous antichristian Nihilism (§ 212, 6).--The Catholic church,
mainly represented in what had before been the kingdom of Poland, had,
in consequence of the repeated revolutionary agitation of the Poles,
in which the clergy had zealously taken part by stirring up fanaticism
among the people and converting their religion and worship into a
vehicle of rebellion, so compromised itself that the government, besides
taking away the national political privileges, reduced more and more
the rights and liberties granted to the church as such.--The prosperous
development of the evangelical church in Russia, which, through the
absolutely faultless loyalty of its members, had hitherto enjoyed the
hearty protection of the government, in 1845 and 1846, and afterwards
in 1883, in consequence of numerous conversions among Esthonian and
Livonian peasants, was checked by incessant persecutions.

  § 206.1. =The Orthodox National Church.=--The evangelical
  influences introduced from the West during the previous century,
  especially among the higher clergy, found further encouragement
  under Alexander I., A.D. 1801-1825. Himself affected by the
  evangelical pietism of Madame Krüdener (§ 176, 2), he aimed at
  the elevation of the orthodox church in this direction, founded
  clerical seminaries and public schools, and took a lively
  interest in Bible circulation among the Russian people. But under
  Nicholas I., A.D. 1825-1855, a reaction proceeding from the holy
  synod set in which unweariedly sought to seal the orthodox church
  hermetically against all evangelical influences. Also during
  the reign of Alexander II., A.D. 1855-1881, a reign singularly
  fruitful in civil reforms, this tendency was even more rigidly
  illustrated, while with the consent and aid of the holy synod
  every effort was put forth to improve the church according to its
  own principles. Specially active in this work was Count Tolstoi,
  minister of instruction and also procurator of the holy synod. A
  committee presided over by him produced a whole series of useful
  reforms in 1868, which were approved by the synod and confirmed
  by the emperor. While the inferior clergy had hitherto formed
  an order by themselves, all higher ranks of preferment were
  now opened to them, but, on the other hand, the obligation
  of priests’ sons to remain in the order of their fathers was
  abolished. The clamant abuse of putting mere clerks and sextons
  to do the work of priests was also now put a stop to, and
  training in clerical seminaries or academies was made compulsory.
  Previously only married men could hold the offices of deacon and
  priest; now widowers and bachelors were admitted, so soon as they
  reached the age of forty years. In order to increase the poor
  incomes many churches had not their regular equipment of clergy,
  and instead of the full set of priest, deacon, sub-deacon, reader,
  sexton, and doorkeeper, in the poorer churches there were only
  priest and reader. Order was restored to monastic life, now
  generally grown dissolute, by a fixed rule of a common table
  and uniform dress, etc. In 1860 an Orthodox Church Society for
  Missions among the peoples of the Caucasus, and in 1866 a second
  for Pagans and Mohammedans throughout the empire, were founded,
  both under the patronage of the empress. The Russian church
  also cleverly took advantage of political events to carry on
  missionary work in Japan (§ 184, 6). A society of the “Friends
  of Intellectual Enlightenment,” founded in St. Petersburg
  in 1872, aimed chiefly at the religious improvement of the
  cultured classes in the spirit of the orthodox church by means
  of tracts and addresses, while agreeing with foreign confessions
  as to the nature and characteristics of the true church.
  Under Alexander III., since A.D. 1881, the emperor’s former
  tutor Pobedownoszew, with the conviction of the incomparable
  superiority of his church, and believing that by it and only
  by it could the dangerous commotions of the present be overcome
  (§ 212, 6) and Russia regenerated, as procurator of the holy
  synod has zealously wrought in this direction.--But meanwhile a
  new impulse was given to the evangelical movement in aristocratic
  circles by Lord Radstock, who appeared in St. Petersburg in 1870.
  The addresses delivered by him in French in the salons of the
  fashionable world won a success scarcely to be looked for. The
  most famous gain was the conversion of a hitherto proud, worldly,
  rich and popular Colonel of the Guards, called Paschcow, who now
  turned the beautiful ball-room of his palatial residence into a
  prayer-meeting room, and with all the enthusiasm of a neophyte
  proclaimed successfully among high and low the newly won saving
  truth in a Biblical evangelical spirit, though not without a
  methodistic flavour. The excitement thus created led to police
  interference, and finally, when he refused to abstain from
  spreading his religious views among the members of the orthodox
  church by the circulation of evangelical tracts in the Russian
  language, he was, at the instigation of the holy synod and its
  all powerful procurator, banished first from St. Petersburg and
  then in 1884 from the empire, whereupon he withdrew to London.

  § 206.2. =The Catholic Church.=--After the Greeks in the old
  West Russian provinces (§ 151, 3), who had been forcibly united
  to Rome in 1596, had again in 1772, in consequence of the first
  partition of Poland, come under Russian rule, the government
  sought to restore them also to the orthodox national church.
  This was first accomplished under Nicholas I., when at the synod
  of Polosk in 1839 they themselves spontaneously expressed a wish
  to be thus reunited with the mother church. Rome thus lost two
  million members. But the allocution directed against this robbery
  by Gregory XVI. was without effect, and the public opinion
  of Europe saw a case of historical justice in this reunion,
  though effected not without severe measures against those who
  proved obstinate and rebellious. Yet there always remained a
  considerable remnant, about one-third of a million, under the
  bishop of Chelun, in the Romish communion. But even these in 1875,
  after many disturbances with the prelate Popiel at their head,
  almost wholly severed their connection with the pope, and were
  again received into the bosom of the orthodox national church.
  In a memorial addressed to the emperor for this purpose, they
  declared they were led to this on the one hand by the continual
  endeavour of the curia and its partisans, by Latinizing their old
  Greek liturgy and Polandizing the people, to overthrow their old
  Russian nationality, and on the other hand, by their aversion to
  the new papal dogmas of the immaculate conception of Mary and the
  infallibility of the pope.--The insurrection of the Poles against
  Russian rule in 1830, which even Pope Gregory XVI. condemned,
  bore bitter fruits for the Catholic church of that country.
  The organic statute of 1832 indeed secured anew to the Poles
  religious liberty, but the bishops were prohibited holding
  any direct communication with Rome, the clergy deprived of all
  control over the schools, and the Russian law regarding mixed
  marriages made applicable to that province. By an understanding
  with the curia in 1847 the choice of the bishops was given to the
  emperor, their canonical investiture to the pope. The mildness
  with which Alexander II. treated the Poles and the political
  troubles in the rest of Europe fostered the hope of restoring
  the old kingdom of Poland. Reckless demonstrations were made in
  the beginning of 1861, pilgrimages to the graves of the martyrs
  of freedom were organized, political memorial festivals were
  celebrated in churches, a general national mourning was enjoined,
  mourning services were held, revolutionary songs were sung
  in churches, etc. The Catholic clergy headed the movement and
  canonized it as a religious duty. In vain the government sought
  to put it down by making liberal concessions, in vain they
  applied to Pius IX. to discountenance it. When in October the
  country lay in a state of siege, and the military forced their
  way into the churches to apprehend the ringleaders of rebellion,
  the episcopal administrator, Bialobezeski, denounced that as
  church profanation, had all the Catholic churches in Warsaw
  closed, and answered the government’s request to reopen them by
  making extravagant demands and uttering proud words of defiance.
  The military tribunal sentenced him to death, but the emperor
  commuted this to one year’s detention in a fortress, with loss
  of all his dignities and orders. Meanwhile the eyes of the pope
  had at length been opened. He now confirmed the government’s
  appointment of Archbishop Felinsky, who entered Warsaw in
  February, 1862, and reopened the churches. After the suppression
  of the revolt in 1864, almost all cloisters, as nurseries of
  revolution, were abolished; in the following year the whole
  property of the church was taken in charge by the State, and
  the clergy supported by state pay. The pope, enraged at this,
  gave violent expression to his feelings to the Russian ambassador
  at Rome during the New Year festivities of 1866, whereupon the
  government completely broke off all relations with the curia.
  Consequently in 1867 all the affairs of the Catholic church
  were committed to the clerical college at St. Petersburg, and
  intercourse between the clergy and the pope prohibited. Hence
  arose many conflicts with Catholic bishops, whose obstinacy was
  punished by their being interned in their dioceses. In 1869 the
  Russian calendar was introduced, and Russian made the compulsory
  language of instruction. But in 1870 greater opposition was
  offered to the introduction of Russian in the public services by
  means of translations of the common Polish prayer and psalm-books.
  Pietrowitsch, dean of Wilna, read from the pulpit the ukase
  referring to this matter, but then cast it together with the
  Russian translations into the flames, with violent denunciations
  of the government, and gave information against himself to the
  governor-general. He was agreeably to his own desire imprisoned,
  and then transported to Archangel. The same sentence was
  pronounced against several other obstinate prelates and clergy,
  among them Archbishop Felinsky, and thus further opposition was
  stamped out.--Leo XIII. soon after entering on his pontificate
  in 1878 took the first step toward reconciliation. His efforts
  reached a successful issue first in February, 1883. The deposed
  prelates were restored from their places of banishment, with
  promise of a liberal pension, and were allowed to choose their
  residences as they pleased, only not within their former dioceses.
  In their stead the pope consecrated ten new bishops nominated
  by the emperor, who amid the jubilation of the people entered
  their episcopal residences. With reference to the Roman Catholic
  seminaries and clerical academies at Warsaw, the curia granted
  to the government the right of control over instruction in
  the Russian language, literature and history, but committed
  instruction in canonical matters solely to the bishops, who,
  after obtaining the approval of the government, appointed the
  rector and inspector and canonical teachers. Vacant pastorates
  were filled by the bishops, and only in the case of the more
  important was the approval of the government required. As to the
  language to be used, it was resolved that only where the people
  speak Russian were the clergy obliged to employ that language in
  preaching and in their pastoral work.

  § 206.3. =The Evangelical Church.=--The Lutheran church in Russia,
  comprising two and a half millions of Germans, Letts, Esthonians
  and Finns, is strongest in Livonia, Esthonia and Courland, is the
  national church in Finland, and is also largely represented in
  Poland, in the chief cities of Russia, and in the numerous German
  colonies in South Russia. In 1832 it obtained, for the Baltic
  provinces and the scattered congregations in central Russia, a
  church constitution and service book, the latter on the basis of
  the old Swedish service book, the former requiring all religious
  teachers in church and school to accept the Formula of Concord.
  Annual provincial synods have the initiative in calling in,
  when necessary for legislative purposes, the aid of the general
  synod.--In Poland the Reformed and Lutheran churches were in 1828
  united under one combined consistory. By an imperial ukase of
  1849, however, the independent existence of both churches was
  restored. Protestants enjoyed all civil rights and had absolute
  liberty in the exercise of their religion; but in central Russia
  down to recent times, when a more liberal spirit began to prevail,
  they were prohibited putting bells in their churches. The old
  prohibition of evangelical preaching and the teaching of religion
  in the Russian tongue also continued; but the attempt made for
  some decades in St. Petersburg and the surrounding district to
  preach the gospel to Germans who had lost their mother tongue, in
  the Russian language, has been hitherto ungrudgingly allowed by
  the government. Quitting the national church or returning from
  it to a church that had been left before, is visited by severe
  penalties, and children of mixed marriages, where one parent
  belongs to the national orthodox church, are claimed by law for
  that church. Only Finland counts among her privileges the right
  of assigning children of mixed marriages to the church of the
  father. The Lutheran church in Livonia, with the island of Oesel,
  suffered considerable, and according to the law of the land
  irreparable, loss by the secession of sixty or seventy thousand
  Letts and Esthonians to the orthodox church under the widespread
  delusion that thereby their economic position would be improved.
  Disillusions and regret came too late, and the ever increasing
  desire for restoration to the church forsaken in a moment
  of excitement could only obtain arbitrary and insufficient
  satisfaction in Lutheran baptism of infants seemingly near death,
  and in permission at irregular intervals and without previous
  announcement to sit at the Lord’s Table according to the Lutheran
  rite. In 1865, not indeed legislatively but administratively,
  the contracting of mixed marriages in the Baltic provinces
  was permitted without the enforcement of the legal enactment
  requiring that the children should be trained in the Greek
  church. In Esthonia, however, in 1883 there was a new outbreak
  of conversions in Leal, where five hundred peasants went over to
  the orthodox church, declaring their wish to be of the same faith
  as the emperor and the whole of the Russian people. By imperial
  decree in 1885 the suspension of the law against withdrawing
  again from the national church, which had existed for twenty
  years, was abolished. At the instigation of Pobedownoszew the
  Imperial Council granted an annual subsidy of 100,000 roubles for
  furthering orthodoxy in the Baltic provinces. No evangelical
  church could be built in these provinces without the approval of
  the orthodox bishop of the diocese, and any evangelical pastor
  who should dissuade a member of his church from his purpose
  of joining the orthodox church, was liable to punishment.--In
  order to supply the want of churches and schools, preachers
  and teachers in the Lutheran congregations of Russia, a society
  was formed in 1858 similar to the _Gustav-Adolfs-Verein_, under
  the supervision of the General Consistory of St. Petersburg,
  which has laboriously and zealously endeavoured to improve the
  condition of the oppressed church.[563]


                       § 207. GREECE AND TURKEY.

  In the spirited struggle for liberty Greece freed herself from the
tyranny of the Turkish Mohammedan rule and obtained complete civil
independence. But the same princes representing all the three principal
Christian confessions, who in 1830 gave their sanction to this
emancipation within lamentably narrow limits, in 1840 conquered again
the Holy Land for the Turks out of the hands of a revolting vassal.
And so inextricable were, and still are, the political interests of
the Christian States of Europe with reference to the East, that in
the London parliament of 1854 it could be affirmed that the existence
of Turkey in a condition of utter impotence was so necessary, that
if it did not exist, it would require to be created. On two occasions
has Russia called out her whole military force to emancipate from the
Turkish yoke her Slavic brethren of a common race and common faith,
without being able to give the finishing blow to the “sick man” who
had the protection of European diplomacy.

  § 207.1. =The Orthodox Church of Greece.=--Deceived in their
  expectations from the Vienna Congress, the Greeks tried to
  deliver themselves from Turkish tyranny. In 1814 a _Hetairia_ was
  formed, branches of which spread over the whole land and fostered
  among the people ideas of freedom. The war of independence broke
  out in 1821. Its first result was a fearful massacre, especially
  in Constantinople. The patriarch Gregorius [Gregory] with his
  whole synod and about 30,000 Christians were in three months
  with horrid cruelty murdered by the Turks. The London Conference
  of 1830 at last declared Greece an independent state, and
  an assembly of Greek bishops at Nauplia in 1833 freed the
  national church of Greece from the authority of the patriarch of
  Constantinople, who was under the control of Turkey. Its supreme
  direction was committed to a permanent Holy Synod at Athens,
  instituted by the king but in all internal matters absolutely
  independent. The king must belong to the national church, but
  otherwise all religions are on the same footing. Meanwhile the
  orthodox church is fully represented, the Roman Catholic being
  strongest, especially in the islands. The University of Athens,
  opened in 1856 with professors mostly trained in Germany, has not
  been unsuccessful in its task even in the domain of theology.

  § 207.2. =Massacre of Syrian Christians, 1860.=--The Russo-Turkish
  war ending in the beginning of 1856, in which France and England,
  and latterly also Sardinia took the part of the sick man, left
  the condition of the Christians practically unchanged. For though
  the Hatti Humayun of 1856 granted them equal civil rights with
  the Moslems, this, however well meant on the part of the Sultan
  of that time, practically made no improvement upon the equally
  well meant Hatti Sherif of Gülhane of 1839. The outbreak of 1860
  also proved how little effect it had in teaching the Moslems
  tolerance towards the Christians. Roused by Jesuit emissaries
  and trusting to French support, the Maronites of Lebanon indulged
  in several provoking attacks upon their old hereditary foes the
  Druses. These, however, aided by the Turkish soldiery were always
  victorious, and throughout all Syria a terrible persecution
  against Christians of all confessions broke out, characterized by
  inhuman cruelties. In Damascus alone 8,000, in all Syria 16,000
  Christians were murdered, 3,000 women taken to the harems, and
  100 Christian villages destroyed. After the massacre had been
  stopped, 120,000 Christians wandered about without food, clothing,
  or shelter, and fled hither and thither in fear of death. Fuad
  Pasha was sent from Constantinople to punish the guilty, and
  seemed at first to proceed to business energetically; but his
  zeal soon cooled, and French troops, sent to Syria to protect
  the Christians, were obliged, yielding to pressure from England,
  where their presence was regarded with suspicion, to withdraw
  from the country in June, 1861.

  § 207.3. =The Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Struggle.=--The Bulgarian
  church, with somewhere about two and a half million souls, was
  from early times subject to the patriarch of Constantinople
  (§ 73, 3), who acted toward it like a pasha. He sold the Bulgarian
  bishoprics and archbishoprics to the highest bidders among
  the Greek clergy, who were quite ignorant of the language of
  the country, and had only one end in view, namely to recoup
  themselves by extorting the largest possible revenue. No thought
  was given to the spiritual needs of the Bulgarians, preaching
  was wholly abandoned, the liturgy was read in a language unknown
  to the people. It was therefore not to be wondered at that the
  Bulgarian church was for years longing for its emancipation and
  ecclesiastical independence, and made every effort to obtain this
  from the Porte. Turkey, however, sympathized with the patriarch
  till the revolt in Crete in 1866-1869 and threatening political
  movements in Bulgaria broke out. Then at last in 1870 the sultan
  granted the establishment of an independent Slavic ecclesiastical
  province under the designation of the Bulgarian Exarchate, with
  liberty to attach itself to the other Slavic provinces upon a
  two-thirds majority of votes. The patriarch Gregorius [Gregory]
  protested, but the Sublime Porte would not thereby be deterred,
  and in May, 1872, Anthimos the Exarch elect was installed. The
  patriarch and his synod now stigmatized _Phyletism_, the struggle
  for a national church establishment, as accursed heresy, and
  excommunicated the exarch and the whole Bulgarian church. Only
  the patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem dissented, but he was on that
  account on his return home treated with indignity and abuse and
  was deposed by a synod at Jerusalem.

  § 207.4. =The Armenian Church.=--To the Gregorian-Armenian
  patriarch at Constantinople (§ 64, 3), equally with his orthodox
  colleague (§ 67, 7), had been assigned by the Sublime Porte
  civil jurisdiction as well as the primacy over all members
  of his church in the Turkish empire. When now in 1830, at the
  instigation of France, an independent patriarchate with equal
  rights was granted to the United Armenians (§ 72, 2), the
  twofold dependence on the Porte and on the Roman curia created
  difficulties, which in the meantime were overcome by giving the
  patriarch, who as a Turkish official exercised civil jurisdiction,
  a primacy with the title of archbishop as representative of the
  pope. The United Armenians, like the other united churches of
  the East, had from early times enjoyed the liberty of using their
  ancient liturgy, their old ecclesiastical calendar, and their
  own church constitution with free election of their bishops and
  patriarchs, and these privileges were left untouched down to 1866.
  But when in that year the Armenian Catholic patriarch died,
  the archbishop Hassun was elected patriarch, and then a fusion
  of the two ecclesiastical powers was brought about, which was
  expected to lead to absolute and complete subjection under
  papal jurisdiction and perfect assimilation with the Romish
  constitution and liturgy, at the same time Hassun with a view
  to securing a red hat showed himself eager and zealous in this
  business. By the bull _Reversurus_ of 1867 Pius IX. claimed the
  right of nominating the patriarchs of all united churches of
  the East, of confirming bishops chosen by these patriarchs, in
  cases of necessity even choosing these himself, and deciding
  all appeals regarding church property. But the Mechitarists of
  St. Lazzaro (§ 164, 2) had already discovered the intriguing
  designs of France and made these known among their countrymen
  in Turkey. These now, while Monsignore Hassun was engaged
  combating the infallibility dogma at the Vatican Council of
  1870, drove out his creatures and constituted themselves into
  a church independent of Rome, without however, joining the
  Gregorian-Armenians. The influence of France being meanwhile
  crippled by the Prussian victory, the Porte acquiesced in
  the accomplished fact, confirmed the appointment of the newly
  chosen patriarch Kupelian, and refused to yield to the pope’s
  remonstrances and allocutions. In 1874, however, it also
  recognised the Hassun party as an independent ecclesiastical
  community, but assigned the church property to the party of
  Kupelian, and banished Hassun as a fomenter of disturbance, from
  the capital. The hearty sympathies which on the outbreak of the
  Russo-Turkish war the Roman curia expressed so loudly and openly
  for the victory of the crescent over the schismatic Russian cross,
  made the Sublime Porte again regard the Hassunites with favour,
  so that Hassun in September, 1877, returned to Constantinople,
  where the churches were given over to his party and a great
  number of the Kupelianists were won over to his side. He was
  eagerly aided not only by the French but also by the Austrian
  ambassador, and the patriarch Kupelian, now sorely persecuted
  from every side, at last resigned his position and went in March,
  1879, to Rome to kneel as a penitent before the pope. By an irade
  of the sultan, Hassun was now formally restored, and in 1880 he
  was adorned with a red hat by Leo XIII. Shortly before this the
  last of the bishops of the opposing party, with about 30,000
  souls, had given in his submission.

  § 207.5. =The Berlin Treaty, 1878.=--Frequent and severe
  oppression, refusal to administer justice, and brutal violence
  on the part of the Turkish government and people toward the
  defenceless vassals drove the Christian states and tribes of
  the Balkan peninsula in 1875 into a rebellion of desperation,
  which was avenged, especially in Bulgaria in 1876, by
  scandalous atrocities upon the Christians. When the half-hearted
  interference of European diplomacy called forth instead of actual
  reforms only the mocking sham of a pretended free representative
  constitution, Russia held herself under obligation in 1877 to
  avenge by arms the wrongs of her brethren by race and creed, but
  owing to the threats of England and Austria could not fully reap
  the fruits of her dearly bought victory as had been agreed upon
  in the Treaty of San Stefano. By the =Berlin Conference=, however,
  of 1878 the principalities of Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro,
  hitherto under the suzerainty of Turkey, were declared
  independent, and to them, as well as to Greece, at the cost of
  Turkey, a considerable increase of territory was granted, the
  portion between the Balkans and the Danube was formed into the
  Christian principality of Bulgaria under Turkish suzerainty, but
  East Roumelia, south of the Balkans, now separated from Bulgaria,
  obtained the rank of an autonomous province with a Christian
  governor-general. To Thessaly, Epirus, and Crete were granted
  administrative reforms and throughout the European territory
  left to the Porte it was stipulated that full religious and
  political rights be granted to members of all confessions.
  The administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina was given over
  to Austria, and that of Cyprus, by means of a separate treaty,
  to England. The greater part of Armenia, lying in Asia, belongs
  to Russia.


               § 208. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.[564]

  The Republic of the United States of America, existing since the
Declaration of Independence in 1776, and recognised by England as
independent since the conclusion of Peace in 1783, requires of her
citizens no other religious test than belief in one God. Since the
settlers had often left their early homes on account of religious
matters, the greatest variety of religious parties were gathered
together here, and owing to their defective theological training
and their practical turn of mind, they afforded a fruitful field
for religious movements of all sorts, among which the revivals
systematically cultivated by many denominations play a conspicuous
part. The government does not trouble itself with religious questions,
and lets every denomination take care of itself. Preachers are therefore
wholly dependent on their congregations, and are frequently liable to
dismissal at the year’s end. Yet they form a highly respected class,
and nowhere in the Protestant world is the tone of ecclesiastical
feeling and piety so prevailingly high. In the public schools, which are
supported by the State, religious instruction is on principle omitted.
The Lutheran and Catholic churches have therefore founded parochial
schools; the other denominations seek to supply the want by Sunday
schools. The candidates for the ministry are trained in colleges and
in numerous theological seminaries.

  § 208.1. =English Protestant Denominations.=--The numerous
  Protestant denominations belong to two great groups, English
  and German. Of the first named the following are by far the most
  important:

    1. =The Congregationalists= are the descendants of the Pilgrim
       Fathers who emigrated in 1620 (§ 143, 4). They profess the
       doctrines of the Westminster Confession (§ 155, 1).

    2. =The Presbyterians=, of Scotch origin, have the same
       confession as the Congregationalists, but differ from them
       by having a common church government with strict Synodal
       and Presbyterial constitution. By rejecting the doctrine of
       predestination the Cumberland Presbyterians in 1810 formed
       a separate body and have since grown so as to embrace in the
       south-western states 120,000 communicants.

    3. =The Anglican Episcopal Church= is equally distinguished
       by moderate and solid churchliness. Even here, however,
       Puseyism has entered in and the Romish church has made
       many proselytes. But when at the general conference of the
       Evangelical Alliance at New York in 1873, bishop Cummins
       of Kentucky took part in the administration of the Lord’s
       Supper in the Presbyterian church and was violently attacked
       for this by his Puseyite brethren, he laid the foundation
       of a “Reformed Episcopal Church,” in which secession other
       twenty-five Episcopal ministers joined. They regard the
       episcopal constitution as an old and wholesome ordinance
       but not a divine institution, also the Anglican liturgy
       and _Book of Common Prayer_, though capable of improvement,
       while they recognise the ordinations of other evangelical
       churches as valid, and reject as Puseyite the doctrine of
       a special priesthood of the clergy, of a sacrifice in the
       eucharist, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in
       the elements, and of the essential and invariable connection
       between regeneration and baptism.

    4. =The Episcopal Methodists= in America formed since 1784
       an independent body (§ 169, 4). Their influence on the
       religious life in the United States has been extraordinarily
       great. They have had by far the most to do with the revivals
       which from the first they have carried to a wonderful
       pitch with their protracted meetings, inquiry meetings,
       camp meetings, etc. They reached their climax in the camp
       meetings which, under the preaching mostly of itinerant
       Methodist preachers frequently in the forest under the
       canopy of heaven, produced religious awakening among the
       multitudes gathered from all around. Day and night without
       interruption they continued praying, singing, preaching,
       exhorting; all the horrors of hell are depicted, the
       excitement increases every moment, penitent wrestlings with
       sighs, sobs, groans, convulsions and writhings, occur on
       every side; grace comes at last to view; loud hallelujahs,
       thanksgivings and ascription of praise by the converted
       mix with the moanings of those on “the anxious bench”
       pleading for grace, etc. In San Francisco in 1874 there were
       “=Baby-Revivals=,” at which children from four to twelve
       years of age, who trembled with the fear of hell, sang
       penitential hymns, made confession of sin, and wrote their
       names on a sheet in order to engage themselves for ever
       for Jesus. Since 1847 the Methodist church had been divided
       into two hostile camps, a southern and a northern. The
       first named tolerated slavery, while the members of the
       latter were decided abolitionists and excommunicated all
       slave-owners as unworthy of the name of Christian. Another
       party, the Protestant Methodists, has blended the episcopal
       and congregational constitution.

    5. =The Baptists= are split up into many sects. The most
       numerous are the Calvinistic Baptists. Their activity in
       proselytising is equally great with their zeal for missions
       to the heathen. In opposition to them the Free-Will Baptists
       are Arminian and the Christian Baptists have adopted
       Unitarian views.[565]

  § 208.2. =The German Lutheran Denominations.=--The German
  emigration to America began in Penn’s time. In the organization
  of church affairs, besides Zinzendorf and the Herrnhut
  missionaries, a prominent part was taken by the pastor
  Dr. Melchior Mühlenberg (died 1787), a pupil of A. H. Francke,
  and the Reformed pastor Schlatter from St. Gall; the former
  sent by the Halle Orphanage, the latter by the Dutch church.
  The Orphanage sent many earnest preachers till rationalism broke
  in upon the society. As at the same time the stream of German
  emigration was checked almost completely for several decades,
  and so all intercourse with the mother country ceased, crowds
  of Germans, impressed by the revivals, went over to the
  Anglo-American denominations, and in the German denominations
  themselves along with the English language entered also English
  Puritanism and Methodism. In 1815 German emigration began again
  and grew from year to year. At the synod of 1857 the Lutheran
  church with 3,000 pastors divided into three main divisions:

    1. The American Lutheran church had become in language,
       customs, and doctrine thoroughly Anglicised and Americanized;
       Zwinglian in its doctrine of the sacraments, it was Lutheran
       in scarcely anything but the name, until in its chief
       seminary at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania in 1850 a reaction
       set in in favour of genuine Lutheran and German tendencies.

    2. A greatly attenuated Lutheranism with unionistic sympathies
       and frequent abandonment of the German language also found
       expression in the congregations of the Old Pennsylvanian
       Synod.

    3. On the other hand, the strict Lutheran church held
       tenaciously to the exclusive use of the German language
       and the genuine Lutheran confession. The Prussian emigration
       with Grabau and the Saxon Lutheran settlers with Stephan
       constituted its backbone (§ 194, 1). To them a number of
       Bavarian Lutherans attached themselves who had emigrated
       under the leadership of Löhe, whose missionary institute
       at Neuendettelsau supplied them with pastors. The Saxon
       Lutherans were meanwhile grouped together in the Missouri
       Synod, which Löhe’s missionaries also joined, so that it
       soon acquired much larger proportions than the Buffalo Synod
       formed previously by the Prussian Lutherans under Grabau.
       But very soon the two synods had a violent quarrel over
       the idea of office and church which, owing to the reception
       by the Missouri Synod of several parties excommunicated
       by the Buffalo Synod, led to the formal breach of church
       fellowship between the two parties. The Missouri Synod, with
       Dr. Walther at its head, attached all importance to sound
       doctrine; the clerical office was regarded as a transference
       of the right of the congregation and excommunication as
       a congregational not a clerical act. The Buffalo Synod,
       on the other hand, in consequence of serious conflict with
       pietistic elements, had been driven into an overestimation
       of external order, of forms of constitution and worship, and
       of the clerical office as of immediately divine authority,
       and carried this to such a length as led to the dissolution
       of the synod in 1877. Löhe’s friends, who had not been able
       to agree with either party, formed themselves into the Synod
       of Iowa, with their seminary at Wartburg under Fritschel.
       On all questions debated between the synods they took
       a mediating position. The Missourians, however, would
       have nothing to do with them, while those of Buffalo long
       maintained tolerably friendly relations with them. But the
       historical view of the symbols taken by the Iowans, their
       inclination toward the new development of Lutheran theology,
       and above all their attitude toward biblical chiliasm, which
       they wished to treat as an open question, seemed to those of
       Buffalo, as well as to the Missourians, a falling away from
       the church confession, and led to their excommunication by
       that party also.

  In opposition to all this splitting up into sections a General
  Council of the Lutheran Church in America was held in 1866, which
  sought to combine all Lutheran district synods, of which twelve,
  out of fifty-six, with 814 clergymen, joined it, Iowa assuming
  a friendly and Missouri a distinctly hostile attitude. The
  ninth assembly at Galesburg in Illinois in 1875 laid down as
  its fundamental principle, “Lutheran pulpits only for Lutheran
  preachers, and Lutheran altars only for Lutheran communicants.”
  The native Americans, however, insisted upon exceptions being
  allowed, _e.g._ in peril of death, etc. On the question of the
  limits of these exceptions, however, subsequent assemblies have
  not been able to agree.

  § 208.3. But also in the Synodal Conference founded and
  led by the Missouri Synod, embracing five synods, doctrinal
  controversies sprang up in 1860. A large number with Dr. Walther
  at their head held a strict doctrine of =predestination= which
  they regarded as the mark of genuine Lutheranism. God has,
  they taught, chosen a definite number of men from eternity to
  salvation; these shall and must be saved. Salvation in Christ
  is indeed offered to all, but God secures it only for His elect,
  so that they are sure of it and cannot lose it again, not indeed
  _intuitu fidei_ but only according to His sovereign grace.
  Even one of the elect may seem temporarily to fall from grace,
  but he cannot die without returning into full possession of it.
  Prof. Fritschel protested against this in 1872 as essentially
  Calvinistic, and opposition also arose in the Missouri Pastoral
  Conference. Prof. Asperheim, of the seminary of the Norwegian
  Synod at Madison in Wisconsin, who first pronounced against it
  in 1876, was deprived of his office and obliged to withdraw from
  the synod. The controversy broke out in a violent form at the
  conferences of about 500 pastors held at Chicago in 1880 and
  at Milwaukee three months later in 1881, at the former of which
  Prof. Stellhorn of Fort Wayne, at the latter Prof. Schmidt
  of Madison, offered a vigorous opposition. Walther closed the
  conference with the words: “You ask for war, war you shall have.”
  The result was that the whole of the Ohio Synod and a large
  portion of the Norwegian Wisconsin Synod, broke away from
  communion with the Missouri Synod.--Walther and his adherents
  went so far in their fanaticism as to pronounce not only their
  American opponents but all the most distinguished Lutheran
  theologians of Germany, Philippi as well as Hofmann, Luthardt
  as well as Kahnis, Vilmar as well as Thomasius, Harms as well
  as Zöckler, etc., bastard theologians, semipelagians, synergists
  and rationalists, and to refuse church fellowship not only with
  all Lutheran national churches in Europe, but also with German
  Lutheran Free Churches, which did not unconditionally attach
  themselves to them. These Missouri separatist communities, though
  everywhere quite unimportant, are in Europe strongest in the
  kingdom of Saxony; they have also a few representatives in Nassau,
  Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria and Hesse.

  § 208.4. =German-Reformed and other German-Protestant
  Denominations.=--The German-Reformed church has its seminary
  at Mercersburg in Pennsylvania. Its confession of faith is
  the Heidelberg Catechism, its theology an offshoot of German
  evangelical union theology, but with a distinctly positive
  tendency. Although the union theology there prevailed among the
  Reformed as well as the Lutherans, a German Evangelical Church
  Union was formed at St. Louis in 1841 which wished to set aside
  the names Reformed and Lutheran. It established a seminary at
  Marthasville in Missouri. The Herrnhuters are also represented in
  America. Several German Methodist sects have recently sprung up:

    1. The “United Brethren in Christ,” with 500 preachers, founded
       by a Reformed preacher Otternbein (died 1813).

    2. The “Evangelical Communion,” commonly called
       _Albrechtsleute_, founded by Jac. Albrecht, originally a
       Lutheran layman, whom his own followers ordained in 1803,
       with 500 or 600 preachers working zealously and carrying
       on mission work also in Germany (§ 211, 1).

    3. The Weinbrennians or Church of God, founded by an
       excommunicated Reformed pastor of that name in 1839. They
       carry the Methodist revivalism to the most extravagant
       excess and are also fanatical opponents of infant baptism.

  § 208.5. =The Catholic Church.=--A number of English Catholics
  under Lord Baltimore settled in Maryland in 1634. The little
  community grew and soon filled the land. There alone in the whole
  world did the Roman Catholic church though dominant proclaim
  the principle of toleration and religious equality. Consequently
  Protestants of various denominations crowded thither, outnumbered
  the original settlers, and rewarded those who had hospitably
  received them with abuse and oppression. The Catholics were
  also treated in other states as idolaters and excluded from
  public offices and posts of honour. Only after the Declaration
  of Independence in 1783 was this changed by the sundering of the
  connection of church and state and the proclamation of absolute
  religious liberty. The number of Catholics was greatly increased
  by numerous emigrations, specially from Ireland and Catholic
  Germany. They now claim seven million members, with a cardinal
  at New York, 13 archbishops, 64 bishops, about 7,000 churches and
  chapels. A beautiful cathedral was erected in New York in 1879,
  the immense cost of which, exceeding all expectation, was at last
  defrayed by very unspiritual and unecclesiastical methods, _e.g._
  lotteries, fairs, dramatic exhibitions, concerts, and even dearly
  sold kisses, etc. The Roman Catholics have also a university at
  St. Louis, 80 colleges, and 300 cloisters.


           § 209. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC STATES OF SOUTH AMERICA.

  To the predominantly Protestant North America the position of the
Roman Catholic states of South America forms a very striking contrast.
Nowhere else was the influence and power of the clergy so wide-spread
and deeply rooted, nowhere else has the depravation of Catholicism
reached such a depth of superstition, obscurantism, and fanaticism.
During the second and third decades of our century the Spanish states,
favoured by the revolutionary movement in the mother country, one
after another asserted their independence, and the Portuguese Brazil
established herself as an independent empire under the legitimate
royal prince of Portugal, Pedro I. in 1822. Although the other new
states adopted a republican constitution, they could not throw aside
the influence of the Catholic clergy and carry out the principles of
religious freedom proclaimed in their constitutions. The Catholicism of
the Creoles, half-castes, and mulattoes was of too bigoted a kind and
the power of the clergy too great to allow any such thing. Mexico went
furthest in the attempt, and Brazil, under Dom Pedro II. from 1831,
astonished the world by the vigorous measures of its government
in 1874 against the assumptions of the higher clergy.--In spite of
all hindrances a not inconsiderable number of small evangelical
congregations have been formed in Romish America, partly through
emigration and partly by evangelization.

  § 209.1. =Mexico.=--Of all the American states, Mexico, since its
  independence in 1823, has been most disturbed by revolutions and
  civil wars. The rich and influential clergy, possessing nearly
  a half of all landed property, was the factor with which all
  pretenders, presidents and rulers had to reckon. After most
  of the earlier governments had supported the clergy and been
  supported by them, the ultimately victorious liberal party
  under president Juarez shook off the yoke in 1859. He proclaimed
  absolute religious freedom, introduced civil marriage, abolished
  cloisters, pronounced church possessions national property and
  exiled the obstinate bishops. The clerical party now sought
  and obtained foreign aid. Spain, France and England joined in
  a common military convention in 1861 in supporting certain claims
  of citizens repudiated by Juarez. Spain and England soon withdrew
  their troops, and Napoleon III. openly declared the purpose of
  his interference to be the strengthening of the Latin race and
  the monarchical principle in America. At his instigation the
  Austrian Grand-Duke Maximilian was elected emperor, and that
  prince, after receiving the pope’s blessing in Rome, began
  his reign in 1864. Distrusted by all parties as a stranger,
  in difficulties with the curia and clergy because he opposed
  their claims to have their most extravagant privileges restored,
  shamefully left in the lurch by Napoleon from fear of the
  threatening attitude of the North American Union, and then
  sold and betrayed by his own general Bazaine, this noble
  but unfortunate prince was at last sentenced by Juarez at a
  court-martial to be shot in 1867. Juarez now maintained his
  position till the end of his life in 1872, and strictly carried
  out his anticlerical reforms. After his death clericalism again
  raised her head, and the Jesuits expelled from Guatemala swarmed
  over the land. Yet constitutional sanction was given to the
  Juarez legislation at the congress of 1873. The Jesuits were
  driven across the frontiers, obstinate priests as well as a great
  number of nuns, who had gathered again in cloisters and received
  novices, were put in prison.--Also =Evangelization= advanced
  slowly under sanction of law, though regarded with disfavour
  by the people and interfered with often by the mob. It began
  in 1865 with the awakening of a Catholic priest Francisco
  Aguilar and a Dominican monk Manuel Aguas, through the reading
  of the Scriptures. They laid the foundation of the “_Iglesia
  de Jesus_” of converted Mexicans, with evangelical doctrine and
  apostolic-episcopal constitution, which has now 71 congregations
  throughout the whole country with about 10,000 souls. This
  movement received a new impulse in 1869, when a Chilian-born
  Anglican episcopal minister of a Spanish-speaking congregation
  in New York, called Riley, took the control of it and was in 1879
  consecrated its bishop. Besides this independent “_Church of
  Jesus_” North American missionaries of various denominations
  have wrought there since 1872 with slow but steady success.

  § 209.2. =In the Republics of Central and Southern America=, when
  the liberal party obtained the helm of government through almost
  incessant civil wars, religious freedom was generally proclaimed,
  civil marriage introduced, the Jesuits expelled, cloisters shut
  up, etc. But in =Ecuador=, president Moreno, aided by the clergy,
  concluded in 1862 a concordat with the curia by which throughout
  the country only the Catholic worship was tolerated, the bishops
  could condemn and confiscate any book, education was under the
  Jesuits, and the government undertook to employ the police in
  suppressing all errors and compelling all citizens to fulfil all
  their religious duties. And further the public resolved in 1873,
  although unable to pay the interest of the national debt, to hand
  over a tenth of all state revenues to the pope. But Moreno was
  murdered in 1875. The Jesuits, who were out of favour, left Quito.
  The tithe hitherto paid to the pope was immediately withheld,
  and in 1877 the concordat was abrogated. As Ecuador in Moreno,
  so =Peru= at the same time in Pierola had a dictator after the
  pope’s own heart. The republic had his misgovernment to thank for
  one defeat after another in the war with Chili.--=Bolivia=
  in 1872 declared that the Roman Catholic religion alone would
  be tolerated in the country, and suffered, in common with Peru,
  annihilating defeats at the hand of Chili.--When at St. Iago in
  Chili, during the festival of the Immaculate Conception in 1863,
  the Jesuit church La Compania was burnt and in it more than 2,000
  women and children consumed, the clergy pronounced this disaster
  an act of grace of the blessed Virgin, who wished to give the
  country a vast number of saints and martyrs. But here, too,
  the conflicts between church and state continued. In 1874 the
  Chilian episcopate pronounced the ban against the president and
  the members of the national council and of the Lower House who
  had favoured the introduction of a new penal code which secured
  liberty of worship, but it remained quite unheeded. When then the
  archiepiscopal chair of St. Iago became vacant in 1878, the pope
  refused on any condition to confirm the candidate appointed by
  the government. After the decisive victory over Peru and Bolivia,
  the government again in December, 1881, urgently insisted upon
  their presentation. The curia now sent to Chili, avowedly to
  obtain more accurate information, an apostolic delegate who
  took advantage of his position to stir up strife, so that the
  government was obliged to insist upon his recall. As the curia
  declined to do so, his passports were sent to the legate in
  January, 1883, and a presidential message was addressed to the
  next congress which demanded the separation of the church and
  state, with the introduction of civil marriage and register of
  civil station, as the only remaining means for putting down the
  confusion caused by papal tergiversation. The result of the long
  and heated debates that followed was the promulgation of a law
  by which Catholicism was deprived of the character of the state
  religion and the perfect equality of all forms of worship was
  proclaimed.--=Guatemala= in 1872 expelled the Jesuits whose power
  and wealth had become very great. In 1874 the president Borrias
  opened a new campaign against the clergy by forbidding them to
  wear the clerical dress except when discharging the duties of
  their office, and closing all the nunneries.--In =Venezuela=, in
  1872, Archbishop Guevara of Caracas, who had previously come into
  collision with the government by favouring the rebels, forbade
  his clergy taking part in the national festival, and put the
  cathedral in which it was to be celebrated under the interdict.
  Deposed and banished on this account, he continued from the
  British island of Trinidad his endeavours to stir up a new
  rebellion. The president, Guzman Blanco, after long fruitless
  negotiations with the papal nuncio, submitted in May, 1876, to
  the congress at St. Domingo the draft of a bill, which declared
  the national church wholly independent of Rome. The congress
  not only homologated his proposals, but carried them further,
  by abolishing the episcopal hierarchy and assigning its revenues
  to the national exchequer, for education. Now at last the Roman
  curia agreed to the deposition of Guevara and confirmed the
  nomination of his previously appointed successor. But president
  Blanco now asked congress to abolish the law, and this was agreed
  to.--In the United States of =Colombia= since 1853, and in the
  =Argentine Republic= since 1865, perfect liberty of faith and
  worship have been constitutionally secured. From the latter state
  the Jesuits had been banished for a long time but had managed
  to smuggle themselves in again. When in the beginning of 1875
  Archbishop Aneiros of Buenos Ayres addressed to the government
  which favoured the clerical party rather than to the congress
  which was the only competent court, a request to reinvest the
  Jesuits with the churches, cloisters, and properties held by them
  before their expulsion, a terrible outbreak took place, which
  the archbishop intensified to the utmost by issuing a violent
  pastoral. A mob of 30,000 men, convened by the students of the
  university, wrecked the palace of the archbishop, then attacked
  the Jesuit college, burnt all its furniture and ornaments on
  the streets and by means of petroleum soon reduced the building
  itself to flames. Only with difficulty did the military succeed
  in preventing further mischief. In October, 1884, the papal
  nuncio was expelled, because, when the government decidedly
  refused his request to prevent the spread of Protestant teaching
  and to place Sunday schools under the oversight of the bishops,
  he replied in a most violent and passionate manner. About the
  same time the republic of =Costa-rica= issued a law forbidding
  all religious orders, pronouncing all vows invalid, and
  threatening banishment against all who should contravene these
  enactments, and also an education act which forbade all public
  instruction apart from that provided by the State.

  § 209.3. =Brazil.=--In Brazil down to 1884, the “Catholic
  Apostolic Roman Religion” was, according to the constitution,
  the religion of the empire. But from 1828 there was a Protestant
  congregation in Rio de Janeiro, and through the inland districts,
  in consequence of immigration, there were 100 small evangelical
  congregations, with twenty-five ordained pastors, whose forms
  of worship were of various kinds. In earlier times Protestant
  marriage was regarded as concubinage, but in 1851 a law was
  passed which gave it civil recognition. But the bishops held
  to their previous views and demanded of married converts a
  repetition of the ceremony. Since 1870, however, the government
  has energetically opposed the claims of the clergy who wished
  only to acknowledge the authority of Rome. Protestant marriages
  were pronounced equally legitimate with Catholic marriages,
  no civil penalties are incurred by excommunication, all papal
  bulls are subject to the approval of the government, and it was
  insisted that announcement should be made of all clergy nominated.
  The clergy considered freemasonry the chief source of all this
  liberal current, and against it therefore they directed all their
  forces. The pope assisted by his brief of May, 1873, condemning
  freemasonry. At the head of the rebel prelates stood Don
  Vitalis Gonsalvez de Oliveira, bishop of Olinda and Pernambuco.
  He published the papal brief without asking the imperial
  permission, pronounced the ban upon all freemasons and suspended
  the interdict over all associations which refused to expel
  masonic brothers from their membership. In vain the government
  demanded its withdrawal. It then accused him of an attack
  upon the constitution. The supreme court ordered his detention,
  and he was placed in the state prison at Rio de Janeiro in
  January, 1874. The trial ended by his being sentenced to four
  years’ imprisonment, which the emperor as an act of grace
  commuted to detention in a fortress, and set him free in a
  year and a half. In consequence of this occurrence the Jesuits
  were, in 1874, expelled from the country. The increasing advent
  of monks and nuns from Europe led the government, in 1884, to
  appoint a commission to carry out the law already passed in 1870,
  for the secularization of all monastic property after providing
  pensions for those entitled to support. In the same year all
  naturalized non-Catholics were pronounced eligible for election
  to the imperial parliament and to the provincial assemblies. The
  members belonging to the evangelical churches now number about
  50,000, of whom 30,000 are Germans.[566]




              V. Opponents of Church and of Christianity.


        § 210. SECTARIANS AND ENTHUSIASTS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
                     AND ORTHODOX RUSSIAN DOMAINS.

  It cannot be denied that since the Tridentine attempt to define
the church doctrine far fewer sects condemning the church as such
have sprung from Roman Catholicism than from Protestantism. Yet such
phenomena are not wanting in the nineteenth century. Their scarcity
is abundantly made up for by the numberless degenerations and errors
(§ 191) which the Catholic church or its representatives in the
higher and lower grades of the clergy not only fell into, but actually
provoked and furthered, and thus encouraged an unhealthy love for
religious peculiarities. Were the absence of new heretical, sectarian
and fanatical developments something to be gloried in for itself alone,
the Eastern church, with its absolute stability, would obtain this
distinction in a far higher degree. In the Russian church, however,
the multitude of sects which amid manifold oppressions and persecutions
continue to exist to the present day, in spite of many persistent and
even condemnable errors, witnesses to a deep religious need in the
Russian people.

  § 210.1. =Sects and Fanatics in the Roman Catholic Domain=
  (§ 187, 6-8, § 190).--On the Catholic Irvingites see § 211, 10.

    1. =The Order of New Templars= sprang from the Freemasons
       (§ 172, 2). Soon after their establishment in France the
       Jesuits sought to carry out their own hierarchical ideas.
       The fable of an uninterrupted connection between freemasonry
       as a “temple of humanity” and the Templars of the Middle
       Ages, and the introduction therewith in their secret
       ceremonies of exercises, borrowed from the chivalry of
       romance, afforded a means toward this end. The idea was
       started in the Jesuit college at Claremont and was approved
       and accepted by the local lodge. In A.D. 1754 a great
       number of their noble members, who were disgusted with the
       Jesuit templar farce, withdrew in order as “New Templars”
       to continue the old order in the spirit of modern times. In
       consequence, however, of the revolution that broke out in
       A.D. 1789 they could no longer hold their ground as a band
       of nobles. Napoleon favoured the reorganization of the order
       freed from those limits. The day of Molay’s death (§ 112, 7)
       was publicly celebrated with great pomp in Paris, A.D. 1808
       and the order spread among all French populations. On the
       Bourbon restoration the grand-master was, at the instigation
       of the Jesuits, cast into prison and the order suppressed.
       After the July revolution he was liberated and a new temple
       was opened in Paris in A.D. 1833. The show-loving Parisians
       for a long time took pleasure in the peculiar rites and
       costume of the templars. When this interest declined the
       order passed out of view. Its religion, which professed
       to be a primitive revelation carried down in the Greek and
       Egyptian mysteries, from which Moses borrowed, then further
       developed by Christ and transmitted in esoteric tradition by
       John and his successors the grand-masters of the templars,
       taught a divine trinity of being, act and consciousness, the
       eternity of the world alongside of God and an indwelling of
       God in man. It declared the Roman Catholic church to be the
       only true Christianity (_église chrétienne primitive_). Its
       sacred book consisted of an apocryphal gospel of John in
       accordance with its own notions.

    2. On the communistic society of =St. Simonians=, which also
       sprang up in France, see § 212, 2.

    3. St. Simon’s secretary was =Aug. Comte=, the founder of the
       Positivist philosophical school (§ 174, 2) and he maintained
       intimate relations with his master all through life. In
       his later years he undertook by carrying his philosophical
       doctrine into the practical domain to sketch out a “religion
       of humanity,” and thus became the founder of a Positivist
       religious sect. The men of science indeed who had adopted
       his philosophical principles (Littré, Renan, Taine, Lewes,
       Leslie Stephens, Tyndall, Huxley, Draper, etc.), repudiate
       it; but in the middle and lower ranks some were found
       longing for an object of worship, who endeavoured on the
       basis of his _Calendrier positiviste_ and _Catechisme
       positiviste_ to form a religious society for the worship
       of humanity. His festival calendar divides the year into
       thirteen months of four weeks each, named after the thirteen
       great benefactors of mankind (among whom Christ does not
       appear), while the weeks are named after lesser heroes. By
       the profound veneration of woman, which savours greatly of
       Mariolatry, as well as by the fantastic worship of heroes,
       geniuses and scholars, which is a mimicry of the popish
       saint worship, and by the adoption of a sacerdotalism like
       that of Catholicism, this religion of humanity shows itself
       to be an antichristian growth on Roman Catholic soil.

  § 210.2.

    4. =Thomas Pöschl=, in the second decade of the century,
       presents an instance of a degeneration of originally
       pietistic tendencies into mischievous fanaticism. A
       Catholic priest at Ampfelwang near Linz, he sought under
       the influence of Sailer’s mysticism to awaken in his
       congregation a more lively Christianity by means of
       prayer meetings and the circulation of tracts, in which
       he proclaimed the approaching end of the world. When the
       district in which he lived was, in 1814, attached to Austria,
       he was committed to prison, and his followers accepted as
       their leader the peasant =Jos. Haas=, who led them further
       still into fanatical excesses. His fanaticism at length went
       so far that on Good Friday of 1817 a young maiden belonging
       to their party suffered a voluntary death after the example
       of Christ for her brothers and sisters. Pöschl professed the
       deepest horror at this cruel deed for which he was blamed.
       He died in close monastic confinement in 1837.

    5. The Antinomian sect of the =Antonians=, most numerous in
       the Canton Bern, had its beginning among the Roman Catholics.
       Its founder was Antoni Unternährer, born and reared at
       Shüpfheim, near Lucerne, in the Catholic faith. From 1802
       he resided at Amfoldingen, near Thun, where he stood in
       high repute among the peasants as a quack doctor, gave
       himself out as the son of God a second time become man, and
       proclaimed by word and writing the perfect redemption from
       the curse of the law by the introduction of the true freedom
       of the sons of God, which was to show itself first of all
       in the absolutely unrestricted intercourse of the sexes.
       After two years’ confinement in a house of correction he was
       banished from the Canton Bern and transported to his native
       place, where, abandoning all pastoral duties, he died in a
       police cell in 1814. The sect, which had meanwhile spread
       widely, and at Gsteig near Interlaken had obtained a new
       leader in the person of Benedict Schori, a third incarnation
       of Christ, could not be finally suppressed, notwithstanding
       the liberal use of the prison, till the beginning of 1840.
       Even at this day scattered remnants of Antonians are to be
       found in Canton Bern.

    6. When the Austrian constitution of 1849 gave unconditional
       religious toleration, the Bohemian =Adamites= (§ 115, 5),
       of whom remnants under the mask of Catholicism had continued
       down to the nineteenth century, ventured again publicly
       to engage in proselytising efforts. An official enquiry
       instituted on this occasion declared that the sect,
       consisting of Bohemian peasants and artisans, had its
       headquarters among the mystics of the Krüdener school,
       that its religious doctrine was a mixture of communism,
       freethinking and quietism, and that its members were in
       their ordinary public life blameless, but that in their
       secret nightly assemblies, where they dispensed with
       clothes, they celebrated orgies regardless of marriage
       or relationship.

    7. =David Lazzaretti=, formerly a carrier in Tuscany,
       appeared in his native place after an absence of several
       years, in 1872, declaring that he was descended from a
       natural son of Charlemagne and had been entrusted by the
       Apostle Peter with a message to the pope, pointing to a
       cross that had been burnt upon his brow by the apostle
       himself. He startled those of the Vatican, where he was
       quite unknown, by declaring that the bones of his ancestors
       lay under the ruins of an old Franciscan cloister in Sabina,
       of whose existence nobody was aware, the discovery of
       which seemed to vouch for his claims. These were all the
       more readily admitted when it was found that he made the
       restoration of the Pope’s temporal power his main task. The
       number of his adherents, mostly peasants, soon increased
       immensely, reaching, it is said, 40,000. On Monte Labro they
       built a church with a strong “David’s Tower,” over which
       “St. David” appointed two priests who, when they had made
       certain changes in worship at the call of the prophet, were
       excommunicated by the bishop. David now began to spread
       his socialistic and communistic ideas. He insisted that
       his adherents should surrender their goods to him as
       representative of the society, and promised down to
       December 31st, 1890, the introduction of community of goods
       throughout Italy and afterwards in other countries. In
       Arcidosso, the prophet’s birthplace, a beginning was to be
       made, but in its overthrow on August 18th, 1878, he met his
       death, and his befooled followers waited in vain for the
       fulfilment of his dying promise that he would rise again
       on the third day.

  § 210.3. =Russian Sects and Fanatics.=--After the attempt under
  Nicholas I. at the forcible conversion of the =Raskolniks=,
  especially the purely schismatic =Starowerzians= or Old Believers
  (§ 163, 10), had proved fruitless, the government of Alexander II.
  by patience and concession took a surer way to reconciliation and
  restoration. In October, 1874, their marriages, births and deaths,
  which had hitherto been without legal recognition, were put on
  the regular register and so their lawful rights of inheritance
  were secured. Under Alexander III. in 1883 an imperial decree was
  issued, which gave them permission to celebrate divine service
  after their own methods in their chapels, which had not before
  the legal standing of churches, and declared them also eligible
  for public appointments.--To the =Duchoborzians= (§ 166, 2),
  sorely oppressed under Catherine II. and Paul I., Alexander I.,
  after they had laid before him the confession which they had
  adopted, granted toleration, but assigned them a separate
  residence in the Taurus district. Under Nicholas I. they were to
  the number of 3,000 transported to the Transcaucasian mountains
  in 1841, where they were called Duchoborje.--The Württemberg
  Pietist colonists of South Russia originated among the peasants
  the widespread sect of the =Stundists= soon after the abolition
  of serfdom in 1863. The originator of those separatist meetings
  for the study of Scripture, which led first of all to the
  condemnation of image worship and making the sign of the cross
  as unbiblical, and subsequently to a complete withdrawal from the
  worship of the orthodox church and the forming of conventicles,
  was the peasant and congregational elder Ratusny of Osnowa near
  Odessa, to whom, at a later period, with equal propagandist zeal,
  the peasant Balabok attached himself. The latter was, in 1871,
  sentenced to one year’s imprisonment at Kiev and the loss
  of civil rights, and in 1873, at Odessa, a great criminal
  prosecution was instituted against Ratusny and all the other
  leaders of the sect, which, however, after proceeding for five
  years ended in a verdict of acquittal. A process started in 1878
  against the so-called =Schaloputs= had a similar issue. This sect,
  spread most widely among the Cossacks of Cuban, rejects the Old
  Testament, the sacraments and the doctrine of the resurrection,
  but believes in a continued effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the
  prophets of the church who have prepared themselves for their
  vocation by complete abstinence from flesh and spirituous liquor
  as well as by incessant prayer and frequent fasting.

  § 210.4. About the middle of the eighteenth century among the
  “_Men of God_,” the strict interpretation of the prescriptions of
  their founder Danila Filipow (§ 163, 10) had led many to abstain
  wholly from sexual relations; when a peasant Andrew Selivanov
  appeared as a reformer and founded the sect of the =Skopzen=
  or mutilators, who, building on misinterpreted passages of
  Scripture (Matt. v. 28-30, xix. 12; Rev. xiv. 4) insisted upon
  the destruction of sexual desire by castration and excision of
  the female breasts, generally performed under anæsthetics, as a
  necessary condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. The
  first Skopzic congregation was gathered round him in the village
  of Sosnowka. The “men of God” enraged at his success denounced
  him to the government. He was punished with the knout and
  condemned in 1774 to hard labour at Irkutzk. The idea that
  Peter III., who died in 1762, was still alive, then widely
  prevailed. The “men of God” had also adopted this opinion,
  and proclaimed him their last-appearing Christ, who would soon
  return from his hiding-place to call to account all unbelievers.
  Selivanov, who knew of this, now gave himself out for the exiled
  monarch, and was accepted as such by his adherents in his native
  place. When Paul I., Peter’s son, assumed the reins of government
  in 1796, a Skopzic merchant of Moscow told him secretly that his
  father was living at Irkutzk under the name of Selivanov. The
  emperor therefore brought him to Petersburg and shut him up as an
  imbecile in an asylum. After Paul’s death, however, his adherents
  obtained his release. He now lived for eighteen years in honour
  at Petersburg, till in 1820 the court again interfered and had
  him confined in a cloister at Suzdal, where after some years
  he died. Sorely persecuted by Nicholas I. many of his followers
  migrated to Moldavia and Walachia where they, dwelling in
  separate quarters at Jassy, Bucharest and Galatz, lived as owners
  of coach-hiring establishments, and by rich presents obtained
  proselytes. Still more vigorously was the propaganda carried on
  in the Moscow colonies on the Sea of Azov. There in Morschansk
  lived the spiritual head of all Russian Skopzen, the rich
  merchant Plotizyn. After the government got on the track of
  this society, Plotizyn’s house was searched and a correspondence
  revealing the wide extension of the sect was found, together with
  a treasure of several, some say as much as thirty, millions of
  roubles, which, however, in great part again disappeared in a
  mysterious manner. Plotizyn and his companions were banished
  to Siberia and sentenced to hard labour, the less seriously
  implicated to correction in a cloister.--The secret doctrine of
  the Skopzen so far as is known is as follows: God had intended
  man to propagate not by sexual intercourse but by a holy kiss.
  They broke this command and this constituted the fall. In the
  fulness of time God sent his Son into the world. The central
  point of his preaching transmitted to us in a greatly distorted
  form was the introduction of the baptism of fire (Matt. iii. 11),
  _i.e._ mutilation by hot irons for which, in consideration
  of human weakness, a baptism of castration may be substituted
  (Matt. xix. 12). Origen is regarded by them as the greatest saint
  of the ancient church; to his example all saints conformed who
  are represented as beardless or with only a slight beard. The
  promised return of the Christ (in this alone diverging from the
  doctrine of the “men of God”), took place in the person of the
  emperor Peter III. whom an unstained virgin bore, who was called
  the empress Elizabeth Petrovna. The latter after some years
  transferred the government to a lady of the court resembling her
  and retired into private life under the name of Akulina Ivanovna,
  where she still remains invisible behind golden walls, waiting
  for the things that are to come. Her son Peter III., who had
  also himself undergone the baptism of fire, escaped the snares of
  his wife, reappeared under the name of Selivanov, performed many
  miracles and converted multitudes, obtained as a reward the knout,
  and was at last sent to Siberia. Emperor Paul recalled him and
  was converted by him. Under Alexander I. he was again arrested
  and imprisoned in the cloister of Suzdal. But he was conveyed
  thence by a divine miracle to Irkutzk, where he now lives in
  secret, whence at his own time he shall return to judge the
  living and the dead.--They kept up an outward connection with the
  state church although they regarded it as the apocalyptic whore
  of Babylon. In their own secret services inspired psalms were
  sung, and after exciting dances prophecies were uttered.[567]


       § 211. SECTARIES AND ENTHUSIASTS IN THE PROTESTANT DOMAIN.

  The United States of America with their peculiar constitution formed
the favourite ground for the gathering and moulding of sects during
this age. There, besides the older colonies of Quakers, Baptists and
Methodists from England, we meet with Swedenborgianism and Unitarianism,
while Baptists and Methodists began to send missionaries into Europe,
and from England the Salvation Army undertook a campaign for the
conquest of the world. But also on the European continent independent
fanatical developments made their appearance.--A new combination of
communism with religious enthusiasm is represented by the Harmonists and
by the Perfectionists in North America. The Grusinian Separatists and
the Bavarian Chiliasts are millenarians of German extraction, of whom
the former sought deliverance from the prevailing antichristian spirit
in removal from, and the latter in removal to, South Russia. The
Amen churches sought to gather God’s people of the Jewish Christian
communities together in Palestine, while the so-called German Temple
sought to gather the Gentile Christians. As Latter Day Saints, besides
the Adventists, the Darbyites established themselves on an independent
basis; the Irvingites, with revival of the apostolic offices and
charisms, and their American caricature, the Mormons, with the addition
of socialistic and fantastic gnostic tendencies. The religion of the
Taiping rebellion in China presented the rare phenomenon of a national
Chinese Christianity of native growth, and a still rarer manifestation
is met with in American-European spiritualism with pretended spirit
revelations from the other world.

  § 211.1. =The Methodist Propaganda.=--From 1850 the American
  Methodists, both the Albrechtsleute (§ 208, 4) and the Episcopal
  Methodists, have sent out numerous missionaries, mostly Germans
  into Germany, whose zeal has won considerable success among
  the country people. In North-West Germany Bremen is their chief
  station, whence they have spread to Sweden, Central and Southern
  Germany, and Switzerland, and have stations in Frankfort,
  Carlsruhe, Heilbronn, and Zürich.--Of a more evanescent character
  was the attempt made on Germany by the so-called =Oxford Holiness
  Movement=. In 1866 the North American Methodists celebrated their
  centenary in New York by the appointment of a great revival and
  holiness committee, in which were also members of many other
  denominations. Among them the manufacturer, =Pearsall Smith=, of
  Philadelphia, converted in 1871, exhibited extraordinary zeal. In
  September, 1874, he held at Oxford great revival meetings, from
  which the designation of the Oxford movement had its origin. By
  some Germans there present his opinions were carried to Germany.
  In spring, 1875, he began his second European missionary tour.
  While his two companions, the revivalists Moody and Sankey,
  travelled through England for the conversion of the masses, Smith
  went to Germany, and proceeding from Berlin on to Switzerland,
  gave addresses in English, that were interpreted, in ten of the
  large cities. The most pious among clergy and laity flocked from
  far and near to hear him. The new apostle’s journey became more
  and more a triumphal march. He was lauded as a reformer called
  to complete the work of Luther; as a prophet, who was to fructify
  the barren wastes of Germany with the water of life. The core of
  his doctrine was: Perfect holiness and the attainment of absolute
  perfection, not hereafter, but now! now! now! with the constant
  refrain: “_Jesus saves me now_;” not remission of sins through
  justification by faith in the atoning efficacy of Christ’s blood,
  which only avails for outward sinful actions, but immediate
  extinction of sins by Christ in us, proved in living, unfaltering,
  inner, personal experience, etc. By a great international and
  interconfessional meeting at Brighton, lasting for ten days, in
  June, 1875, at which many German pastors, induced by the payment
  of travelling expenses, were present, the crown was put upon
  the work. But at the height of his triumph, under the daily
  increasing tension and excitement the apostle of holiness showed
  himself to be a poor sinful son of man, for he strayed into
  errors, “if not practically, at least theoretically,” which his
  admirers at first referred to mental aberration, but which they
  hid from the eyes of the world under a veil of mystery. Toward
  the end of the Brighton conference he declared to his hearers:
  “Thus plunge into a life of divine unconcern!” and, “All Europe
  lies at my feet.” And in subsequent private conversations he
  developed a system of ethics that “would suit Utah rather than
  England,” to which he then so conformed his own conduct that
  his admirers, “although satisfied of the purity of his own
  intentions,” were obliged energetically to repudiate and with
  all speed send away across the sea the man whom their own
  unmeasured adulation had deceived.

  § 211.2. =The Salvation Army.=--An extremely fantastic caricature
  of English Methodism is the =Salvation Army=. The Methodist
  evangelist, =William Booth=, who in 1865 founded in one of the
  lowest quarters of London a new mission station, fell upon the
  idea in 1878, in order to make an impression on the rude masses,
  to give his male and female helpers a military organisation,
  discipline and uniform, and with military banners and music
  to undertake a campaign against the kingdom of the devil. The
  General of the Salvationists is Booth himself, his wife is his
  adjutant, his eldest daughter field-marshal; his fellow-workers
  male and female are his soldiers, cadets and officers of various
  ranks; chief of the staff is Booth’s eldest son. Their services
  are conducted according to military forms; their orchestra of
  trombone, drum and trumpet is called the Hallelujah Brass Band.
  Their journal, with an issue of 400,000, is the _War Cry_;
  another for children, is _The Little Soldier_, in which Jane,
  four years old, dilates on the experiences of her inner life; and
  Tommy, eleven years old, is sure that, having served the devil
  for eleven years, he will now fight for King Jesus; and Lucy,
  nine years old, rejoices in being washed in the blood of the Lamb.
  The army attained its greatest success in England. Its numerous
  “prisoners of war” from the devil’s army (prostitutes, drunkards,
  thieves, etc.) are led at the parade as trophies of war, and
  tell of their conversion, whereupon the command of the general,
  “Fire a Volley,” calls forth thousands of hallelujahs. Liberal
  collections and unsought contributions, embracing several
  donations of a £1,000 and more, are given to the General, not
  only to pay his soldiers, but also to rent or to purchase and fit
  up theatres, concert halls, circuses, etc., for their meetings,
  and to build large new “barracks.” Its wonderful success has
  secured for the army many admirers and patrons, even in the
  highest ranks of society. Queen Victoria herself testified to
  Mrs. Booth her high satisfaction with her noble work. At the
  Convocation, too, in the Upper as well as the Lower House,
  distinguished prelates spoke favourably of its methods and
  results, and so encouraged the formation of a Church Army, which,
  under the direction of the mission preacher Aitken, pursues
  similar ways to those of the Salvation Army, without, however,
  its spectacular displays, and has lately extended its exertions
  to India. The temperance party after the same model has formed a
  Blue Ribbon Army, the members of which, distinguished by wearing
  a piece of blue ribbon in the buttonhole, confine themselves
  to fighting against alcohol. In opposition to it public-house
  keepers and their associates formed a Yellow Ribbon Army, which
  has as its ensign the yellow silk bands of cigar bundles. Soon
  after the first great success of the Salvation Army, a Skeleton
  Army was formed out of the lowest dregs of the London mob,
  which, with a banner bearing the device of a skeleton, making
  a noise with all conceivable instruments, and singing obscene
  street songs to sacred melodies, interrupted the marches of the
  Salvation, and afterwards of the Church, Army: throwing stones,
  filthy rotten apples and eggs, and even storming and demolishing
  their “barracks.”--In 1880 a detachment of the Salvation
  Army, with Railton at its head, assisted by seven Hallelujah
  Lasses, made a first campaign in America, with New York as
  its head-quarters. In the following year, under Miss Booth, it
  invaded France, where it issues a daily bulletin, “_En Avant_.”
  In 1882 it appeared in Australia, then in India, where Chunder
  Sen, the founder of the Brama-Somaj, showed himself favourable.
  In Switzerland it broke ground in 1882, in Sweden in 1884, and
  in Germany, at Stuttgart, in November, 1886. Africa, Spain, Italy,
  etc., followed in succession. These foreign corps outside of
  England also found considerable success. Almost everywhere they
  met with opposition, the magistrates often forbidding their
  meetings, and inflicting fines and imprisonment, and the mob
  resorting to all sorts of violent interference. Nowhere were both
  sorts of opponents so persistent as in Switzerland in 1883 and
  1884, especially in Lausanne, Geneva, Neuenburg, Bern, Beil, etc.
  Although General Booth himself at the annual meeting in April,
  1884, boasted that £393,000 had been collected during the past
  year for the purposes of the army, and over 846 barracks in
  eighteen countries of the world had been opened, and now even
  spoke of strengthening the army by establishing a Salvation Navy,
  the increasing extravagances caused by the army itself, as well
  as the far greater improprieties of those more or less associated
  with it, has drawn away many of its former supporters.

  § 211.3. =Baptists and Quakers.=--=Baptist= sympathies
  and tendencies often appeared in Germany apart from an
  anti-ecclesiastical pietism or mysticism. But this aberration
  first assumed considerable proportions when a Hamburg merchant,
  Oncken, who had been convinced by his private Bible reading of
  the untenableness of infant baptism, was baptized by an American
  baptist in 1834, and now not only founded the first German
  baptist congregation in Hamburg, but also proved unwearied in
  his efforts to extend the sect over all Germany and Scandinavia
  by missions and tract distribution. Oncken died in 1884. Thus
  gradually there were formed about a hundred new Baptist German
  congregations in Mecklenburg, Brandenburg (Berlin), Pomerania,
  Silesia, East Prussia (Memel, Tilsit, etc.), Westphalia,
  Wupperthal, Hesse, Württemberg and Switzerland. In Sweden
  (250 congregations with 18,000 souls) they were mainly recruited
  from the “Readers,” who after 1850 went over in crowds (§ 201, 2).
  They also found entrance into Denmark and Courland, but in
  all cases almost exclusively among the uncultured classes
  of labourers and peasants. After long but vain attempts at
  suppression by the governments during the reactionary period
  of 1850, they obtained under the liberal policy of the next two
  decades more or less religious toleration in most states. They
  called themselves the society of “baptized Christians,” and
  maintained that they were “the visible church of the saints,”
  the chosen people of God, in contrast to the “hereditary
  church and the church of all and sundry,” in which they saw the
  apocalyptic Babylon. Even the Mennonites who “sprinkle,” instead
  of immersing, “all,” _i.e._ without proper sifting, they regard
  as a “hereditary” church. With the Anglo-American Baptists they
  do indeed hold fellowship, but take exception to them in several
  points, especially about open communion.--A peculiar order of
  Baptists has arisen in Hungary in the =Nazarenes= or Nazirites,
  or as they call themselves: “Followers of Christ.” Founded
  in 1840 by Louis Henefey originally a Catholic smith, who had
  returned home from Switzerland, the sect obtained numerous
  adherents from all three churches, most largely from the Reformed
  church, favoured perhaps by the not yet altogether extinguished
  reminiscences of the Baptist persecutions of the eighteenth
  century (§ 163, 2). They practised strict asceticism, refused
  to take oaths or engage in military service, and kept the bare
  Puritan forms of worship, in which any one was allowed to preach
  whom the Holy Spirit enlightened. Their congregations embraced
  weak and strong friends, and also weak and strong brethren.
  The strong friends after receiving baptism joined the ranks of
  weak brethren, and then again became strong brethren on their
  admission to the Lord’s Supper. The church officers were singers,
  teachers, evangelists, elders, and bishops.--In North America
  =Quakerism=, under the influence of increasing material
  prosperity, had lost much of its primitive strictness in life
  and manners. The more lax were styled _Wet-_, and their more
  rigorous opponents _Dry-Quakers_. Enthusiasm over the American
  War of Independence of 1776-1783, spreading in their ranks, led
  to further departures from the rigid standard of early times.
  Those who took weapons in their hands were designated _Fighting
  Quakers_. The General Assembly disapproved but tolerated these
  departures; neither the Wet nor the Fighting Quakers were
  excommunicated, but they were not allowed any part in the
  government of the community. In 1822 a party appeared among
  them, led by Elias Hicks, which carried the original tendency of
  Quakerism to separate itself from historical Christianity so far
  as to deny the divinity of Christ, and to allow no controlling
  authority to Scripture in favour of the unrestricted sway
  of reason and conscience. This departure from the traditions
  of Quakerism, however, met with vigorous opposition, and the
  protesting party, known as _Evangelical Friends_, pronounced more
  decidedly than ever for the authority of Scripture. In England,
  notwithstanding the wealth and position of its adherents,
  Quakerism, since the second half of the eighteenth century, has
  suffered a slow but steady decrease, while even in America, to
  say the least, no advance can be claimed. In Holland, Friesland,
  and Holstein, Quaker missionaries had found some success
  among the Mennonites, without, however, forming any separate
  communities. In 1786 some English Quakers succeeded in winning
  a small number of proselytes in Hesse, who in 1792, under the
  protection of the prince of Waldeck, formed a little congregation
  at Friedersthal, near Pyrmont, which still maintains its
  existence.--On the sects of Jumpers and Shakers, variously
  related to primitive, fanatical Quakerism, see § 170, 7.[568]

  § 211.4. =Swedenborgians and Unitarians.=--In the nineteenth
  century =Swedenborgianism= has found many adherents. In England,
  Scotland and North America the sect has founded many missionary
  and tract societies. In Württemberg the procurator Hofacker
  and the librarian Tafel, partly by editions and translations of
  the writings of Swedenborg, partly by their own writings, were
  specially zealous in vindicating and spreading their views. A
  general conference of all the congregations in Great Britain and
  Ireland in 1828 published a confession of faith and catechism,
  and thirteen journals (three English, seven American, Tafel’s
  in German, one Italian and one Swedish) represent the interests
  of the party. The liberal spirit of modern times has in various
  directions introduced modifications in its doctrine. Its
  Sabellian opposition to the church doctrine of the Trinity
  and its Pelagian opposition to the doctrine of justification,
  have been retained, and its spiritualising of eschatological
  ideas has been intensified, but the theosophical magical
  elements have been wholly set aside and scarcely any reference
  is ever made to revelations from the other world.--From early
  times the =Unitarians= had a well ordered and highly favoured
  ecclesiastical institution in Transylvania (§ 163, 1). But in
  England the law still threatened them with a death sentence. This
  law had not indeed for a long time been carried into effect, and
  in 1813 it was formally abrogated. There are now in England about
  400 small Unitarian congregations with some 300,000 souls. The
  famous chemist Jos. Priestly may be regarded as the founder of
  North American Unitarianism (§ 171, 1), although only after his
  death in 1804 did the movement which he represented spread widely
  through the country. Then in a short time hundreds of Unitarian
  congregations were formed. Their most celebrated leaders were
  W. Ellery Channing, who died in 1842, and Theodore Parker, who
  died in 1860, both of Boston.

  § 211.5. =Extravagantly Fanatical Manifestations.=--The English
  woman Johanna Southcote declared that she was the “woman in the
  sun” of Revelation xii. or the Lamb’s wife. In 1801 she came
  forth with her prophecies. Her followers, the =New Israelites= or
  Sabbatarians, so called because they observed the Old Testament
  law of the Sabbath, founded a chapel in London for their worship.
  A beautiful cradle long stood ready to receive the promised
  Messiah, but Johanna died in 1814 without giving birth to him.--A
  horrible occurrence, similar to that recorded in § 210, 2, took
  place some years later, in 1823, in the village of Wildenspuch in
  Canton Zürich. =Margaret Peter=, a peasant’s daughter, excited by
  morbid visions in early youth, was on this account expelled from
  Canton Aargau, and was carried still farther in the direction
  of extreme mysticism by the vicar John Ganz, by whom she was
  introduced to Madame de Krüdener (§ 176, 2). Amid continual
  heavenly visions and revelations, as well as violent conflicts
  with the devil and his evil spirits, she gathered a group of
  faithful followers, by whom she was revered as a highly gifted
  saint, among them a melancholy shoemaker, Morf, whom Ganz
  introduced to her. The spiritual love relationship between the
  two in an unguarded hour took a sensual form and led to the
  birth of a child, which Morf’s forbearing wife after successfully
  simulating pregnancy adopted as her own. This deep fall, for
  which she wholly blamed the devil, drove her fanaticism to
  madness. The ridiculous proceedings in her own house, where for a
  whole day she and her adherents beat with fists and hammers what
  they supposed to be the devil, led the police to interfere. But
  before orders arrived from Zürich, she found refuge in an asylum,
  and there the end soon came. Margaret assured her followers that
  in order that Christ might fully triumph and Satan be overthrown,
  blood must be shed for the salvation of many thousand souls. Her
  younger sister Elizabeth voluntarily allowed herself to be slain,
  and she herself with almost incredible courage allowed her hands
  and feet to be nailed to the wood and then with a stroke of the
  knife was killed, under the promise that she as well as her
  sister should rise again on the third day. The tragedy ended
  by the apprehension and long confinement of those concerned in
  it.--The sect of =Springers= in Ingermannland had its origin
  in 1813. Arising out of a religious excitement not countenanced
  by the church authorities, they held that each individual
  needed immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit for his soul’s
  salvation. So soon as they believed that this was obtained,
  the presence of the Spirit was witnessed to by ecstatic prayer,
  singing and shouting joined with handshaking and springing
  in their assemblies. The special illumination required as its
  correlate a special sanctification, and this they sought not only
  in repudiation of marriage, but also in abstinence from flesh,
  beer, spirits and tobacco. The “holy love,” prized instead of
  marriage, however, here also led to sensual errors, and the
  result was that many after the example of the Skopzen (§ 210, 4)
  resorted to the surer means of castration.--Among the Swedish
  peasants in 1842 appeared the singular phenomenon of the =Crying
  Voices= (_Röstar_). Uneducated laymen, and more particularly
  women and even children, after convulsive fits broke out into
  deep mutterings of repentance and prophesyings of approaching
  judgment. The substance of their proclamations, however, was not
  opposed to the church doctrine, and the criers were themselves
  the most diligent frequenters of church and sacrament.--In the
  beginning of 1870 the wife of a settler at Leonerhofe, near San
  Leopoldo in Brazil, =Jacobina Maurer=, became famous among the
  careless colonists of that region as a pious miracle-working
  prophetess. In religious assemblies which she originated, she
  gave forth her fantastic revelations based upon allegorical
  interpretations of Scripture, and founded a congregation of the
  “elect” with a communistic constitution, in which she assumed
  to herself all church offices as the Christ come again. Rude
  abuse and maltreatment of these “Muckers” on the part of the
  “unbelieving,” and the interference of the police, who arrested
  some of the more zealous partisans of the female Christ, brought
  the fanaticism to its utmost pitch. Jacobina now declared it the
  duty of believers to prepare for the bliss of the millennium by
  rooting out all the godless. Isolated murders were the prelude
  of the night of horror, June 25th-26th, 1874, on which well
  organized Mucker-bands, abundantly furnished with powder and shot,
  went forth murdering and burning through the district for miles
  around. The military sent out against them did not succeed in
  putting down the revolt before August 2nd, after the prophetess
  with many of her adherents had fallen in a fanatically brave
  resistance.

  § 211.6. =Christian Communistic Sects.=--The only soil upon which
  these could flourish was that of the Free States of North America.
  Besides the small Shaker communities (§ 170, 7) still surviving
  in 1858, the following new fraternities are the most important:

    1. The =Harmonites=. The dissatisfaction caused among the
       Württemberg Pietists by the introduction of liturgical
       innovations led to several migrations in the beginning
       of the century. Geo. Rapp, a simple peasant from the
       village of Iptingen, went to America in 1803 or 1804
       with about six hundred adherents, and settled in the valley
       of Connoquenessing, near Pittsburg in Pennsylvania. As a
       fundamental principle of this “Harmony Association,” which
       honoured father Rapp as autocratic patriarch, prophet and
       high priest, and with him believed in the near approach of
       the second advent, the community of goods holds a prominent
       place. By diligence and industry in agriculture, labour
       and manufactures, they reached great prosperity under the
       able leadership of their patriarch. In 1807 the community,
       by a resolution of its own to which Rapp agreed, resolved
       to abstain from marriage, so that henceforth no children
       were born nor marriages performed. A falling off in numbers
       was made up in 1817 by new arrivals from Württemberg and
       afterwards by the adoption of children. Industrial reasons
       led the community in 1814 to colonize Wabashthal in Indiana,
       where they built the town of Harmony, which, however, in
       1823, on account of its unhealthy situation, they sold
       to the Scotchman Robert Owen (§ 212, 3), and then founded
       for themselves the town of Economy, not far from Pittsburg,
       where they still reside. In 1831 an adventurer, Bernard
       Müller, appeared among them, who, at Offenbach, had, for
       a long time, under the name of Proli, played a brilliant
       part as a prophet called to establish universal spiritual
       monarchy, and then, when in danger from the courts of law,
       had fled to America. In Economy, where he passed himself
       off as Count Maximilian von Leon, persecuted on account
       of his belief in the second coming, he found as such a
       hearty welcome, and within a year, by his agitation for
       the reintroduction of marriage and worldly enjoyments, drew
       away a third part of the community, embracing 250 souls.
       The dissentients with 105,000 dollars from the common
       purse withdrew and settled under the leadership of the
       pseudo-count as a New Jerusalem society in the neighbouring
       village of Philippsburg. But the new patriarch conducted
       himself so riotously that he was obliged in 1833 to flee to
       Louisiana, where in the same year he died of cholera. His
       people now in deep distress turned to Dr. Keil, a mystic
       come from Prussia, who reorganised them after the pattern
       of Rapp’s communistic society, but with liberty to marry,
       and brought them to a prosperous condition in two colonies
       mainly founded by him at Bethel in Missouri and Aurora
       in Oregon. Economy, too, flourished in spite of the heavy
       losses it sustained, so that now the common property of the
       populace, which through celibacy had been reduced to about
       eighty persons, amounts to eight million dollars. Father
       Rapp died in 1847, in his ninetieth year, confident to the
       end that he would guide his church unto the hourly expected
       advent of Christ.

    2. When in 1831 a wave of revival passed over North America,
       J. H. Noyes, an advocate’s assistant, applied himself to the
       study of the Bible and became the founder of a new sect, the
       =Bible Communists= or =Perfectionists= of the Oneida Society.
       He taught that the promised advent of Christ took place
       spiritually soon after the destruction of Jerusalem; by it
       the kingdom of Adam was ended and the kingdom of God in the
       heart of those who knew and received him was established.
       The official churches were only state churches, but the
       true church was scattered in the hearts of individual saints,
       until Noyes collected and organized it into a Bible family.
       For them there is no more law, for laws are for sinners
       and the saints no longer sin. Each saint can do and suffer
       whatever the Spirit of God moves him to. All the members of
       the congregation constitute one family, live, eat, and work
       together. Goods, wives and children are in common. It lies
       with the wife to accept or refuse the approaches of a man.
       But soon this proclaimed freedom from law sent everything
       into confusion and disunion; schism―apostasy prevailed.
       But Father Noyes now saved his church from destruction
       by introducing a correction to this freedom from law in
       _Sympathy_, _i.e._ in the agreement of all members of
       the family. The odium which fell upon the community from
       without on account of its “complex marriages,” induced him
       at last in August, 1879, although he still always maintained
       the soundness of his principle of free love and its final
       victory over prejudice, to ordain the introduction of
       monogamic marriages, and the community acquiesced. With
       regard to community of goods, meals and children, however,
       they kept to the old lines. The parent community has its
       seat at Lenox in Oneidabach in New York State. Alongside of
       it are three daughter communities. They have their prophets
       and prophetesses, but no ritual service and no Sunday. Their
       employment (they number about 300 souls) is mainly fruit
       culture and the manufacture of snares of every kind for wild
       and other animals.[569]

  § 211.7. =Millenarian Exodus Communities.=

    1. The =Georgian Separatists=. The stream of Württemberg
       emigrants above referred to turned also toward Southern
       Russia. The settlers in Transcaucasian Georgia in the long
       absence of regular pastors fell into fanatical separation,
       which the clergy who followed in 1820 could not overcome.
       Under the direction of three elders (one of them an old
       woman) as representing the Holy Trinity, they lived quietly,
       refused to baptize their children, to give their dead burial
       according to the rites of the church, to call in physicians
       in sickness, and at last rejected the marriage relation. In
       1842 their female elder, Barbara Spohn, wife of a cartwright,
       appeared in the rôle of a prophet, proclaiming the near
       approach of the end of the world and calling upon her
       followers to pass through the wilderness to the promised
       land, there to enter into the millenial kingdom. They were
       to take with them no money, no bread, etc., but only a staff;
       their clothes and shoes would not wear old in the desert,
       they could eat manna and quails, and in the holy land Christ
       would dress them in the bridal robe. The government sought
       in vain to bring them to reason and to obstruct their way,
       when about three hundred of them wished at Pentecost, 1843,
       to start on their journey. They were allowed to send three
       men to Constantinople and Palestine to seek permission from
       the Turkish government to settle in a spot near Jerusalem.
       But these returned before the close of the year with the
       news, that Palestine is not the land that would suit them.
       This brought the majority to their senses and they rejoined
       the church.

    2. Equally unfortunate was the attempt at colonization made
       in 1878 by some =Bavarian Chiliasts=. The pastor Clöter
       in Illenschwang had for a long time in the “_Brüderbote_,”
       edited by him, urged the emigration of believers to
       South Russia, where, according to his exposition of the
       apocalyptic prophecy, a secure place of refuge had been
       provided by God for believers of the last times during the
       near approaching persecutions of antichrist. In June, 1878,
       the tailor Minderlein with his family and nineteen other
       persons started to go thither. Minderlein died by the way,
       and his companions after enduring great hardships were
       obliged to return, and reached Nuremberg again in October,
       absolutely destitute. Clöter, however, was not discouraged
       by this misfortune. In December he called his adherents
       from Bavaria, Württemberg and Switzerland, together to a
       conference at Stuttgart, where they formed themselves into
       the “=German Exodus Church=.” In the summer, 1880, Clöter
       himself travelled to South Russia and thought that he found
       in the Crimea the fittest place of refuge. On his return he
       was banished, but after some days liberated, though deprived
       of his clerical office. A final stop was then put to the
       exodus movement.

  § 211.8.

    3. The =Amen Community= owed its feeble existence to a
       Christian Jew, Israel Pick of Bohemia. Believing that he
       was not required in baptism to renounce his Judaism, but
       that rather thereby he first became a true Jew, through
       a onesided interpretation of Old Testament promises to his
       nation, he wished to found a colony of the people of God
       in the Holy Land on Jewish-Christian principles. The whole
       Mosaic law, excluding the observance of the Sabbath and
       circumcision, was to be the basis, together with baptism and
       the Lord’s Supper, of ecclesiastical and civil organization.
       He succeeded in winning a few converts here and there, to
       whom he gave the name of the Amen Community, because in
       Christ (the אֱלֹהֵי אָמֵן Isa. lxv. 16) all the prophecies of
       the old covenant are Yea and Amen. Its chief seat was at
       Munich-Gladbach. In 1859 Pick travelled to Palestine in
       order to choose a spot for the settlement of his followers
       and there all trace of him was lost.

    4. The founder of the =German Temple Communities= in Palestine
       was Chr. Hoffmann, brother of General Superintendent
       Hoffmann of Berlin, and son of the founder of the Kornthal
       Community (§ 196, 5), in connection with Chr. Paulus, nephew
       of the well known Heidelberg professor Paulus (§ 182, 2).
       In 1854 they issued an invitation to a conference at
       Ludwigsburg, for consultation about the means for gathering
       the people of God in Palestine. A great crowd of believers
       from all parts, numbering some 10,000 families, was to
       embark for the holy land to form there a new people of God
       which, on the foundation of prophets and apostles, should
       strictly practise the public law of the old covenant in
       all points of civil administration, including the laws
       of the sabbath and the jubilee. The conference besought
       of the German League that it would use its influence with
       the Sultan to secure permission for colonization with
       self-government and religious freedom. As the German League
       simply declined the request, the committee bought the estate
       of Kirschenhardthof near Marbach, in order there temporarily
       and in a small way to form a social commonwealth observing
       the Mosaic law. In 1858 Hoffmann went with two of his
       followers to Jerusalem in order to look out a place there
       suitable for their purpose. The result was unsatisfactory.
       Therefore he issued in 1861 a summons to take part in a
       German Temple. Consequently a number of men from Württemberg,
       Bavaria, and Baden, Protestants and Catholics, forsook
       their churches, ordained priests and elders, and appointed
       Hoffmann their bishop and held regular synods. The final
       aim of this procedure, however, was always still to find
       a settlement in Palestine and erect a temple in Jerusalem
       which, according to prophecy, is to form the central
       sanctuary for the whole world. Colonization in the East
       was tried as a means to this end. Since 1869 there have
       been five organized colonies, with a Temple Chief and
       a congregational school, embracing about 1,000 souls,
       established in Palestine, _viz._ at Jaffa, Haifa, Sarona,
       Beyrout, and in 1878 even in Jerusalem, whither the original
       colony at Jaffa was transferred. The German Imperial
       Government refused indeed in 1879 to give the recognition
       sought for to the civil and political organization of the
       Palestinian colonies, as in a foreign country beyond its
       jurisdiction, but granted to its Lyceum at Jerusalem a
       yearly contribution of 1,500 marks and to the schools
       of Jaffa, Haifa and Sarona from 650 to 1,000. In 1875
       Hoffmann published at Stuttgart a large apologetical and
       polemical work, “_Occident und Orient_,” which contained
       many thoughtful remarks. But since then, in the central
       organ of all the Temple Communities inspired by him,
       the “_Süddeutsche Warte_,” he has openly and distinctly
       attached himself to Ebionitic rationalism, by denying
       and opposing the fundamental evangelical doctrine of the
       trinity, redemption, and the sacraments. These theological
       views, however, were by no means shared in by all the
       Templars, and caused a split in the community, one section
       at Haifa with the chief templar there, Hardegg, at its
       head, separating from the central body as an independent
       “Imperial Brotherhood.” The seceders, joined by many German
       and American templar friends, again drew nearer to the
       Evangelical church and ultimately became reconciled with
       it. But Hoffmann has, in his last work, _Bibelforschungen_
       i. ii.: _Röm.- u. Kol. br., Jerus._ 1882, 1884, carried his
       polemic against the church doctrine to the utmost extreme of
       cynical abuse. He died in December, 1885. At the head of the
       denomination now stands his fellow-worker Paulus. From year
       to year several drop back into the Evangelical church so
       that the community is evidently approaching extinction.

  § 211.9. =The Community of “the New Israel.”=--The Jewish
  advocate Jos. Rabinowitsch at Kishenev in Bessarabia, who had
  long occupied himself with plans for the improvement of the
  spiritual and material circumstances of his fellow-countrymen,
  at the outbreak of the persecution of the Jews in 1882 in South
  Russia eagerly urged their return to the holy land of their
  fathers and himself undertook a journey of inspection. There
  definite shape seems to have been given to the long cherished
  thought of seeking the salvation of his people in an independent
  national attachment to their old sacred historical development,
  broken off 1850 years before, by acknowledging the Messiahship
  of Jesus. At least after his return he gave expression to the
  sentiment, based on Romans xi.: “The keys of the holy land are
  in the hands of our brother Jesus,” which, in consequence of
  the high esteem in which he was held by his countrymen, was
  soon re-echoed by some 200 Jewish families. His main endeavour
  now was the formation of independent national Jewish-Christian
  communities, after the pattern of the primitive church of
  Jerusalem, as “_New Israelites_,” observing all the old Jewish
  rites and ordinances compatible with New Testament apostolic
  preaching and reconcilable with modern civil and social
  conditions. The Torah, the prophets of the Old Testament and the
  New Testament writings, are held as absolutely binding, whereas
  the Talmud and the post-apostolic Gentile Christian additions to
  doctrine, worship, and constitution are not so regarded. Jesus,
  Rabinowitsch teaches, is the true Messiah who, as Moses and
  prophets foretold, was born as Son of David by the Spirit of God
  and in the power of that Spirit lived and taught in Israel, then
  for our salvation suffered, was crucified and died, rose from the
  dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven. The
  trinity of persons in God as well as the two natures in Christ
  he rejects, as not taught in the New Testament and originating
  in Gentile Christian speculation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
  (and that “according to the example of Christians of the pure
  Evangelical confession in England and Germany”) are recognised
  as necessary means of grace; but the Lord’s Supper is to
  be, according to its institution, a real meal with the old
  Jewish prayers. As to the doctrine of the Supper, Rabinowitsch
  agrees with the views of the Lutheran church. Circumcision and
  the observance of the Sabbath and the feasts (especially the
  Passover), are retained, not indeed as necessary to salvation,
  therefore not binding on Gentile Christians, but patriotically
  observed by Jewish-Christians as signs of their election from and
  before all nations as the people of God. In January, 1885, with
  consent of the Russian Government, the newly-erected synagogue
  of “the holy Messiah Jesus Christ” for the small congregation
  of Rabinowitsch’s followers at Kishenev was solemnly opened,
  the Russian church authorities, the Lutheran pastor Fultin and
  many young Jews taking part in the service. Soon afterwards
  Rabinowitsch received Christian baptism in the chapel of the
  Bohemian church at Berlin at the hands of Prof. Mead of Andover,
  probably in recognition of the aid sent from America.--A
  Jewish-Christian religious communion with similar tendencies
  has been formed in the South Russian town of Jellisawetgrad under
  the designation of a “_Biblical Spiritual Brotherhood_.”

  § 211.10. =The Catholic Apostolic Church of the
  Irvingites.=--Edward Irving, 1792-1834, a powerful and popular
  preacher of the Scotch-Presbyterian church in London, maintained
  the doctrine that the human nature of Christ like our own was
  affected by original sin, which was overcome and atoned for
  by the power of the divine nature. At the same time he became
  convinced that the spiritual gifts of the apostolic church could
  and should still be obtained by prayer and faith. A party of his
  followers soon began to exercise the gift of tongues by uttering
  unintelligible sounds, loud cries, and prophecies. His presbytery
  suspended him in 1832 and the General Assembly of the Church of
  Scotland excommunicated him. Rich and distinguished friends from
  the Episcopal church, among them the wealthy banker, Drummond,
  afterwards prominent as an apostle (died 1859), rallied round
  the man thus expelled from his church, and gave him the means to
  found a new church, but, in spite of Irving’s protests, brought
  with them high church puseyite tendencies, which soon drove
  out the heretical as well as the puritanic tendencies, and
  modified the fanatical element into a hierarchical and liturgical
  formalism. The restoration of the office of apostle was the
  characteristic feature of the movement. After many unsuccessful
  attempts they succeeded by the divine illumination of the
  prophets in calling twelve apostles, first and chief of whom
  was the lawyer Cardale (died 1877). By the apostles, as chief
  rulers and stewards of the church, evangelists and pastors (or
  angels, Rev. ii. 1, 8, etc.) were ordained in accordance with
  Eph. iv. 11; and subordinate to the pastors, there were appointed
  six elders and as many deacons, so that the office bearers of
  each congregation embraced thirteen persons, after the example
  of Christ and His twelve disciples. In London seven congregations
  were formed after the pattern of the seven apocalyptic churches
  (Rev. i. 20). Prominent among their new revelations was the
  promise of the immediately approaching advent of the Lord. The
  Lord, who was to have come in the lifetime of the first disciples
  and so was looked for confidently by them, delayed indefinitely
  His return on account of abounding iniquity and prevented the
  full development of the second apostolate designed for the
  Gentiles and meanwhile represented only by Paul, because the
  church was no longer worthy of it. Now at last, after eighteen
  centuries of degradation, in which the church came to be the
  apocalyptic Babylon and ripened for judgment, the time has
  come when the suspended apostolate has been restored to prepare
  the way for the last things. Very confidently was it at first
  maintained that none of their members should die, but should live
  to see the final consummation. But after death had removed so
  many from among them, and even the apostles one after another,
  it was merely said that those are already born who should see the
  last day. It may come any day, any hour. It begins with the first
  resurrection (Rev. xx. 5) and the “changing” of the saints that
  are alive (the wise virgins, _i.e._ the Irvingites), who will
  be caught up to the Lord in the clouds and in a higher sphere be
  joined with the Lord in the marriage supper of the Lamb. They are
  safely hidden while antichrist persecutes the other Christians,
  the foolish virgins, who only can be saved by means of painful
  suffering, and executes judgment on Babylon. This marks the end
  of the Gentile church; but then begins the conversion of the Jews,
  who, driven by necessity and the persecution of sinful men, have
  sought and found a refuge in Palestine. After a short victory of
  antichrist the Lord visibly appears among the risen and removed.
  The kingdom of antichrist is destroyed, Satan is bound, the
  saints live and reign with Christ a thousand years on the earth
  freed from the curse. Thereafter Satan is again let loose for
  a short time and works great havoc. Then comes Satan’s final
  overthrow, the second resurrection and last judgment. Their
  liturgy, composed by the apostles, is a compilation from the
  Anglican and Catholic sources. Sacerdotalism and sacrifice are
  prominent and showy priestly garments are regarded as requisite.
  Yet they repudiate the Romish doctrine of the bloodless
  repetition of the bleeding sacrifice, as well as the doctrine of
  transubstantiation. But they strictly maintain the contribution
  of the tenth as a duty laid upon Christians by Heb. vii. 4.
  Their typical view of the Old Testament history and legislation,
  especially of the tabernacle, is most arbitrary and baseless.
  Their first published statement appeared in 1836 in an apostolic
  “_Letter to the Patriarchs, Bishops, and Presidents of the Church
  of Christ in all Lands, and to emperors, kings, and princes of
  all baptized nations_,” which was sent to the most prominent
  among those addressed, even to the pope, but produced no result.
  After this they began to prosecute their missionary work openly.
  But they gave their attention mainly to those already believers,
  and took no part in missions to the heathen, as they were sent
  neither to the heathen nor to unbelievers, but only to gather and
  save believers. In their native land of England, where at first
  they had great success, their day seems already past. In North
  America they succeeded in founding only two congregations. They
  prospered better in Germany and Switzerland, where they secured
  several able theologians, chief of all Thiersch, the professor
  of Theology in Marburg, the Tertullian of this modern Montanism
  (died 1885), and founded about eighty small congregations with
  some 5,000 members, chief of which are those of Berlin, Stettin,
  Königsberg, Leipzig, Marburg, Cassel, Basel, Augsburg, etc.
  Even among the Catholic clergy of Bavaria this movement found
  response; but that was checked by a series of depositions and
  excommunications during 1857.--In 1882 the Lutheran pastor
  Alpers of Gehrden in Hanover was summoned to appear before the
  consistory to answer for his Irvingite views. He denied the
  charge and referred to his good Lutheran preaching. As, however,
  he had taken the sacramental “sealing” from Irvingite apostles,
  the court regarded this as proof of his having joined the party
  and so deposed him.[570]

  § 211.11. =The Darbyites and Adventists.=--Related on the
  one hand to Irvingism by their expectation of the immediately
  approaching advent and by their regarding themselves as the
  saints of the last time who would alone be saved, the =Darbyites=,
  on the other hand, by their absolute independentism form a
  complete contrast to the Irvingite hierarchism. John Darby,
  1800-1882, first an advocate, then a clergyman of the Anglican
  church, breaking away from Anglicanism, founded between 1820 and
  1830 a sectarian, apocalyptic, independent community at Plymouth
  (whence the name =Plymouth Brethren=), but in 1838 settled in
  Geneva, and in 1840 went to Canton Vaud, where Lausanne and Vevey
  have become the headquarters of the sect. All clerical offices,
  all ecclesiastical forms are of the evil one, and are evidence
  of the corruption of the church. There is only one office, the
  spiritual priesthood of all believers, and every believer has
  the right to preach and dispense the sacraments. Not only the
  Catholic, but also the Protestant church is a “Balaam Church,”
  and since the departure of the apostles no true church has
  existed. In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic.[571]--The
  =Adventists=. Regarding the 2,300 days of Dan. viii. 14 as so
  many years, W. Miller of New York and Boston proclaimed in 1833
  that the second advent would take place on the night of October
  23rd, 1847, and convinced many thousands of the correctness of
  his calculations. When at last the night referred to arrived
  the believers continued assembled in their tabernacles waiting,
  but in vain, for the promise (Matt. xxiv. 30, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 52;
  1 Thess. iv. 16, 17), at “the voice of the archangel and the
  trump of God to be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord
  in the air.” This miscalculation, however, did not shake the
  Adventists’ belief in the near approach of the Lord, but their
  number rather increased from year to year. Most zealous in
  propagating their views by journals and tracts, evangelists
  and missionaries, is a branch of the sect founded by James White
  of Michigan, whose adherents, because they keep the Sabbath in
  place of the Lord’s Day, are called _Seventh Day Adventists_.

  § 211.12. =The Mormons or Latter Day Saints.=--Jos. Smith, a
  broken down farmer of Vermont, who took to knavish digging for
  hid treasures, affirmed in 1825, that under direction of divine
  revelations and visions, he had excavated on Comora hill in
  New York State, golden tablets in a stone kist on which sacred
  writings were engraved. A prophet’s spectacles, _i.e._, two
  pierced stones which as a Mormon Urim and Thummim lay beside
  them, enabled him to understand and translate them. He published
  the translation in “the Book of Mormon.” According to this
  book, the Israelites of the ten tribes had migrated under their
  leader, Lehi, to America. There they divided into two peoples;
  the ungodly Lamanites, answering to the modern Redskins, and
  the pious Nephites. The latter preserved among them the old
  Israelitish histories and prophecies, and through miraculous
  signs in heaven and earth obtained knowledge of the birth
  of Christ that had meanwhile taken place. Toward the end
  of the fourth century after Christ, however, the Lamanites
  began a terrible war of extermination against the Nephites,
  in consequence of which the latter were rooted out with the
  exception of the prophet Mormon and his son Moroni. Mormon
  recorded his revelations on the golden tablets referred to, and
  concealed them as the future witness for the saints of the last
  days on the earth. Smith proclaimed himself now called on of God,
  on the basis of these documents and the revelations made to him,
  to found the church of _The Latter Day Saints_. The widow of a
  preacher in New York proved indeed that the Book of Mormon was
  almost literally a plagiarism from a historico-didactic romance
  written by her deceased husband, Sal. Spaulding. The MS. had
  passed into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, formerly a Baptist
  minister and then a bookseller’s assistant, subsequently Smith’s
  right-hand man. But even this did not disturb the believers. In
  1831 Smith with his followers settled at Kirtland in Ohio. To
  avoid the daily increasing popular odium, he removed to Missouri,
  and thence to Illinois, and founded there, in 1840, the important
  town of Nauvoo with a beautiful temple. By diligence, industry
  and good discipline, the wealth, power and influence of their
  commonwealth increased, but in the same proportion the envy,
  hatred and prejudices of the people, which charged them with
  the most atrocious crimes. In 1844, to save bloodshed the
  governor ordered the two chiefs, Jos. and Hiram Smith, to
  surrender to voluntary imprisonment awaiting a regular trial.
  But furious armed mobs attacked the prison and shot down both.
  The roughs of the whole district then gathered in one great troop,
  destroyed the town of Nauvoo, burned the temple and drove out
  the inhabitants. These, now numbering 15,000 men, in several
  successive expeditions amid indescribable hardships pressed on
  “through the wilderness” over the Rocky Mountains, in order to
  erect for themselves a Zion on the other side. Smith’s successor
  was the carpenter, Brigham Young. The journey occupied two full
  years, 1845-1847. In the great Salt Lake basin of Utah they
  founded _Salt Lake City_, or the New Jerusalem, as the capital
  of their wilderness state _Deseret_. The gold digging of the
  neighbouring state of California did not allure them, for their
  prophet told them that to pave streets, build houses and sow
  fields was better employment than seeking for gold. So here
  again they soon became a flourishing commonwealth.

  § 211.13. In common with the Irvingites, who recognised in them
  their own diabolic caricature, the Mormons restored the apostolic
  and prophetic office, insisted upon the continuance of the gift
  of tongues and miracles, expected the speedy advent of the Lord,
  reintroduced the payment of tithes, etc. But what distinguished
  them from all Christian sects was the proclamation of polygamy as
  a religious duty, on the plea that only those women who had been
  “sealed” to a Latter-day Saint would share in the blessedness
  of life eternal. This was probably first introduced by Young in
  consequence of a new “divine revelation,” but down to 1852 kept
  secret and denied before “the Gentiles.” The ambiguous book of
  Mormon was set meanwhile more and more in the background, and
  the teachings and prophecies of their prophet brought more and
  more to the front. “The Voice of Warning to all Nations” of the
  zealous proselyte Parly Pratt, formerly a Campbellite preacher,
  exercised a great influence in spreading the sect. But the most
  gifted of them all was Orson Pratt, Rigdon’s successor in the
  apostolate. To him mainly is ascribed the construction of its
  later, highly fantastic religious system which, consisting of
  elements gathered from Neo-platonism, gnosticism, and other forms
  of theosophical mysticism, embraces all the mysteries of time and
  eternity. Its fundamental ideas are these: There are gods without
  number; all are polygamists and their wives are sharers of their
  glory and bliss. They are the fathers of human souls who here on
  earth ripen for their heavenly destiny. Jesus is the first born
  son of the highest god by his first wife; he was married on earth
  to Mary Magdalene, the sisters Martha and Mary and other women.
  Those saints who here fulfil their destiny become after death
  gods, while they are arranged according to their merit in various
  ranks and with prospect of promotion to higher places. At the
  end of this world’s course, Jesus will come again, and, enthroned
  in the temple of Salt Lake City, exercise judgment against all
  “Gentiles” and apostates, etc.--The constitution of the Mormon
  State is essentially theocratic. At the head stood the president,
  Brigham Young, as prophet, patriarch, and priest-king, in whose
  hands are all the threads of the spiritual as well as secular
  administration. A high council alongside of him, consisting of
  seventy members, as also the prophets and apostles, bishops and
  elders, and generally the whole richly organized hierarchy, are
  only the pliable instruments of his all-commanding will. Every
  one on entering the society surrenders his whole property, and
  after that contributes a tenth of his yearly income and personal
  labour to the common purse of the community. Soon numerous
  missionaries were sent forth who crossed the Atlantic, and
  attained great success, especially in Scotland, England and
  Scandinavia, but also in North-West Germany and in Switzerland.
  On removing the misunderstanding that prevailed about their
  social and political condition, and supplying the penniless out
  of the rich immigration fund with the means to make the journey,
  they persuaded great crowds of their new converts to accompany
  them to Utah.

  § 211.14. In 1849 the Mormons had asked Congress for the
  apportioning of the district colonized by them as an independent
  and autonomous “State” in the union, but were granted, in
  1850, only the constitution of a “territory” under the central
  government at Washington, and the appointment of their patriarch,
  Young, as its governor. Accustomed to absolute rule, in two years
  he drove out all the other officers appointed by the union. He
  was then deprived of office, but the new governor, Col. Sefton,
  appointed in 1854, with the small armament supplied him could not
  maintain his position and voluntarily retired. When afterwards in
  1858 Governor Cumming, appointed by president Buchanan, entered
  Utah with a strong military force, Young armed for a decisive
  struggle. A compromise, however, was effected. A complete amnesty
  was granted to the saints, the soldiers of the union entered
  peacefully into the Salt-Lake City, and Young assumed tolerably
  friendly relations with the governor, who, nevertheless, by the
  erection of a fort commanding the city made the position safe for
  himself and his troops. On the outbreak of the war of Secession
  in 1861 the troops of the union were for the most part withdrawn.
  But all the more energetically did the central government at the
  close of the war in 1865 resolve upon the complete subjugation of
  the rebel saints, having learnt that since 1852 numerous murders
  had taken place in the territory, and that the disappearance of
  whole caravans of colonists was not due to attacks of Indians,
  who would have scalped their victims, but to a secret Mormon
  fraternity called Danites (Judges xviii.), brothers of Gideon
  (Judges vi. ff.) or Angels of Destruction, which, obedient to
  the slightest hint from the prophet, had undertaken to avenge
  by bloody terrorism any sign of resistance to his authority,
  to arrest any tendency to apostasy, and to guard against the
  introduction of any foreign element. The Union Pacific Railway
  opened in 1869 deprived the “Kingdom of God” of its most powerful
  protection, its geographical isolation, while the rich silver
  mines discovered at the same time in Utah, peopled city and
  country with immense flocks of “Gentiles.” The nemesis, which
  brought the Mormon bishop Lee, twenty years after the deed,
  under the lash of the high court of justiciary as involved in
  the horrible massacre of a large party of emigrants at Mountain
  Meadows in 1857, would probably have also befallen the prophet
  himself as the main instigator of this and many other crimes had
  he not by a sudden death two months later, in his seventy-fifth
  year, escaped the jurisdiction of any earthly tribunal (died
  1877). A successor was not chosen, but supreme authority is
  in the hands of the college of twelve apostles with the elder
  John Taylor at their head.--Repeated attempts made since 1874
  by the United States authorities by penal enactments to root out
  polygamy among the Mormons have always failed, because its actual
  existence could never be legally proved. The witness called could
  or would say nothing, since the “sealing” was always secretly
  performed, and the women concerned denied that a marriage had
  been entered into with the accused, or if one confessed herself
  his married wife she refused to give any evidence about his
  domestic relations.--Recently a split has occurred among the
  Mormons. By far the larger party is that of the “Salt Lake
  Mormons,” which holds firmly by polygamy and all the other
  institutions introduced by Young and since his time. The other
  party is that of the Kirtland, or Old Mormons, headed by the son
  of their founder, Jos. Smith, who had been passed over on account
  of his youth, which repudiates all these as unsupported novelties
  and restores the true Mormonism of the founder. The Old Mormons
  not only oppose polygamy, but also all more recently introduced
  doctrines. They are called Kirtland Mormons from the first temple
  built by their founder at Kirtland in 1814, which having fallen
  into ruins, was restored by Geo. Smith, jun., and became the
  centre of the Old Mormon denomination. In April 1885 they held
  there their first synod, attended by 200 deputies.[572]

  § 211.15. =The Taepings in China.=--Hung-sen-tsenen, born in
  1813 in the province of Shan-Tung, was destined for the learned
  profession but failed in his examination at Canton. There he
  first, in 1833, came into contact with Protestant missionaries,
  whose misunderstood words awakened in him the belief that he was
  called to perform great things. At the same time he there got
  possession of some Christian Chinese tracts. Failing in his
  examination a second time in 1837, he fell into a dangerous
  illness and had a series of visions in which an old man with a
  golden beard appeared, handing to him the insignia of imperial
  rank, and commanding him to root out the demons. After his
  recovery he became an elementary teacher. A relative called Li
  visited him in 1843. The Christian tracts were again sought out
  and carefully studied. Sen now recognised in the old man of his
  visions the God of the Christians and in himself the younger
  brother of Jesus. The two baptized one another and won over
  two young relatives to their views. Expelled from their offices,
  they went in 1844 to the province of Kiang Se as pencil and
  ink sellers, preached diligently the new doctrine and founded
  numerous small congregations of their sect. The American
  missionaries at Canton heard of the success of their preaching,
  and Sen accepted an invitation to join them in 1847. The
  missionary Roberts had a great esteem for him and intended to
  baptize him, when in consequence of stories spread about him
  their relations became strained. Sen now returned in 1848 to
  his companions in Kiang Se, who had diligently and successfully
  continued their preaching. In 1850 they began to attract
  attention by the violent destruction of idols. When now all the
  remnants of a pirate band joined them as converts, they were in
  common with these persecuted by the government and proclaimed
  rebels. The expulsion of the hated Mantshu dynasty, which two
  hundred years before had displaced the Ming dynasty, and the
  overthrow of idolatry were now their main endeavour, and in 1857
  they organized under Sen a regular rebellion for the setting up
  of a Taeping dynasty, _i.e._, of universal peace. The Taeping
  army advanced unhindered, all Mantschu soldiers who fell into
  its hands were massacred, and of the inhabitants of the provinces
  conquered, only those were spared who joined their ranks. In
  March, 1853, they stormed the second capital of the empire,
  Nankin, the old residence of the Ming dynasty. There Sen fixed
  his residence and styled himself Tien-Wang, the Divine Prince.
  He assigned to ten subordinate princes the government of the
  conquered provinces, almost the half of the immense empire.
  Thousands of bibles were circulated; the ten commandments
  proclaimed as the foundation of law, many writings, prayers
  and poems composed for the instruction of the people, and these
  with the bible made subjects of examination for entrance to the
  learned order. An Arian theory of the trinity was set forth; the
  Father is the one personal God, whose likeness in bodily human
  form Sen strictly forbade, destroying the Catholic images as well
  as the Chinese idols. Jesus is the first-born son of God, yet
  not himself God, sent by the Father into the world in order to
  enlighten it by his doctrine and to redeem it by his atoning
  sufferings. Sen, the younger brother of Jesus, was sent into the
  world to spread the doctrine of Jesus and to expel the demons,
  the Mantschu dynasty. Reception takes place through baptism. The
  Lord’s Supper was unknown to them. Bloody and bloodless offerings
  were still tolerated. The use of wine and tobacco was forbidden;
  the use of opium and trafficking in it were punished with death.
  But polygamy was sanctioned. Saturday, according to the Old
  Testament, was their holy day. Their service consisted only
  of prayer, singing and religious instruction; but also written
  prayers were presented to God by burning.

  § 211.16. Sen himself had no more visions after 1837. But other
  ecstatic prophets arose, the eastern prince Yang and the western
  prince Siao. The revelations of the latter were comparatively
  sober, but those of the former were in the highest degree
  blasphemously fanatical. He declared himself the Paraclete
  promised by Jesus, and taught that God himself, as well as Jesus,
  had a wife with sons and daughters. He was at the same time a
  brave and successful general, and the mass of the Taepings were
  enthusiastically attached to him. Sen humbly yielded to the
  extravagances of this fanatic, even when Yang sentenced him to
  receive forty lashes. Sen’s overthrow was already resolved upon
  in Yang’s secret council, when Sen took courage and gave the
  northern prince secret orders to murder Yang and his followers
  in one night. This was done, and Sen was weak enough to allow the
  executioner of his secret order to be publicly put to death so as
  to appease the excited populace. But he thus again in 1856 became
  master of the situation.--One of the oldest apostles of Sen,
  his near relative Hung Yin, had been turned off at Hong Kong.
  He there attached himself to the Basel missionary, Hamberg, who
  in 1852 baptized him and made him his native helper. In hope of
  winning his cousin to the true Christian faith, he travelled in
  1854 to Nankin, which however he did not reach till January, 1859.
  Sen received him gladly and made him his war minister. But his
  efforts to introduce a purer Christianity among the Taepings were
  unsuccessful, for he tried the slippery way of accommodation, and
  under pressure from Sen set up for himself a harem. In October,
  1860, on Sen’s repeated invitation, his former teacher, the
  missionary Roberts of Nankin, arrived and was immediately made
  minister for foreign affairs. The Shanghai missionaries, several
  of whom visited Nankin, had interesting interviews with Yin in
  1860, but not with the emperor, as they refused to go on their
  knees before him. They were encouraged by Yin to hope for a
  future much needed purifying of Taeping Christianity. Yang’s
  revelations, however, held their ground after as well as
  before, and were increased by further absurdities. To such
  crass fanaticism was now added the inhuman cruelty with which
  they massacred the vanquished and wasted the conquered cities
  and districts. Had the European powers ranged themselves in a
  friendly and peaceful attitude alongside of the Taepings, China
  might now have been a Christian empire. Instead of this the
  English, on account of the extreme opposition of the Taepings
  to the opium traffic, took up a hostile position toward them,
  while they were also in disfavour with the French, who had been
  denounced by them as idolaters on account of their Romish image
  worship. Down to the beginning of 1862, however, Yin’s influence
  had prevented any hostile proceedings against the Europeans in
  spite of many provocations given. But after that the Taepings
  refused them any quarter. Roberts fled by night to save his life.
  Against disciplined European troops the rebels could not hold
  their ground. One city after another was taken from them, and at
  last, in July 1864, their capital Nankin. Sen was found poisoned
  in his burning palace.[573]

  § 211.17. =The Spiritualists.=--The shoemaker’s apprentice,
  Andrew Jackson Davis of Poughkeepsie on the Hudson, in his
  nineteenth year fell into a magnetic sleep and composed his
  first work, “The Principles of Nature, Her Divine Revelations
  and a Voice to Mankind,” in 1845. He declared its utterances
  to be spiritual revelations from the other world. But his
  later writings composed in working hours made the same claim,
  especially the five volume work, “Great Harmonia, being a
  Philosophical Revelation of the Natural, Spiritual, and Celestial
  Universe,” 1850 ff. Both went through numerous editions and
  were translated into German. The great spiritual manifestation
  promised in the first work was not long delayed. In a house
  bought by the family of Fox in Hydesville in New York State a
  spectral knocking was often heard. Through the intercourse which
  the two youngest daughters, aged nine and twelve years, had with
  the ghosts, the skeleton of a murdered five years’ old child of
  a pedlar was discovered buried in the cellar, and when the family
  soon thereafter left the house, the ghosts went with them and
  continued their communications by table turning, table rapping,
  table writing, etc. The thing now became epidemic. Hundreds
  and thousands of male and female _mediums_ arose and held an
  extremely lively and varied intercourse with innumerable departed
  ones of earlier and later times. The believers soon numbered
  millions, including highly educated persons of all ranks, even
  such exact chemists as Mapes and Hare. An abundant literature
  in books and journals, as well as Sunday services, frequent
  camp-meetings and annual congresses formed a propaganda for
  the alleged spiritualism, which soon found its way across the
  ocean and won enthusiastic adherents for all confessions in
  all European countries, especially in London, Paris, Brussels,
  St. Petersburg, Vienna, Dresden, Leipzig, etc. They now broke
  up into two parties called respectively Spiritualists and
  Spiritists. The former put in the foreground physical experiments
  with astonishing results and miraculous effects; the latter,
  with the Frenchman Allan Kardec (_Rivail_) as their leader, give
  prominence to the teaching of spirits by direct communication.
  The former in reference to the origin of the human soul held by
  the theory of traducianism; the latter to that of pre-existence
  in connection with a doctrine of re-incarnation of spirits
  by reason of growing purity and perfection. The latter see
  in Christ the incarnation of a spirit of the highest order;
  the former merely the purest and most perfect type of human
  nature. But neither admit the real central truth of Christianity,
  the reconciliation of sinful humanity with God in Christ.
  Both evaporate the resurrection into a mere spectral spirit
  manifestation; and the disclosures and utterances of the spirits
  with both are equally trivial, silly, and vain.--In England the
  famous palæontologist and collaborateur of Darwin, Alfr. Russel
  Wallace, and the no less celebrated physicist Wm. Crookes, are
  apologists of spiritualism. The latter declared in 1879 that
  to the three well-known conditions of matter, solid, fluid and
  gaseous, should be added a fourth, “radiant,” and that there is
  the borderland where force and matter meet. And in Germany the
  acute Leipzig astrophysicist Fr. Zöllner, after a whole series
  of spiritualistic séances conducted by the American medium
  Slade in 1877 and 1878 had been carefully scrutinized and
  tested by himself and several of his most accomplished scientific
  colleagues, was convinced of the existence and reality of higher
  “four dimension” space in the spirit world, to which by reason
  of its fourth dimension the power belonged of passing through
  earthly bodily matter. The philosophers I. H. Fichte of Stuttgart
  and Ulrici of Halle have admitted the reality of spiritualistic
  communications and allege them as proofs of immortality.
  Among German theologians Luthardt of Leipzig regards it all
  as the work of demons who take advantage for their own ends
  of the moral-religious dissolution of the modern world and its
  consequent nerve shaking that prevails, just as in the ancient
  world in the beginnings of Christianity. Zöckler of Greifswald
  finds an analogy between it and the demoniacal possession of
  New Testament times; so too Martensen in his “Jacob Boehme,”
  and on the Catholic side W. Schneider; while Splittgerber refers
  most of the manifestations in question to a merely subjective
  origin in “the right side of the human soul life,” but puts
  the materialization of spirits in the category of delusive
  jugglery. Spiritualism has scarcely rallied from the obloquy
  cast upon it by the unmasking of the tricks of the famous medium
  Miss Florence Cook in London in 1880 and of the distinguished
  spirit materialiser Bastian by the Grand-duke John of Austria
  in 1884.[574]

  § 211.18. To the domain of unquestionable illusion belongs
  also the spiritualistic movement of Indian =Theosophism= or
  =Occultism=. The American Col. Olcott of New York had already
  moved for twenty-two years in spiritualist circles when in 1874
  he met with Madame Blavatsky, widow of a Russian general who had
  been governor of Erivan in Armenia. She professed to have been
  from her eighth year in communication with spirits, then to
  have had secret intercourse with the Mahatmas, _i.e._ spirits
  of old Indian penitents, during a seven years’ residence on the
  Himalayas. She now promised to introduce the colonel to them.
  Olcott and Blavatsky founded at New York in 1875 a society for
  research in the department of the mystic sciences, travelled in
  1878 to Further India and Ceylon, and settled finally in Madras,
  whence by word and writing they proclaimed through the whole
  land theosophism or occultism as the religion of the future,
  which, consisting in a medley of Hinduism and Buddhism, enriched
  by spiritualistic revelations of Mahatmas, vouched for by
  spiritualistic signs and miracles and conformed to the most
  recent philosophical and scientific researches in America and
  Europe, aimed at heaping contempt upon Christianity and finally
  driving it from the field. As fanatical opponents of Christian
  missions in India they were strongly supported by the Brahman
  and Buddhist hierarchy, and soon obtained for the theosophical
  society founded by them not only numerous adherents from
  among the natives, but also many Englishman befooled by their
  spiritualistic swindle. As apostle and literary pioneer of the
  new religion appeared an Anglo-Indian called Sinnett. In spring,
  1884, Madame Blavatsky and Col. Olcott went on a propagandist
  tour to Europe, where, in England, France, Austria, and Hungary,
  they won many converts, while Col. Olcott at Elberfeld and
  Madame Blavatsky at Odessa founded branches of their theosophical
  society.--But meanwhile in India affairs assumed a threatening
  aspect. Blavatsky on her departure had entrusted the keys of
  her dwelling and her mysterious cabinet with its various panels,
  falling doors, etc., to Mr. and Mrs. Coulomb, who had been
  hitherto her assistants in all her juggleries. Madame Coulomb,
  however, quarrelled with the board of theosophists at Madras, and
  revenged herself by placing in the hands of the Scottish mission
  letters addressed by Blavatsky to herself and her husband which
  supplied evidence that all her spiritualistic manifestations
  were only common tricks. In addition she gave public exhibitions
  in which she demonstrated to the spectators _ad oculos_ the
  spiritual manifestations of the Mahatmas, and subsequently
  published an “Account of My Acquaintanceship with Madame
  Blavatsky, 1872-1884,” with discoveries of her earlier rogueries.
  Meanwhile the swindler had herself in December, 1884, returned to
  Madras in company with several believers gathered up in England,
  among others a young English clergyman, Leadbeater, who some
  days previously in Ceylon had formally adopted Buddhism. The
  theosophists now demanded that the reputed cheat and deceiver
  should be brought before a civil court. The president, however,
  declared that the investigations and judgment of a profane
  court of law could not be accepted to the mysteries of occultism,
  but promised a careful examination by a commission appointed by
  himself, and Blavatsky thought it advisable “for the restoration
  of her health in a cooler climate” to make off from the scene of
  conflict.[575]


             § 212. ANTICHRISTIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM.

  While the antichristian spirit of the age breaks out in various
theoretical forms in our literature, there also abound social and
communistic movements of a practical kind. Socialism and communism both
aim at a thorough-going reform of the rights of property and possession
in strict proportion to the labour spent thereon. They are, however,
distinguished in this, that while communism declares war against all
private property and demands absolute community of goods, socialism, at
least in its older and nobler forms, proceeding from the idea of precise
correspondence between capital and labour, seeks to have expression
given to this in fact. From the older socialism, which endeavoured
to reach its end in a peaceful way within the existing lines of civil
order, a later social democracy is to be distinguished by its decidedly
politico-revolutionary character and tendency to attach itself more
to communism. This modern socialism thinks to open the way to the
realization of its hare-brained ideas by the confusion and overthrow
of existing law and order.

  § 212.1. =The Beginnings of Modern Communism.=--As early as
  1796 Babeuf published in Paris a communistic manifesto which
  maintained the thesis that natural law gives all men an equal
  right to the enjoyment of all goods. His ideas were subsequently
  systematized and developed by Fourier, Proudhon, Cabet, and Louis
  Blanc in France, and by Weibling and Stirner in Germany. In
  a treatise of 1840 Proudhon answered the question, _Qu’est-ce
  que la propriété?_ in words which afterwards became proverbial,
  and formed the motto of communism: _La propriété c’est le vol._
  But the mere negation of property affords no permanent standing
  ground. All altars must be thrown down; all religion rooted
  out as the plague of humanity; the family and marriage, as the
  fountain of all selfishness, must be abolished; all existing
  governments must be overthrown; all Europe must be turned into
  one great social democracy. A secret communistic propaganda
  spread over all western Europe, had its head centres in Belgium
  and Switzerland, crossed the Alps and the Pyrenees, as well as
  the Channel, and found a congenial soil even in Russia.

  § 212.2. =St. Simonism.=--The Count St. Simon of Paris, reduced
  to poverty by speculation, proposed by means of a thorough
  organization of industry to found a new and happy state of things
  in which there would be pure enjoyment without poverty and care.
  An attempted suicide, which led however to his death in 1825,
  made him in the eyes of his disciples a saviour of the world. The
  July revolution of 1830 gave to the new universal religion, which
  reinstated the flesh in its long lost rights and sought to assign
  to each individual the place in the commonwealth for which he
  was fitted, some advantage. “Father” Enfantin, whom his followers
  honoured as the highest revelation of deity, contended with
  pompous phrases and in fantastic style for the emancipation of
  woman and against the unnatural institution of marriage. But
  St. Simonism soon excited public ridicule, was pronounced immoral
  by the courts of justice, and the remnants of its votaries fled
  from the scorn of the people and the vengeance of the law to
  Egypt, where they soon disappeared.

  § 212.3. =Owenists and Icarians.=--The Scotch mill-owner
  =Rob. Owen= went in 1829 to America, in order there, unhindered
  by religious prejudices, clerical opposition, and police
  interference, to work out on a large scale his socialistic
  schemes for improving the world, which in a small way he believed
  he had proved already among his Scotch mill-operatives. He
  bought for this purpose from the Württemberger Rapp the colony
  of Harmony (§ 211, 6); but wanting the necessary capital for
  the socialistic commonwealth there established, and failing to
  realize his expectations, discontent, disorder, and opposition
  got the upper hand, and in 1826 Owen was obliged to abandon all
  his property. He now returned to England, and addressed himself
  in treatises, tracts, and lectures to the working classes of
  the whole land, in order to win them over to his ideas. A vast
  brotherhood for mutual benefit and for the enjoyment of their
  joint earnings was to put an end to earth’s misery, which the
  positive religions had not lessened but only increased. In 1836,
  in the great industrial cities socialist unions with nearly half
  a million members were formed, with their head centre and annual
  congress at Birmingham. The practical schemes of Owen, however,
  had no success in England, and his societies no permanency. He
  died in 1858.--Still more disastrous was the fate of the Icarian
  Colony, founded in Texas in 1848 by the Frenchman =Stephen Cabet=,
  author of “_Voyage en Icarie, Roman philos. et social_,” 1840,
  as an attempt to realize his communistic-philanthropic ideas on
  the other side of the Atlantic. The colonists soon found their
  sanguine hopes bitterly disappointed, and hurled against their
  leader reproaches and threats. Some ex-Icarians accused him in
  1849 before the Paris police-court as a swindler, and he was
  condemned to two years’ imprisonment and five years’ loss of
  civil privileges. Cabet now hastened to France, and on appeal
  obtained reversion of his sentence in 1851. Returning to America,
  he founded a new Icarian colony at Nauvoo in Illinois. But there,
  too, everything went wrong, and a revolt of the colonists obliged
  him to flee. He died in 1856.[576]

  § 212.4. =The International Working-Men’s Association.=--Local
  and national working-men’s unions with a socialistic organization
  had for a long time existed in England, France, and Germany.
  The idea of a union embracing the whole world was first broached
  at the great London Exhibition in 1862, and at a conference in
  London on September 28th, 1864, at which all industrial countries
  of Europe were represented, it assumed a practical shape by the
  founding of a universal international working-men’s association.
  Its constitution was strictly centralistic. A directing committee
  in London, Carl Marx of Treves, formerly _Privatdocent_ of
  philosophy at Bonn, standing at its head as dictator, represented
  the supreme legislative and governing authority, while alongside
  of it a general standing council held the administrative and
  executive power. The latter was divided into eight sections,
  English, American, French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Italian,
  and Spanish, and annual international congresses at Geneva,
  Lausanne, Brussels, Basel, and the Hague gave opportunity for
  general consultation on matters of common interest. Reception as
  members was granted by the giving of a diploma after six months’
  trial, and involved unconditional obedience to the statutes
  and ordinances of the central authorities and the payment of
  an annual fee. The number of members, not, however, exclusively
  drawn from the working classes, is said to have reached two and
  a half millions. The society adopted the current socialistic
  and communistic ideas and tendencies. The religious principle
  of the association was therefore: atheism and materialism; the
  political: absolute democracy; the social: equal rights of labour
  and profit, with abolition of private property, hereditary rights,
  marriage, and family; and as means for realizing this programme,
  unaccomplishable by peaceable methods, revolution and rebellion,
  fire and sword, poison, petroleum and dynamite. Such means have
  been used already in various ways by the international throughout
  the Romance countries; but specially in the brief Reign of Terror
  of the Paris Commune, March and April, 1871, in the relatively
  no less violent attempted revolt at Alcoy in Southern Spain in
  July, 1873. But meanwhile differences appeared within the society,
  which were formulated at the Hague Congress in 1872, and led to
  splits, which greatly lessened its unity, influence, and power to
  do mischief, so that this congress may perhaps be regarded as the
  first beginning of its end.[577]

  § 212.5. =German Social Democracy.=--=Ferd. Lassalle=, son of
  a rich Jewish merchant of Breslau, after a full course of study
  in philosophy and law, began in 1848 to take a lively part in
  the advanced movements of the age, and when he found among the
  liberal citizens no favour for his socialistic ideas turned
  exclusively to the working classes. In answer to the question
  as to what was to be done, by the central committee of a
  working-men’s congress at Leipzig, he wrought out in 1863 with
  great subtlety in an open letter the fundamental idea of his
  universal redemption. All plans of self-help to relieve the
  distress of working men hitherto proposed (specially that of
  Schulze-Delitzsch) break down over the “iron economic law of
  wages,” in consequence of which under the dominion of capital and
  the large employers of labour wages are always with fatalistic
  necessity reduced to the point indispensable for supplying a
  working man’s family with the absolute necessaries of life.
  The working classes, however, have the right according to the
  law of nature to a full equivalent for their labour, but in
  order to reach this they must be their own undertakers, and
  where self-help is only a vain illusion, state help must afford
  the means. By insisting on the right to universal suffrage
  the working classes have obtained a decided majority in the
  legislative assemblies, and there secured a government of the
  future in accordance with their needs. On these principles the
  Universal German Society of Working Men was constituted, with
  Lassalle as its president, which position he held till his
  death in a duel in 1864. Long internal disputes and personal
  recriminations led to a split at the Eisenach Congress in
  1869. The malcontents founded an independent “Social Democratic
  Working-Men’s Union,” under the leadership of Bebel and
  Liebknecht, which, particularly successful in Saxony, Brunswick,
  and South Germany, represents itself as the German branch
  of the “International Working-Men’s Association.” It adhered
  indeed generally to Lassalle’s programme, but objected to the
  extravagant adulation claimed for Lassalle by their opponents,
  the proper disciples of Lassalle, who had Hasenclaver as
  their leader and Berlin as their headquarters, substituted a
  federal for a centralistic organization, and instead of a great
  centralised government in the future desired rather a federal
  republic embracing all Europe. But both declared equally in
  favour of revolution; they vied with one another in bitter hatred
  of everything bearing the name of religion; and wrought out
  with equal enthusiasm their communistic schemes for the future.
  At the Gotha Congress of 1875 a reconciliation of parties was
  effected. The social-democratic agitation thus received a new
  impulse and assumed threatening proportions. Yet it required such
  extraordinary occurrences as the twice attempted assassination of
  the aged emperor, by Hodel on May 11th, and Nobiling on June 2nd,
  1878, to rouse the government to legislative action. On the basis
  of a law passed in October, 1878, for two and a half years (but
  in May, 1880, continued for other three and a half years, and in
  May, 1884, and again in April, 1886, on each occasion extended
  to other two years), 200 socialist societies throughout the
  German empire were suppressed, sixty-four revolutionary journals,
  circulated in hundreds of thousands and with millions of readers,
  and about 800 other seditious writings, were forbidden. But that
  the social- democratic organization and agitation was not thereby
  destroyed is proved by the fact that in August, 1880, in an
  uninhabited Swiss castle lent for the purpose, in Canton Zürich,
  a congress was held, attended by fifty-six German socialists,
  with greetings by letter from sympathisers in all European
  countries, which among other things passed the resolution
  unanimously, no longer as had been agreed upon at Gotha, to seek
  their ends by lawful methods, as by the law of the socialists
  impossible, but by the way of revolution.--On the other hand, the
  German Imperial Chancellor Prince Bismarck in the Reichstag, 1884,
  fully admitted the “right of the worker to work,” as well as the
  duty of the state to ameliorate the condition of working men as
  far as possible, and in three propositions: “Work for the healthy
  workman, hospital attendance to the sick, and maintenance to the
  invalided,” granted all that is asked for by a healthy social
  policy.

  § 212.6. =Russian Nihilism.=--In Russia, too, notwithstanding a
  strictly exercised censorship, the philosophico-scientific gospel
  of materialism and atheism found entrance through the writings
  of Moleschott, Feuerbach, Büchner, Darwin, etc. (§ 174, 3),
  especially among the students. In 1860, Nihilism, springing
  from this seed, first assumed the character of a philosophical
  and literary movement. It sought the overthrow of all religious
  institutions. Then came the women’s question, claiming
  emancipation for the wife. The example of the Paris Commune
  of 1871 contributed largely to the development of Nihilistic
  idealism, its political revolutionary socialism. The Nihilist
  propaganda, like an epidemic, now seized upon the academic youth,
  male and female, was spread in aristocratic families by tutors
  and governesses, won secret disciples among civil servants as
  well as officers of the army and navy, and was enthusiastically
  supported by ladies in the most cultured and exalted ranks. In
  order to spread its views among the people, young men and women
  disguised in peasant’s dress went out among the peasants and
  artisans, lived and wrought like them, and preached their gospel
  to them in their hours of rest. But their efforts failed through
  the antipathy and apathy of the lower orders, and the energetic
  interference of the government by imprisonment and banishment
  thinned the ranks of the propagandists. But all the more closely
  did those left bind themselves together under their central
  leaders as the “Society for Country and Freedom,” and strove
  with redoubled eagerness to spread revolutionary principles
  by secretly printing their proclamations and other incendiary
  productions, and scattering them in the streets and houses. On
  January 24th, 1878, the female Nihilist _Vera Sassulitsch_ from
  personal revenge dangerously wounded with a revolver General
  Trepoff, the dreaded head of the St. Petersburg police. Although
  she openly avowed the deed before the court and gloried in it,
  she was amid the acclamations of the public acquitted. This was
  the hour when Nihilism exercised its fellest terrorism. The fair,
  peaceful phrase, “To work, fight, suffer, and die for the people,”
  was silenced; it was now, sword and fire, dagger and revolver,
  dynamite and mines for all oppressors of the people, but above
  all for the agents of the police, for their spies, for all
  informers and apostates. An “executive committee,” unknown to
  most of the conspirators themselves, issued the death sentence;
  the lot determined the executioner, who himself suffered death
  if he failed to accomplish it. What was now aimed at was the
  assassination of higher state officials; then the sacred person
  of the emperor. Three bold attempts at assassination miscarried;
  the revolver shot of Solowjews on April 14th, 1879; the mine on
  the railway near Moscow that exploded too late on November 30th,
  1879; the horrible attempt to blow up the Winter Palace with
  the emperor and his family on February 17th, 1880; but the
  fourth, a dynamite bomb thrown between the feet of the emperor
  on March 13th, 1881, destroyed the life of this noble and humane
  monarch, who in 1861-1863 had freed his people from the yoke of
  serfdom. As for years nothing more had been heard of Nihilist
  attempts, it was hoped that the government had succeeded in
  putting down this diabolical rebellion, but in 1887 the news
  spread that an equally horrible attempt had been planned for
  the sixth anniversary of the assassination of Alexander II.,
  but fortunately timely precautions were taken against it.




                         CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.


                             FIRST CENTURY.

     A.D.
      14-37.  The Emperor Tiberius, § 22, 1.
      41-54.  The Emperor Claudius, § 22, 1.
         44.  Execution of James the Elder, § 16.
         51.  The Council at Jerusalem, § 18, 1.
      54-68.  The Emperor Nero, § 23, 1.
         61.  Paul’s Arrival at Rome, § 15.
         63.  Stoning of James the Just, § 16, 3.
         64.  Persecution of Christians in Rome, § 22, 1.
      66-70.  Jewish War, § 16.
      81-96.  The Emperor Domitian, § 22, 1.


                            SECOND CENTURY.

     98-117.  The Emperor Trajan, § 22, 2.
        115.  (?) Ignatius of Antioch, Martyr, § 22, 2.
    117-138.  The Emperor Hadrian, § 22, 2.
              Basilides, Valentinus, § 22, 2, 4.
    132-135.  Revolt of Barcochba [Bar-Cochba], § 25.
   Abt. 150.  Celsus, § 23, 3.
              Marcion, § 27, 11.
    138-161.  The Emperor Antoninus Pius, § 22, 2.
        155.  Paschal Controversy between Polycarp and Amicetus
                [Anicetus], § 37, 2.
    161-180.  The Emperor Marcus Aurelius, § 22, 3.
        165.  Justin Martyr, § 30, 9.
        166.  (155?) Martyrdom of Polycarp, § 22, 3.
        172.  (156?) Montanus appears as a Prophet, § 40, 1.
        177.  Persecution of Christians at Lyons and Vienne,
                § 22, 3.
        178.  Irenæus made Bishop of Lyons, § 31, 2.
    180-192.  The Emperor Commodus, § 22, 3.
        196.  Paschal Controversy between Victor and Polycrates,
                § 37, 2.


                             THIRD CENTURY.

        202.  Tertullian becomes Montanist, § 40, 2.
              Pantænus dies, § 31, 4.
        220.  Clement of Alexandria dies, § 31, 4.
        235.  Settlement of the Schism of Hippolytus, § 41, 1.
    235-238.  The Emperor Maximinus Thrax, § 22, 4.
        243.  Ammonius Saccus [Saccas] dies, § 25, 2.
        244.  Arabian Synod against Beryllus, § 33, 7.
    249-251.  The Emperor Decius, § 22, 5.
        250.  The Schism of Felicissimus, § 41, 2.
        251.  The Novatian Schism, § 41, 3.
    253-260.  The Emperor Valerian, § 22, 5.
        254.  Origen dies, § 31, 5.
    255-256.  Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism, § 35, 5.
        258.  Cyprian dies, § 31, 11.
    260-268.  The Emperor Gallienus.
              The Toleration Edict, § 22, 5.
        262.  Synod at Rome against Sabellius and Dionysius of
                Alexandria, § 33, 7.
        269.  Third Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata,
                § 33, 8.
        276.  Mani dies, § 29, 1.
    284-305.  The Emperor Diocletian, § 22, 6.


                            FOURTH CENTURY.

        303.  Beginning of Diocletian Persecution, § 22, 6.
        306.  Synod of Elvira, § 38, 3; 45, 2.
              Meletian Schism in Egypt, § 41, 4.
              Constantius Chlorus dies, § 22, 7.
        311.  Galerius dies, § 22, 6.
        312.  Constantine’s Expedition against Maxentius, § 22, 7.
              Donatist Schism in Africa, § 63, 1.
        313.  Edict of Milan, § 22, 7.
        318.  Arius is Accused, § 50, 1.
    323-337.  Constantine the Great, Sole Ruler, § 42, 2.
        325.  First Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, § 50, 1.
    330-415.  Meletian Schism at Antioch, § 50, 8.
        335.  Synod at Tyre, § 50, 2.
        336.  Athanasius Exiled. Arius dies, § 50, 2.
        341.  Council at Antioch, § 50, 2.
        343.  Persecution of Christians under Shapur [Sapor] II.,
                § 64, 2.
        344.  Synod at Sardica, § 46, 3; 50, 2.
        346.  Council at Milan against Photinus, § 50, 2.
        348.  Ulfilas, Bishop of the Goths, § 76, 1.
    350-361.  Constantius, Sole Ruler, § 42, 2.
        351.  First Council at Sirmium against Marcellus, § 50, 2.
        357.  Second Council at Sirmium, Homoians, § 50, 3.
        358.  Third Council at Sirmium, § 50, 3.
        359.  Synods at Seleucia and Rimini, § 50, 3.
    361-363.  Emperor Julian the Apostate, § 42, 3.
        362.  Synod at Alexandria against Athanasius, § 50, 4.
    366-384.  Damasus I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 4.
        368.  Hilary of Poitiers dies, § 47, 14.
        373.  Athanasius dies, § 47, 3.
        379.  Basil the Great dies, § 47, 4.
    379-395.  Theodosius the Great, Emperor, § 42, 4.
        380.  Synod at Saragossa, § 54, 2.
        381.  Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople, § 50, 4.
              Ulfilas dies, § 76, 1.
    384-398.  Siricius, Bishop of Rome, § 46, 4.
        385.  Priscillian beheaded at Treves, § 54, 2.
        390.  Gregory Nazianzen dies, § 47, 4.
        391.  Destruction of the Serapeion at Alexandria, § 42, 6.
        393.  Council at Hippo Rhegius, § 59, 1.
        397.  Ambrose dies, § 47, 15.
        399.  Rufinus Condemned at Rome as an Origenist, § 51, 2.
        400.  Martin of Tours dies, § 47, 15.


                             FIFTH CENTURY.

    402-417.  Innocent I. of Rome, § 46, 5.
        403.  _Synodus ad Quercum_, § 51, 3.
              Epiphanius dies, § 47, 10.
        407.  Chrysostom dies, § 47, 8.
    408-450.  Theodosius II. in the East, § 52, 3.
        411.  _Collatio cum Donatistis_, § 63, 1.
        412.  Synod at Carthage against Cœlestius, § 53, 4.
        415.  Synods at Jerusalem and Diospolis against Pelagius,
                § 53, 4.
        416.  Synods at Mileve and Carthage against Pelagius,
                § 53, 4.
        418.  General Assembly at Carthage, § 53, 4.
              Roman Schism of Eulalius and Bonifacius, § 46, 6.
        420.  Jerome dies, § 47, 16.
              Persecution of Christians under Behram [Bahram] V.,
                § 64, 2.
    422-432.  Cœlestine I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 6.
        428.  Nestorius is made Patriarch of Constantinople,
                § 52, 3.
        429.  Theodore of Mopsuestia dies, § 47, 9.
              The Vandals in North Africa, § 76, 3.
        430.  Cyril’s Anathemas, § 52, 3.
              Augustine dies, § 47, 18.
        431.  Third Œcumenical Council at Ephesus, § 52, 3.
        432.  St. Patrick in Ireland, § 77, 1.
              John Cassianus dies, § 47, 21.
    440-461.  Leo I., the Great, § 46, 7; 47, 22.
        444.  Cyril of Alexandria dies, § 47, 6.
              Dioscurus succeeds Cyril, § 52, 4.
        445.  Rescript of Valentinian III., § 46, 7.
        448.  Eutyches excommunicated at Constantinople, § 52, 4.
        449.  Robber Synod at Ephesus, § 52, 4.
              Attack of Angles and Saxons upon Britain, § 77, 4.
        451.  Fourth Œcumenical Synod at Chalcedon, § 52, 4.
        457.  Theodoret dies, § 47, 9.
        475.  Semipelagian Synods at Arles and Lyons, § 53, 5.
        476.  Overthrow of the West Roman Empire, § 46, 8; 76, 6.
              Monophysite Encyclical of Basiliscus, § 52, 5.
        482.  Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, § 52, 5.
              Severinus dies, § 76, 6.
    484-519.  The Thirty-five Years’ Schism between the East and
                West, § 52, 5.
    492-496.  Gelasius I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 8; 47, 22.
        496.  Battle of Zülpich. Clovis baptized, § 76, 9.


                             SIXTH CENTURY.

        502.  _Synodus Palmaris_, § 46, 8.
        517.  Council at Epaon, § 76, 5.
    527-565.  Justinian I., Emperor, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
        529.  Synods at Oranges and Valence, § 53, 5.
              Monastic Rule of Benedict of Nursia, § 85.
              Suppression of the University of Athens, § 42, 4.
        533.  The Theopaschite Controversy, § 52, 6.
              Overthrow of the Vandal Empire, § 76, 3.
        544.  Condemnation of the “Three Chapters,” § 52, 6.
        553.  Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople, § 52, 6.
        554.  Overthrow of the Ostrogoth Empire in Italy, § 76, 7.
        563.  Council at Braga, § 54, 2.
              St. Columba among the Picts and Scots. § 77, 2.
        567.  Founding of the Exarchate of Ravenna, § 46, 9.
        568.  The Longobards under Alboin in Italy, § 76, 8.
        589.  Council at Toledo under Reccared, § 76, 2.
              Columbanus and Gallus in the Vosges Country, § 77, 7.
    590-604.  Gregory I., the Great, § 46, 10; 47, 22.
        595.  Gregory of Tours dies, § 90, 2.
        596.  Augustine goes as Missionary to the Anglo-Saxons,
                § 77, 4.
        597.  St. Columba dies, § 77, 2.
              Ethelbert baptized, § 77, 4.


                            SEVENTH CENTURY.

        606.  Emperor Phocas recognises the Roman Primacy, § 46, 10.
    611-641.  Heraclius, Emperor, § 52, 8.
        615.  Columbanus dies, § 77, 7.
        622.  Hejira, § 65.
    625-638.  Honorius I., Pope, § 46, 11.
        636.  Isidore of Seville dies, § 90, 2.
        637.  Omar conquers Jerusalem, § 65.
        638.  Monothelite Ecthesis of Heraclius, § 52, 8.
        640.  Omar conquers Egypt, § 65.
    642-668.  Constans II., Emperor, § 52, 8.
        646.  St. Gallus dies, § 78, 1.
        648.  The Typus of Constans II., § 52, 8.
    649-653.  Martin I., Pope, § 46, 11.
        649.  First Lateran Council under Martin I., § 52, 8.
        652.  Emmeran at Regensburg, § 78, 2.
        657.  Constantine of Mananalis, § 71, 1.
        662.  Maximus Confessor, dies, § 47, 13.
        664.  Synod at Streoneshalch (_Syn. Pharensis_), § 77, 6.
    668-685.  Constantinus Pogonnatus, § 52, 8; 71, 1.
        677.  Wilfrid among the Frisians, § 78, 3.
    678-682.  Agatho, Pope, § 46, 11.
        680.  Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople
                (Trullanum I.), § 52, 8.
        690.  Wilibrord among the Frisians, § 78, 3.
        692.  Concilium Quinisextum (Trullanum II.), § 63, 2.
        696.  Rupert in Bavaria (Salzburg), § 78, 2.


                            EIGHTH CENTURY.

        711.  The Saracens conquer Spain, § 81.
    715-731.  Pope Gregory II., § 66, 1; 78, 4.
        716.  Winifrid goes to the Frisians, § 78, 4.
    717-741.  Leo III., the Isaurian, Emperor, § 66, 1.
        718.  Winifrid in Rome, § 78, 4.
        722.  Winifrid in Thuringia and Hesse, § 78, 4.
        723.  Winifrid a second time at Rome, consecrated Bishop,
                etc., § 78, 4.
        724.  Destruction of the Wonder-working Oak at Geismar,
                § 78, 4.
        726.  Leo’s First Edict against Image Worship, § 66, 1.
        730.  Leo’s Second Edict against Image Worship, § 66, 1.
        731.  Gregory III., Pope, § 66, 1; 78, 4; 82, 1.
        732.  Boniface, Archbishop and Apostolic Vicar, § 78, 4.
              Battle at Poitiers, § 81.
              Separation of Illyria from the Roman See by Leo the
                Isaurian, § 66, 1.
        735.  The Venerable Bede dies, § 90, 2.
        739.  Wilibrord dies, § 78, 3.
        741.  Charles Martel dies, § 78, 5.
                Gregory III. dies. Leo the Isaurian dies.
    741-752.  Pope Zacharias, § 78, 5, 7; 82, 1.
    741-775.  Constantinus Copronymus, Emperor, § 66, 2.
        742.  Concilium Germanicum, § 78, 5.
        743.  Synod at Liptinä, § 78, 5; 86, 2.
        744.  Synod at Soissons, § 78, 5.
        745.  Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, § 78, 5.
        752.  Childeric III. deposed, Pepin the Short, King,
                § 78, 5; 82, 1.
        754.  Iconoclastic Council at Constantinople, § 66, 2.
              Pepin’s donation to the Chair of St. Peter, § 82, 1.
        755.  Boniface dies, § 78, 7.
   Abt. 760.  Rule of St. Chrodegang of Metz, § 84, 4.
        767.  Synod at Gentilliacum, § 91, 2; 92, 1.
    768-814.  Charlemagne, § 82, 2, 4; 90, 1, etc.
    772-795.  Pope Hadrian I., § 82, 2.
        772.  Destruction of Eresburg, § 78, 9.
        774.  Charlemagne’s donation to the Chair of St. Peter,
                § 82, 2.
        785.  Wittekind and Alboin are baptized, § 78, 9.
        787.  Seventh Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, § 66, 3.
              Founding of Cloister and Cathedral Schools, § 90, 1.
        790.  _Libri Carolini_, § 92, 1.
        792.  Synod at Regensburg, § 91, 1.
        794.  General Synod at Frankfort, § 91, 1; 92, 1.
    795-816.  Leo III., Pope, § 82, 3.
        799.  Alcuin’s disputation with Felix at Aachen, § 91, 1.
        800.  Leo III. crowns Charlemagne, § 82, 3.


                             NINTH CENTURY.

        804.  End of the Saxon War, § 78, 9.
              Alcuin dies, § 90, 3.
        809.  Council at Aachen, on the _Filioque_, § 91, 2.
    813-820.  Leo the Armenian, Emperor, § 66, 4.
    814-840.  Louis the Pious, § 82, 4.
        817.  Reformation of Monasticism by Benedict of Aniane,
                § 85, 2.
    820-829.  Michael Balbus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
        825.  Synod at Paris against Image Worship, § 92, 1.
        826.  Theodorus Studita dies, § 66, 4.
              Ansgar in Denmark, § 80, 1.
        827.  Establishment of Saracen Sovereignty in Sicily, § 81.
    829-842.  Theophilus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
        833.  Founding of the Archbishopric of Hamburg, § 80, 1.
        835.  Synod at Didenhofen, § 82, 4.
        839.  Claudius of Turin dies. Agobard of Lyons dies,
                § 90, 4.
    840-877.  Charles the Bald, § 90, 1.
        842.  Feast of Orthodoxy, § 66, 4.
              Theodora recommends the out-rooting of the
                Paulicians, § 71, 1.
        843.  Compact of Verdun, § 82, 5.
        844.  Eucharist Controversy of Paschasius Radbertus,
                § 91, 3.
    845-882.  Hincmar of Rheims, § 83, 2; 90, 5.
        847.  Archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen, § 80, 1.
        848.  Synod of Mainz against Gottschalk, § 91, 5.
    850-859.  Persecution of Christians in Spain, § 81, 1.
    851-852.  The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, § 87, 2, 3.
        853.  Synod of Quiersy. _Capitula Carisiaca_, § 91, 5.
        855.  Synod at Valence in favour of Gottschalk, § 91, 5.
        856.  Rabanus Maurus dies, § 90, 4.
    858-867.  Pope Nicholas I., § 82, 7.
        858.  Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, § 67, 1.
        859.  Synod of Savonnières, § 91, 5.
        861.  Methodius goes to the Bulgarians, § 73, 3.
        863.  Cyril and Methodius go to Moravia, § 79, 2.
        865.  Ansgar dies, § 80, 1.
        866.  Encyclical of Photius, § 67, 1.
    867-886.  Basil the Macedonian, Emperor, § 67, 1.
    867-872.  Hadrian II., Pope, § 82, 7.
        869.  Eighth Œcumenical Council of the Latins at
                Constantinople § 67, 1.
        870.  Treaty of Mersen, § 82, 5.
        871.  Basil the Macedonian puts down the Paulicians,
                § 71, 1.
              Borziwoi and Ludmilla baptized, § 79, 3.
    871-901.  Alfred the Great, § 90, 9.
        875.  John VIII. crowns Charles the Bald Emperor, § 82, 8.
        879.  Eighth Œcumenical Council of the Greeks at
                Constantinople, § 67, 1.
    886-911.  Leo the Philosopher, Emperor, § 67, 2.
        891.  Photius dies, § 67, 1.


                             TENTH CENTURY.

        910.  Abbot Berno founds Clugny, § 98, 1.
        911.  The German Carolingians die out, § 82, 8.
    911-918.  Conrad I., King of the Germans. § 96, 1.
    914-928.  Pope John X., § 96, 1.
    919-936.  Henry I., King of the Germans, § 96, 1.
        934.  Henry I. enforced toleration of Christianity in
                Denmark, § 93, 2.
    936-973.  Otto I., Emperor, § 96, 1.
        942.  Odo of Clugny founds the Clugniac Congregation,
                § 98, 1.
        950.  Gylas of Hungary baptized, § 93, 8.
        955.  Olga baptized in Constantinople, § 73, 4.
        960.  Atto of Vercelli dies, § 100, 2.
        962.  Founding of the Holy Roman Empire of the German
                Nation, § 96, 1.
        963.  Synod at Rome deposes John XII., § 96, 1.
        966.  Miecislaw of Poland baptized, § 93, 7.
        968.  Founding of Archbishopric of Magdeburg, § 93, 9.
        970.  Migration of Paulicians to Thrace, § 71, 1.
    973-983.  Otto II., Emperor, § 96, 2.
        974.  Ratherius of Verona dies, § 100, 2.
   983-1002.  Otto III., Emperor, § 96, 2, 3.
        983.  Mistewoi destroys all Christian establishments among
                the Wends, § 93, 9.
        987.  Hugh Capet is made King of France, § 96, 2.
        988.  Wladimir Christianizes Russia, § 73, 4.
   992-1025.  Boleslaw Chrobry of Poland, § 93, 7.
    996-999.  Pope Gregory V., § 96, 2.
   997-1038.  Stephen the Saint, § 93, 8.
        997.  Adalbert of Prague, Apostle of Prussia, dies,
                § 93, 13.
   999-1003.  Pope Sylvester II., § 96, 3.
       1000.  Olaf Tryggvason dies, § 93, 4.
              Christianity introduced into Iceland and Greenland,
                § 93, 5.
              Stephen of Hungary secures the throne, § 93, 8.


                           ELEVENTH CENTURY.

  1002-1024.  Henry II., Emperor, § 96, 4.
       1008.  Olaf Skautkoning of Sweden baptized, § 93, 3.
       1009.  Bruno martyred, § 93, 13.
  1012-1024.  Pope Benedict VIII., § 96, 4.
  1014-1036.  Canute the Great, § 93, 2.
       1018.  Romuald founds the Camaldulensian Congregation,
                § 98, 1.
  1024-1039.  Conrad II., Emperor, § 96, 4.
       1030.  Olaf the Thick of Norway dies, § 93, 4.
       1031.  Overthrow of the Ommaides in Spain, § 95, 2.
  1039-1056.  Henry II., Emperor, § 96, 4, 5.
       1041.  Treuga Dei, § 105, 1.
       1046.  Synod at Sutri, § 96, 4.
  1049-1054.  Pope Leo IX., § 96, 5.
       1050.  Synods at Rome and Vercelli against Berengar,
                § 101, 2.
       1053.  Epistle of Michael Cærularius, § 67, 3.
       1054.  Excommunication of Greek Church by Papal Legates,
                § 67, 3.
  1056-1106.  Henry IV., Emperor, § 96, 6-11.
       1059.  Pope Nicholas II. assigns the choice of Pope to the
                College of Cardinals, § 96, 6.
       1060.  Robert Guiscard founds the Norman Sovereignty in
                Italy, § 95, 1.
       1066.  Murder of Gottschalk, King of the Wends, § 93, 9.
  1073-1085.  Pope Gregory VII., § 96, 7-9.
       1075.  Gregory’s third Investiture Enactment, § 96, 7.
       1077.  Henry IV. as a Penitent at Canossa, § 96, 8.
       1079.  Berengar subscribes at Rome the doctrine of
                Transubstantiation, § 101, 2.
       1086.  Bruno of Cologne founds the Carthusian Order, § 98, 2.
  1088-1099.  Pope Urban II., § 96, 10.
       1095.  Synod at Clermont, § 94.
       1096.  First Crusade. Godfrey of Boulogne, § 94, 1.
       1098.  Synod at Bari. Anselm of Canterbury, § 67, 4.
              Robert of Citeaux founds the Cistercian Order,
                § 98, 1.
       1099.  Conquest of Jerusalem, § 94, 1.
  1099-1118.  Pope Paschalis II., § 96, 11.


                            TWELFTH CENTURY.

  1106-1125.  Henry V., Emperor, § 96, 11.
       1106.  Michael Psellus dies, § 68, 5.
       1109.  Anselm of Canterbury dies, § 101, 1, 3.
       1113.  Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, § 98, 1; 102, 3.
       1118.  Founding of the Order of Knights Templar.
              Knights of St. John, § 98, 7.
              Basil, head of Bogomili, sent to the stake, § 71, 4.
  1119-1124.  Calixtus II., Pope, § 96, 11.
       1121.  Norbert founds the Præmonstratensian Order, § 98, 2.
       1122.  Concordat of Worms, § 96, 11.
       1123.  Ninth Œcumenical Council (First Lateran), § 96, 11.
       1124.  First Missionary Journey of Otto of Bamberg,
                § 93, 10.
       1126.  Peter of Bruys burnt, § 108, 7.
       1128.  Second Missionary Journey of Otto of Bamberg,
                § 93, 10.
  1130-1143.  Pope Innocent II., § 96, 13.
       1135.  Rupert of Deutz dies, § 102, 8.
       1139.  Tenth Œcumenical Council (Second Lateran), § 96, 13.
       1141.  Synod at Sens condemns Abælard’s writings, § 102, 2.
              Hugo St. Victor dies, § 102, 4.
       1142.  Abælard dies, § 102, 2.
       1143.  Founding of the Roman Commune, § 96, 13.
  1145-1153.  Pope Eugenius III., § 96, 13.
       1146.  Fall of Edessa, § 94, 2.
       1147.  Second Crusade. Conrad III. Louis VII., § 94, 2.
       1149.  Henry of Lausanne dies, § 108, 7.
       1150.  _Decretum Gratiani_, § 99, 5.
  1152-1190.  Frederick I., Barbarossa, § 96, 14.
       1153.  Bernard of Clairvaux dies, § 102, 3.
       1154.  Vicelin [Vicelinus] dies, § 93, 9.
  1154-1159.  Hadrian IV., Pope, § 96, 14.
       1155.  Arnold of Brescia put to death, § 96, 14.
       1156.  Peter the Venerable dies, § 98, 1.
              Founding of Carmelite Order, § 98, 3.
       1157.  Introduction of Christianity into Finland, § 93, 11.
  1159-1181.  Pope Alexander III., § 96, 15, 16.
       1164.  Peter the Lombard dies, § 102, 5.
              Council of Clarendon, § 96, 16.
       1167.  Council at Toulouse (Cathari), § 108, 2.
       1168.  Christianity of the Island of Rügen, § 93, 10.
       1169.  Gerhoch of Reichersberg dies, § 102, 6, 7.
       1170.  Thomas Becket murdered, § 96, 16.
              Founding of the Waldensian sect, § 108, 10.
       1176.  Battle of Legnano, § 96, 15.
       1179.  Eleventh Œcumenical Council (Third Lateran), § 96, 15.
       1180.  John of Salisbury dies, § 102, 9.
       1182.  Maronites are attached to Rome, § 73, 3.
       1184.  Meinhart in Livonia, § 93, 12.
       1187.  Saladin conquers Jerusalem, § 94, 3.
       1189.  Third Crusade. Frederick Barbarossa, § 94, 3.
  1190-1197.  Henry VI., Emperor, § 96, 16.
       1190.  Founding of Order of Teutonic Knights, § 98, 8.
       1194.  Eustathius of Thessalonica dies, § 68, 5.
  1198-1216.  Pope Innocent III., § 96, 17, 18.


                          THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

       1202.  Joachim of Floris dies, § 108, 5.
              Founding of Order of the Brothers of the Sword,
                § 93, 12.
              Genghis Khan destroys Kingdom of Prester John,
                § 72, 1.
  1204-1261.  Latin Empire in Constantinople, § 94, 4.
       1207.  Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, § 96, 18.
       1208.  Peter of Castelnau slain, § 109, 1.
  1209-1229.  Albigensian Crusade, § 109, 1.
       1209.  Council of Paris against Sect of Amalrich of Bena,
                § 108, 4.
       1212.  Battle at Tolosa, § 95, 2.
       1213.  John Lackland receives England as a Papal Fief,
                § 96, 18.
  1215-1250.  Frederick II., Emperor, § 96, 17, 19, 20.
       1215.  Twelfth Œcumenical Council (Fourth Lateran),
                § 96, 18.
       1216.  Confirmation of the Dominican Order, § 98, 5.
  1216-1227.  Pope Honorius III., § 96, 19.
       1217.  Fourth Crusade. Andrew II. of Hungary, § 94, 4.
       1223.  Confirmation of Franciscan Order, § 98, 3.
       1226.  Francis of Assisi dies, § 98, 3.
  1226-1270.  Louis IX., the Saint, § 94, 6; 93, 15.
  1227-1241.  Pope Gregory IX., § 96, 19.
       1228.  Fifth Crusade. Frederick II., § 94, 5.
              Settlement of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,
                § 93, 13.
       1229.  Synod at Toulouse, § 109, 2.
       1231.  St. Elizabeth dies, § 105, 3.
       1232.  Inquisition Tribunal set up, § 109, 2.
       1233.  Conrad of Marburg slain, § 109, 3.
       1234.  Crusade against Stedingers, § 109, 3.
       1237.  Union of the Order of Sword with that of Teutonic
                Knights, § 98, 8.
  1243-1254.  Pope Innocent IV., § 96, 20.
       1245.  Thirteenth Œcumenical Council (first of Lyons),
                § 96, 20.
              Alexander of Hales died, § 103, 4.
       1248.  Foundation stone of Cathedral of Cologne laid,
                § 104, 13.
              Sixth Crusade, Louis IX., § 94, 6.
       1253.  Robert Grosseteste dies, § 103, 1.
       1254.  Condemnation of the “_Introductorius in evangelium
                æternum_,” § 108, 5.
       1260.  First Flagellant Campaign in Perugia, § 107, 1.
  1260-1282.  Michael Paläologus, Emperor, § 67, 4.
  1261-1264.  Urban IV., Pope, § 96, 20.
       1262.  Arsenian Schism, § 70, 1.
       1268.  Conradin on the Scaffold. § 96, 20.
       1269.  Pragmatic Sanction of Louis IX., § 96, 21.
       1270.  Seventh Crusade, Louis IX., § 94, 6.
  1271-1276.  Pope Gregory X., § 96, 21.
       1272.  Italian Mission to the Mongols. Marco Polo, § 93, 15.
              David of Augsburg dies, § 103, 10.
              Bertholdt [Berthold] of Regensburg dies, § 104, 1.
  1273-1291.  Rudolph of Hapsburg, Emperor, § 96, 21, 22.
       1274.  Fourteenth Œcumenical Council (second of Lyons),
                § 96, 21.
              Thomas Aquinas dies, § 103, 6.
              Bonaventura dies, § 103, 4.
       1275.  Strassburg Minster, § 104, 13.
       1280.  Albert the Great dies, § 103, 5.
       1282.  Sicilian Vespers, § 96, 22.
       1283.  Prussia subdued, § 93, 13.
       1286.  Barhabraeus [Barhebræus] dies, § 72, 2.
       1291.  Fall of Acre, § 94, 6.
              John of Montecorvino among the Mongols, § 93, 16.
       1294.  Roger Bacon dies, § 103, 8.
  1294-1303.  Boniface VIII., Pope, § 110, 1.
       1296.  Bull _Clericis laicos_, § 110, 1.
       1300.  First Roman Jubilee, § 117.
              Lollards at Antwerp, § 116, 2.
              Gerhard Segarelli burnt, § 108, 8.


                          FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

       1302.  Bull _Unam Sanctam_, § 110, 1.
  1305-1314.  Pope Clement V., § 110, 2.
       1307.  Dolcino burnt, § 108, 4.
       1308.  Duns Scotus dies, § 113, 1.
  1309-1377.  Residence of Popes at Avignon, § 110, 2-4.
  1311-1312.  Fifteenth Œcumenical Council at Vienne, § 110, 2.
              Suppression of Templar Order, § 112, 7.
  1314-1347.  Louis the Bavarian, Emperor, § 110, 3, 4.
       1315.  Raimund Lullus dies, § 93, 16; 103, 5.
  1316-1334.  Pope John XXII., § 110, 3; 112, 2.
       1321.  Dante dies, § 115, 10.
       1322.  Split in the Franciscan Order, § 112, 2.
       1327.  Meister Eckhart dies, § 114, 1.
  1334-1342.  Pope Benedict XII., § 110, 4.
       1335.  Bishop Hemming in Lapland, § 93, 11.
       1338.  Electoral Union at Rhense, § 110, 5.
       1339.  Union negotiations at Avignon. Barlaam, § 67, 5.
       1340.  Nicholas of Lyra dies, § 113, 7.
  1341-1351.  Hesychast Controversy in Constantinople, § 69, 1.
  1342-1352.  Pope Clement VI., § 110, 4.
  1346-1378.  Charles IV., Emperor, § 110, 4.
       1347.  Rienzi, § 110, 4.
              Emperor Louis dies, § 110, 4.
       1348.  Founding of University of Prague, § 119, 3.
  1348-1350.  Black Death. Flagellant Campaign, § 116, 3.
       1349.  Thomas Bradwardine dies, § 113, 2.
  1352-1362.  Pope Innocent VI., § 110, 4.
       1356.  Charles IV. issues the Golden Bull, § 110, 4.
       1360.  Wiclif against the Begging Friars, § 119, 1.
       1361.  John Tauler dies, § 114, 2.
  1362-1370.  Pope Urban V., § 110, 4.
       1366.  Henry Suso dies, § 114, 5.
  1367-1370.  Urban V. in Rome, § 110, 4.
       1369.  John Paläologus passes over to the Latin Church,
                § 67, 5.
  1370-1378.  Pope Gregory XI., § 110, 4.
       1374.  Dancers, § 116, 3.
       1377.  Return of the Curia to Rome, § 110, 4.
  1378-1417.  Papal Schism, § 110, 6.
       1380.  Catharine of Siena dies, § 112, 4.
       1384.  Wiclif dies, § 119, 1.
              Gerhard Groot dies, § 112, 9.
       1386.  Introduction of Christianity into Lithuania,
                § 93, 14.
       1400.  Florentius Radewin dies, § 112, 9.


                           FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

       1402.  Hus becomes Preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel,
                § 119, 3.
       1409.  Œcumenical Council at Pisa, § 110, 6.[578]
              Withdrawal of the Germans from Prague, § 119, 3.
  1410-1415.  John XXIII., Pope, § 110, 7.
  1410-1437.  Sigismund, Emperor, § 110, 7, 8.
       1412.  Traffic in Indulgences in Bohemia, § 119, 4.
       1413.  Papal Ban against Hus, § 119, 4.
  1414-1418.  Sixteenth Œcumenical Council at Constance, § 110, 6;
                119, 5.
       1415.  Hus obtains the crown of martyrdom, § 119, 5.
       1416.  Jerome of Prague martyred, § 119, 5.
  1417-1431.  Pope Martin V., § 110, 7.
       1420.  Calixtines and Taborites, § 119, 7.
       1423.  General Councils at Pavia and Siena, § 110, 7.
       1424.  Ziska dies, § 119, 7.
       1425.  Peter D’Ailly dies, § 118, 3.
       1429.  Gerson dies, § 118, 3.
  1431-1447.  Pope Eugenius IV., § 110, 7.
  1431-1449.  Seventeenth Œcumenical Council at Basel, § 110, 8;
                119, 5-7.
       1433.  Basel Compacts, § 119, 7.
       1434.  Overthrow of Hussites at Böhmischbrod, § 119, 7.
       1438.  Papal Counter-Council at Ferrara, § 110, 8.
              Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, § 110, 9.
       1439.  Council at Florence, § 67, 6.
       1448.  Concordat of Vienna, § 110, 9.
       1453.  Fall of Constantinople, § 67, 6.
       1457.  Laurentius Valla dies, § 120, 1.
  1458-1464.  Pope Pius II., § 110, 11.
       1459.  Congress of Princes at Mantua, § 110, 10.
  1464-1471.  Pope Paul II., § 110, 11.
       1467.  Convention of Bohemian Brethren at Lhota, § 119, 8.
       1471.  Thomas à Kempis dies, § 114, 5.
  1471-1484.  Sixtus IV., Pope, § 110, 11.
       1483.  Luther born on November 10th, § 122, 1.
              Spanish Inquisition, § 117, 1.
              Close of _Corpus juris canonici_, § 99, 5.
  1484-1492.  Innocent VIII., Pope, § 110, 11.
       1484.  Zwingli born January 1st, § 130, 1.
              Bull _Summis desiderantes_, § 117, 4.
       1485.  Rudolph Agricola dies, § 120, 3.
       1489.  John Wessel dies, § 119, 10.
  1492-1503.  Alexander VI., Pope, § 110, 12.
       1492.  Fall of Granada, § 95, 2.
  1493-1519.  Maximilian I., Emperor, § 110, 13.
       1497.  Melanchthon born, § 122, 5.
       1498.  Savonarola sent to the stake, § 119, 11.


                           SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

       1502.  Founding of University of Wittenberg, § 122, 1.
  1508-1513.  Pope Julius II., § 110, 13.
       1506.  Rebuilding of St. Peter’s at Rome, § 115, 13.
       1508.  Luther becomes Professor at Wittenberg, § 122, 1.
       1509.  Calvin born on July 10th, § 138, 2.
  1509-1547.  Henry VIII. of England, § 139, 4.
       1511.  Luther’s journey to Rome, § 122, 1.
              Council at Pisa, § 110, 13.
       1512.  Luther made Doctor of the Holy Scriptures and
                Preacher, § 112, 1.
  1512-1517.  Fifth Lateran Council, § 110, 13, 14.
  1513-1521.  Pope Leo X., § 110, 14.
       1514.  Reuchlin’s contest with the Dominicans, § 120, 4.
       1516.  _Epistolæ Obscur. virorum_, § 120, 5.
              Erasmus edits the New Testament, § 120, 6.
              Zwingli preaches at Mariä Einsiedeln, § 130, 1.
       1517.  Luther’s Theses, October 31st, § 122, 2.
       1518.  Luther at Heidelberg and before Cajetan at Augsburg,
                § 122, 3.
              Melanchthon Professor at Wittenberg, § 122, 5.
       1519.  Miltitz, § 122, 3.
              Disputation at Leipzig, § 122, 4.
              Zwingli in Zürich, § 130, 1.
              Olaf and Laurence Peterson in Sweden, § 139, 1.
  1519-1556.  Emperor Charles V., § 123, 5.
       1520.  Bull of Excommunication against Luther, § 123, 2.
              Christian II. in Denmark, § 139, 2.
       1521.  Luther at Worms, § 123, 7.
              Melanchthon’s _Loci_, § 124, 1.
              Beginning of Reformation in Riga, § 139, 3.
  1521-1522.  The Wartburg Exile, § 123, 8.
       1522.  The Prophets of Zwickau in Wittenberg, § 124, 1.
              Reuchlin dies, § 120, 4.
  1522-1523.  Pope Hadrian VI., § 126, 1.
       1523.  Thomas Münzer in Allstädt, § 124, 4.
              Luther’s contest with Henry VIII., § 125, 3.
              First Martyrs, Voes and Esch, § 128, 1.
              Sickingen’s defeat, § 124, 2.
  1523-1534.  Pope Clement VII., § 149, 1.
       1524.  Staupitz dies, § 112, 2.
              Carlstadt in Orlamünde, § 124, 3.
              Erasmus against Luther, § 125, 2.
              Diet of Nuremberg, § 126, 2.
              Regensburg League, § 126, 3.
              Hans Tausen in Denmark, § 139, 2.
              Founding of Theatine Order, § 149, 7.
       1525.  Eucharist Controversy, § 131, 1.
              Luther’s Marriage, § 129.
              Albert of Prussia, Hereditary Duke, § 126, 4.
              Founding of the Capuchin Order, § 149, 7.
  1525-1532.  John the Constant, Elector of Saxony, § 124, 5.
       1526.  Synod at Hamburg, § 127, 2.
              Torgau League, § 126, 5.
              Diet at Spires, § 126, 6.
              Disputation at Baden, § 130, 6.
       1527.  Diet at Odense, § 139, 2;
              and at Westeräs, § 139, 1.
       1528.  The Pack incident, § 132, 1.
              Disputation at Bern, § 130, 7.
       1529.  Church Visitation of Saxony, § 127, 1.
              Diet at Spires, § 132, 3.
              Marburg Conference, § 132, 4.
              First Peace of Cappel, § 130, 9.
       1530.  Diet at Augsburg. _Conf. Augustana_, June 25th,
                § 132, 6, 7.
       1531.  Schmalcald League, § 133, 1.
              Zwingli dies. Second Peace of Cappel, § 130, 10.
  1532-1547.  John Frederick the Magnanimous, Elector of Saxony,
                § 133, 2.
       1532.  Religious Peace of Nuremberg, § 133, 2.
              Farel at Geneva, § 138, 1.
              Henry VIII. renounces authority of the Pope, § 139, 4.
       1534.  Luther’s complete Bible Translation, § 129, 1.
              Reformation in Württemberg, § 133, 3.
  1534-1535.  Anabaptist Troubles in Münster, § 133, 6.
  1534-1549.  Pope Paul III., § 149, 2.
       1535.  Vergerius in Wittenberg, § 134, 1.
              Calvin’s _Institutio rel. Christ._, § 138, 5.
       1536.  Erasmus dies, § 120, 6.
              Wittenberg Concord, § 133, 8.
              Calvin in Geneva, § 138, 2.
              Diet at Copenhagen, § 139, 2.
              Menno Simons baptized, § 147, 1.
       1537.  Schmalcald Articles, § 134, 1.
              Antinomian Controversy, § 141, 1.
       1538.  Nuremberg League, § 134, 2.
              Calvin Expelled from Geneva, § 138, 3.
       1539.  Outbreak at Frankfort, § 134, 3.
              Reformation in Albertine Saxony, § 134, 4.
              Joachim II. reforms Brandenburg, § 134, 5.
              Diet at Odense, § 139, 2.
       1540.  The Society of Jesus, § 149, 8.
              Double Marriage of the Landgrave, § 135, 1.
              Religious Conferences at Spires, Hagenau, and Worms,
                § 135, 2.
       1541.  Carlstadt dies, § 124, 3.
              Interim of Regensburg, § 135, 3.
              Naumburg Episcopate, § 135, 5.
              Calvin returns to Geneva, § 138, 3, 4.
       1542.  Reformation in Brunswick, § 135, 6.
              National Assembly at Bonn, § 135, 7.
              Francis Xavier in the East Indies, § 150, 1.
              Roman Inquisition, § 139, 23.
       1544.  Diet at Spires, Peace of Crespy, Wittenberg
                Reformation, § 135, 9.
              Diet at Westeräs, § 139, 1.
       1545.  Synod at Erdöd, § 139, 20.
  1545-1547.  Nineteenth Œcumenical Council at Trent, § 136, 4;
                149, 2.
       1546.  Regensburg Conference: Murder of John Diaz, § 135, 10.
              Luther dies, February 18th, § 135, 11.
              Reformation in the Palatinate, § 135, 6.
  1546-1547.  Schmalcald War, § 136.
  1547-1553.  Edward VI. of England, § 139, 5.
       1547.  Hermann of Cologne resigns, § 136, 2.
  1548-1572.  Sigismund Augustus, of Poland, § 139, 18.
       1548.  Interim of Augsburg, § 136, 5.
              Adiaphorist Controversy, § 141, 5.
              Priests of the Oratory, § 149, 7.
       1549.  _Consensus Tigurinus_, § 138, 7.
              Andrew Osiander at Königsburg, § 141, 2.
              Jesuit Mission in Brazil, § 150, 3.
              The first Jesuits in Germany (Ingolstadt), § 151, 2.
  1550-1555.  Pope Julius III., § 136, 8.
       1550.  Brothers of Mercy, § 149, 7.
       1551.  Resumption of Tridentine Council, § 136, 8; 149, 2.
       1552.  Compact of Passau, § 137, 3.
              Outbreak of Crypto-Calvinist Controversy, § 141, 9.
              Francis Xavier dies, § 150, 1.
  1553-1558.  Mary the Catholic of England, § 139, 5.
       1553.  Elector Maurice dies, § 137, 4.
              Servetus burnt, § 148, 2.
       1554.  _Consensus Pastorum Genevensium_, § 138, 7.
              John Frederick the Magnanimous dies, § 137, 3.
       1555.  Religious Peace of Augsburg, § 137, 5.
              Outbreak of Synergist Controversies, § 141, 7.
  1555-1598.  Philip II. of Spain, § 139, 21.
  1556-1564.  Ferdinand I, Emperor, § 137, 8.
       1556.  Loyola dies, § 149, 8.
       1557.  National Assembly at Clausenburg and _Confessio
                Hungarica_, § 139, 20.
       1558.  Frankfort Recess, § 141, 11.
  1558-1603.  Elizabeth of England, § 139, 6.
       1559.  Gustavus Vasa’s Mission to the Lapps, § 142, 7.
              _Confessio Gallicana_, § 139, 14.
              The English Act of Uniformity, § 139, 6.
  1560-1565.  Pope Pius IV., § 149, 2.
       1560.  _Confessio Scotica_, § 139, 9.
              John a Lasco dies, § 139, 18.
              Calvinizing of the Palatinate, § 144, 1.
              Melanchthon dies, § 141, 10.
       1561.  Gotthard Kettler, Duke of Courland, § 139, 3.
              Religious Conference at Poissy, § 139, 14.
              Mary Stuart in Scotland, § 139, 10.
              Princes’ Diet at Naumburg, § 141, 11.
  1562-1563.  Resumption and Close of Tridentine Council, § 149, 2.
       1562.  _Confessio Belgica_, § 139, 12.
              The XXXIX. Articles of the English Church, § 139, 6.
              Calvinizing of Bremen, § 144, 2.
              Heidelberg Catechism, § 144, 1.
              Lælius Socinus dies, § 148, 4.
       1564.  Calvin dies, § 138, 4.
              _Professio fidei Tridentinæ_, § 149, 14.
              Cassander’s Union Proposals, § 137, 8.
              Maulbronn Convention, § 144, 1.
  1564-1576.  Emperor Maximilian II., § 137, 8.
       1566.  _Catechasimo Romanus_, § 149, 10.
              _Confessio Helvetica posterior_, § 138, 7.
              The League of “the Beggars,” § 139, 12.
       1567.  The writings of Michael Baius condemned, § 149, 13.
       1570.  General Synod at Sendomir, § 139, 13.
              Peace of St. Germains, § 139, 15.
  1572-1585.  Pope Gregory XIII., § 149, 3.
       1572.  John Knox dies, § 139, 11.
              Bloody Marriage of Paris, August 24th, § 139, 16.
       1573.  _Pax dissidentium_ in Poland, § 139, 18.
       1574.  Maulbronn Convention, § 141, 12.
              Restoration of Catholicism in Eichsfelde, § 151, 1.
       1575.  _Confessio Bohemica_, § 139, 19.
       1576.  Book of Torgau, § 141, 12.
              Pacification of Ghent, § 139, 12.
  1576-1612.  Rudolph II., Emperor, § 137, 8.
       1577.  The Formula of Concord, § 141, 12.
              Restoration of Catholicism in Fulda, § 151, 1.
       1578.  The Jesuit Possevin in Sweden, § 151, 3.
       1579.  The Union of Utrecht, § 139, 12.
       1580.  Book of Concord, § 141, 12.
       1582.  Second Attempt at Reformation in Cologne, § 137, 6.
              Matthew Ricci in China, § 150, 1.
              Reform of Calendar, § 149, 3.
  1585-1590.  Pope Sixtus V., § 149, 3.
       1587.  Mary Stuart on the Scaffold, § 139, 10.
       1588.  Louis Molina, § 149, 13.
  1589-1610.  Henry IV. of France, § 139, 17.
       1589.  Patriarchate at Moscow, § 73, 4.
       1592.  Saxon Articles of Visitation, § 141, 13.
       1593.  Assembly of Representatives at Upsala, § 139, 1.
       1595.  Synod at Thorn, § 139, 18.
       1596.  Synod at Brest, § 151, 3.
       1597.  Calvinizing the Principality of Anhalt, § 144, 3.
              _Congregatio de auxiliis_, § 149, 13.
       1598.  Edict of Nantes, § 139, 17.
       1600.  Giordano Bruno at the Stake, § 146, 3.


                          SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

       1604.  Faustus Socinus dies, § 148, 4.
       1605.  Landgrave Maurice calvinizes Hesse Cassel, § 154, 1.
              Gunpowder Plot, § 153, 6.
       1606.  The Treaty of Vienna, § 139, 10.
              Interdict on the Republic of Venice, § 156, 2.
       1608.  Founding the Jesuit State of Paraguay, § 156, 10.
       1609.  The Royal Letter, § 139, 19.
  1610-1643.  Louis XIII. of France, § 153, 3.
       1610.  Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, § 160, 2.
       1611.  Pères de l’Oratoire, § 156, 7.
  1612-1619.  Matthias, Emperor, § 153, 1.
       1613.  Elector John Sigismund of Brandenburg goes over to
                Reformed Church, § 154, 3.
              George Calixtus in Helmstädt [Helmstadt], § 159, 2.
       1614.  _Confessio Marchica_, § 154, 3.
       1616.  Leonard Hutter dies, § 159, 4.
       1618.  Monks of St. Maur in France, § 156, 7.
  1618-1648.  The Thirty Years’ War, § 153, 2.
  1618-1619.  Synod of Dort, § 161, 2.
  1619-1637.  Ferdinand II., Emperor, § 153, 2.
       1620.  The Valteline Massacre, § 153, 3.
              The Pilgrim Fathers, § 143, 2.
       1621.  John Arndt dies, § 160, 1.
       1622.  Francis de Sales dies, § 157, 1.
              _Congregatio de propaganda fide_, § 156, 9.
       1624.  End of Controversy over κένωσις and κρύψις, § 159, 1.
              Jac. Böhme dies, § 160, 2.
       1628.  Adam Schall in China, § 156, 12.
       1629.  Edict of Restitution, § 153, 2.
       1631.  Religious Conference at Leipzig, § 154, 4.
       1632.  Gustavus Adolphus falls at Lützen, § 153, 2.
       1637.  John Gerhard dies, § 159, 4.
              Rooting out of Christianity in Japan, § 156, 11.
       1638.  Overthrow of Racovian Seminary, § 148, 4.
              Cyril Lucar strangled, § 152, 2.
              Scottish Covenant, § 155, 1.
       1641.  Irish Massacre, § 153, 5.
       1642.  Condemnation of the “Augustinus” of Jansen, § 157, 5.
  1643-1715.  Louis XIV. of France, § 153, 2; 157, 2, 3, 5.
       1643.  Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogilas, § 152, 3.
              Opening of Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
       1645.  Hugo Grotius dies, § 153, 7.
              Religious Conference at Thorn, § 153, 7.
              Peace of Linz, § 153, 3.
  1645-1742.  Accommodation Controversy, § 156, 12.
       1647.  George Fox appears as Leader of the Quakers, § 163, 4.
       1648.  Peace of Westphalia, § 153, 2.
              Close of Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
       1649.  Execution of Charles I. of England, § 155, 1.
       1650.  Descartes dies, § 164, 1.
       1652.  Liturgical Reform of the Patriarch Nikon, § 163, 10.
       1653.  Innocent X. condemns the Five Propositions of Jansen,
                § 157, 5.
              Barebones’ Parliament, § 155, 2.
       1654.  Christina of Sweden becomes a Catholic, § 153, 1.
              John Val. Andreä dies, § 160, 1.
       1655.  The Bloody Easter in Piedmont, § 153, 5.
              _Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ_, § 159, 2.
       1656.  George Calixtus dies, § 159, 2.
              Pascal’s _Lettres Provinciales_, § 157, 5.
       1658.  Outbreak of Cocceian Controversies, § 161, 5.
       1660.  Vincent de Paul dies, § 156, 8.
              Restoration of Royalty and Episcopacy in England,
                § 155, 3.
       1661.  Religious Conference at Cassel, § 154, 4.
       1664.  Founding of Order of Trappists, § 156, 8.
       1669.  Cocceius dies, § 161, 3.
       1670.  The Labadists in Herford, § 163, 7.
       1673.  The Test Act, § 153, 6.
       1675.  _Formula consensus Helvetici_, § 161, 2.
              Spener’s _Pia Desideria_, § 159, 3.
       1676.  Paul Gerhardt dies, § 154, 4.
              Voetius dies, § 161, 3.
       1677.  Spinoza dies, § 164, 1.
       1682.  _Quatuor propositiones Cleri Gallicani_, § 156, 1.
              Founding of Pennsylvania, § 163, 4.
       1685.  Revocation of Edict of Nantes and Expulsion of
                Waldensians from Piedmont, § 153, 4, 5.
       1686.  Spener at Dresden and _Collegia philobiblica_ in
                Leipzig, § 159, 3.
              Abraham Calov dies, § 159, 4.
       1687.  Michael Molinos forced to Abjure, § 157, 2.
       1689.  English Act of Toleration, § 155, 3.
                Return of banished Waldensians, § 153, 5.
       1690.  The Pietists Expelled from Leipzig, § 159, 3.
       1691.  Spener in Berlin, § 159, 3.
       1694.  Founding of University of Halle, § 159, 3.
       1697.  Frederick Augustus the Strong of Saxony becomes
                Catholic, § 153, 1.
       1699.  Propositions of Fénelon Condemned, § 157, 3.


                          EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

       1701.  Thomas of Tournon in the East Indies, § 156, 12.
       1702.  Löscher’s “_Unschuldige Nachrichten_,” § 167, 1.
              Buttlar Fanatical Excesses, § 170, 4.
       1703.  _Collegium caritativum_ at Berlin, § 169, 1.
              Peter Codde deposed, § 165, 8.
       1704.  Bossuet dies, § 153, 7; 157, 3.
       1705.  Spener dies, § 159, 3.
       1706.  Founding of Lutheran Mission at Tranquebar, § 167, 9.
       1707.  The Praying Children at Silesia, § 167, 8.
       1709.  Port Royal suppressed, § 157, 5.
       1712.  Richard Simon dies, § 158, 1.
              Mechitarist Congregation, § 165, 2.
       1713.  The Constitution _Unigenitus_, § 165, 7.
  1717-1774.  Louis XV. of France, § 165, 5.
       1715.  Fénelon dies, § 157, 3.
       1716.  Leibnitz dies, § 164, 2.
       1717.  French Appellants, § 165, 7.
              Madame Guyon dies, § 157, 3.
              Gottfried Arnold dies, § 160, 2.
              Inspired Communities in the Cevennes, § 170, 2.
       1721.  Holy Synod of St. Petersburg, § 166.
              Hans Egede goes as Missionary to Greenland, § 167, 9.
       1722.  Founding of Herrnhut, § 168, 2.
       1727.  A. H. Francke dies, § 167, 8.
              Thomas of Westen dies, § 160, 7.
              Founding of the Society of United Brethren, § 168, 2.
       1728.  Callenberg’s Institute for Conversion of Jews,
                § 167, 9.
       1729.  Buddeus dies, § 168, 2.
              Methodist Society formed, § 169, 4.
       1731.  Emigration of Evangelicals of Salzburg, § 165, 4.
  1740-1786.  Frederick II. of Prussia, § 171, 4.
       1741.  Moravian Special Covenant with the Lord Jesus,
                § 168, 4.
       1750.  Sebastian Bach dies, § 167, 7.
              End of Jesuit State of Paraguay, § 165, 3.
       1751.  Semler, Professor in Halle, § 171, 6.
       1752.  Bengel dies, § 167, 4.
       1754.  Christ. v. Wolff dies, § 167, 3.
              Winckelmann becomes a Roman Catholic, § 165, 6.
       1755.  Mosheim dies, § 167, 3.
  1758-1769.  Pope Clement XIII., § 165, 9.
       1759.  Banishment of Jesuits from Portugal, § 165, 9.
       1760.  Zinzendorf dies, § 168, 3.
       1762.  Judicial Murder of Jean Calas, § 165, 5.
       1765.  Universal German Library, § 171, 4.
  1769-1774.  Pope Clement XIV., § 165, 9.
       1772.  Swedenborg dies, § 170, 5.
       1773.  Suppression of Jesuit Order, § 165, 9.
       1774.  Wolfenbüttel Fragments, § 171, 6.
  1775-1799.  Pius VI., Pope, § 165, 9, 10.
       1775.  C. A. Crusius dies, § 167, 3.
       1776.  Founding of the Order of the Illuminati, § 165, 13.
       1778.  Voltaire and Rousseau die, § 165, 14.
  1780-1790.  Joseph II., sole ruler, § 165, 10.
       1781.  Joseph’s Edict of Toleration, § 165, 10.
       1782.  Pope Pius VI. in Vienna, § 165, 10.
       1786.  Congress at Ems and Synod at Pistoja, § 165, 10.
       1787.  Edict of Versailles, § 165, 4.
       1788.  The Religious Edict of Wöllner, § 171, 5.
       1789.  French Revolution, § 165, 15.
       1791.  Wesley dies, § 169, 5.
              Semler dies, § 171, 6.
       1793.  Execution of Louis XVI. and his Queen. Abolition of
                Christian reckoning of time and of the Christian
                religion in France. _Temple de la Raison_,
                § 165, 15.
       1794.  _Le peuple français reconnait l’Etre suprème et
                l’immortalité de l’âme_, § 165, 15.
       1795.  Founding of London Missionary Society, § 172, 5.
       1799.  Schleiermacher’s “_Reden über die Religion_,”
                § 182, 1.
       1800.  Stolberg becomes a Roman Catholic, § 165, 6.


                          NINETEENTH CENTURY.

  1800-1823.  Pope Pius VII., § 185, 1.
       1801.  French Concordat, § 203, 1.
       1803.  Recess of Imperial Deputies, § 192, 1.
       1804.  Founding of British and Foreign Bible Society,
                § 183, 4.
              Kant dies, § 171, 10.
       1806.  End of Catholic German Empire, § 192.
       1809.  Napoleon under Ban; the Pope Imprisoned, § 185, 1.
       1810.  Founding of American Missionary Society at Boston,
                § 184, 1.
              Schleiermacher professor at Berlin, § 182, 1.
       1811.  French National Council, § 185, 1.
       1814.  Vienna Congress. Restoration of the Pope, § 185, 1.
              Restoration of the Jesuits, § 186, 1.
       1815.  The Holy Alliance, § 173.
       1816.  Mission Seminary at Basel, § 184, 1.
       1817.  The Theses of Harms, § 176, 1.
              Union Interpellation of Frederick William III.,
                § 177, 1.
       1822.  Introduction of the Prussian Service Book, § 176, 1.
              Lyons Association for Spreading the Faith, § 186, 7.
  1823-1829.  Pope Leo XII., § 185, 1.
       1825.  Book of Mormon, § 211, 12.
       1827.  Hengstenberg’s _Evangel. Kirchenzeitung_, § 176, 1.
       1829.  English Catholic Emancipation Bill, § 202, 9.
              Founding of Barmen Missionary Institute, § 184, 1.
  1829-1830.  Pope Pius VIII., § 185, 1.
       1830.  July Revolution, § 203, 2.
              Halle Controversy, § 176, 1.
              Abbé Chatel in Paris, § 187, 6.
  1831-1846.  Gregory XVI., Pope, § 185, 1.
       1831.  Hegel dies, § 174, 1.
       1833.  Beginning of Puseyite Agitation, § 203, 2.
       1834.  Conflict at Hönigern, § 177, 2.
              Schleiermacher dies, § 182, 1.
       1835.  Strauss’ first Life of Jesus, § 182, 6.
              Condemnation of Hermesianism, § 193, 1.
              Edward Irving dies, § 211, 10.
              Persecution of Christians in Madagascar, § 184, 3.
       1836.  Founding of Dresden Missionary Institute, § 184, 1.
       1837.  Emigrants of Zillerthal, § 198, 1.
              Beginning of Troubles at Cologne, § 193, 1.
       1838.  Archbishop Dunin of Posen, § 193, 1.
              Rescript of Altenburg, § 194, 2.
              J. A. Möhler dies, § 191, 4.
              English Tithes’ Bill, § 202, 9.
       1839.  Call of Dr. Strauss to Zürich, § 199, 4.
              Bavarian order to give Adoration, § 195, 2.
              Synod at Polozk, § 206, 2.
  1810-1861.  Frederick William IV. of Prussia, § 193.
       1841.  Schelling at Berlin, § 174, 1.
              Constitution of Lutherans separated from National
                Church of Prussia, § 177, 2.
              Founding of Evangelical Bishopric of Jerusalem,
                § 184, 8.
              Founding of Gustavus Adolphus Association, § 178, 1.
       1843.  Disruption and Founding of the Free Church of
                Scotland, § 202, 7.
       1844.  German-Catholic Church, § 187, 1.
              Wislicenus’ “Ob Schrift, ob Geist?” § 176, 1.
       1845.  Founding Free Church of Vaud, § 199, 2.
  1845-1846.  Conversions in Livonia, § 206, 3.
  1846-1878.  Pope Pius IX., § 185, 2-4.
       1846.  Founding of Evangelical Alliance in London, § 178, 3.
              Fruitless Prussian General Synod in Berlin, § 193, 3.
       1847.  Prussian Patent of Toleration, § 193, 3.
              War of Swiss Sonderbund, § 199, 1.
       1848.  Revolution of February and March, § 192, 4.
              Founding of _Evangel. Kirchentag_, § 178, 4.
              Founding of Catholic “Pius Association,” § 186, 3.
              Bishops’ Congress of Würzburg, § 192, 4.
       1849.  Roman Republic, § 185, 2.
              First Congress for Home Missions, § 183.
       1850.  Institution of Berlin “Oberkirchenrat,” § 193, 4.
              Return of Pope to Rome, § 185, 2.
              English Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, § 202, 11.
       1851.  Memorial of Upper Rhine Bishops, § 196, 1.
              Taeping Rebellion in China, § 211, 15.
       1852.  Conference at Eisenach, § 178, 2.
  1852-1870.  Napoleon III., Emperor of the French, § 203, 3, 5.
       1853.  The _Kirchentag_ at Berlin acknowledges the
                _Augustana_, § 178, 4.
              Missionary Institute at Hermannsburg, § 185, 1.
              New Organization of the Catholic Hierarchy in
                Holland, § 200, 4.
       1855.  Sardinian Law about Monasteries, § 204, 1.
              Austrian Concordat, § 198, 2.
       1857.  The Evangelical Alliance in Berlin, § 178, 3.
       1858.  Disturbances in Baden about Service Book, § 196, 3.
              The Mother of God at Lourdes, § 188, 7.
       1859.  Franco-Austrian War in Italy, § 204, 2.
       1860.  Persecution of Syrian Christians, § 207, 2.
              Abrogation of Baden Concordat, § 196, 2.
       1861.  The Austrian Patent, § 198, 3.
              Introduction of a Constitutional Church Order into
                Baden, § 196, 3.
              Radama II. in Madagascar, § 184, 3.
              Schism among Separatist Lutherans in Prussia,
                § 177, 3.
       1862.  Hanoverian Catechism Scandal, § 194, 3.
              Renan’s Life of Jesus, § 182, 8.
              Württemberg Ecclesiastical Law, § 196, 6.
       1863.  Congress of Catholic Scholars at Munich, § 191, 10.
       1864.  Encyclical and Syllabus, § 185, 2.
              Strauss’ and Schenkel’s Life of Jesus, § 182, 8, 17.
       1865.  The first _Protestantentag_ at Eisenach, § 180, 1.
       1866.  Founding of the North German League.
       1867.  St. Peter’s Centenary Festival at Rome, § 185, 2.
       1869.  Irish Church Bill, § 202, 10.
              Opening of Vatican Council, § 189, 2.
       1870.  Proclamation of Doctrine of Infallibility, July 18th,
                § 189, 3.
              Revocation of the Austrian Concordat. § 198, 2.
              Overthrow of the Church States, § 185, 3.
       1871.  Founding of the new German Empire, January 18th,
                § 197.
              The first Old Catholic Congress at Munich, § 190, 1.
              “The Kanzelparagraph,” § 197, 4.
              First Lutheran National Synod in the kingdom of
                Saxony, § 194, 1.
       1872.  Dr. Falk, Prussian Minister of Worship, § 193, 5.
              The Prussian School Inspection Law, § 199, 3.
              The Roman Disputation, § 175, 3.
              The German Jesuit Law, § 197, 4.
              Epidemic of Manifestations of the Mother of God in
                Alsace-Lorraine, § 188, 6.
       1873.  The four Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws, § 197, 5.
              Mermillod and Lachat Deposed from office, § 199, 2, 3.
              Constitution of Old Catholic Church in German Empire,
                § 190, 1.
       1874.  The Austrian Ecclesiastical Laws, § 198, 6.
              Union Conference at Bonn, § 175, 6.
       1875.  The Encyclical _Quod numquam_ and the Embargo Act,
                § 197, 8.
              Berlin Extraordinary General Synod, § 193, 5.
              Pearsall Smith, § 211, 1.
       1876.  Marpinger Mother-of-God trick, § 188, 7.
              The Dutch University Law, § 202, 2.
       1878.  Leo XIII. ascends the Papal chair, § 185, 5.
              Organization of a Catholic Hierarchy in Scotland,
                § 202, 11.
              Congress of Berlin, § 207, 5.
              Amnesty to the recalcitrant Clergy of the Jura,
                § 199, 3.
              First appearance of the Salvation Army, § 205, 2.
       1879.  The Belgian Liberal Education Act, § 200, 6.
       1880.  Abolition of the “_Kulturexamen_” in Baden, § 197, 14.
              French Decree of March, § 203, 6.
       1881.  Robertson Smith’s Heresy Case, § 202, 8.
       1882.  The Confessional Lutheran Conflict with the Ritschlian
                School, § 182, 21.
       1883.  The Luther Jubilee, § 175, 10.
       1884.  The Belgian Clerical Education Act, § 200, 6.
              Conclusion of the “Kulturkampf” in Switzerland,
                § 199, 2, 3.
       1887.  Prussian and Hessian Governments conclude Peace with
                Papal Curia, § 197, 13, 15.
              Founding of Evangelical _Bund_, § 178, 5.




                                 INDEX.


    Aachen, Council of, § 91, 1, 2.
    Aargau, § 199, 1.
    Abælard, § 102, 1, 2; 104, 10.
    Abbacomites, § 85, 5.
    Abbadie, § 161, 7.
    Abbate, Abbé, § 111, 2.
    Abbo of Fleury, § 100, 2.
    Abbot, § 44, 3.
    Abbuna, § 52, 7.
    Abdas of Susa, § 64, 2.
    Abdelmoumen, § 95, 2.
    Abderrhamann [Abderrhaman], § 81; 95, 2.
    Abdias, § 32, 5.
    Abel, von, § 195, 2.
    Abelites, § 44, 7.
    Abgar Bar Maanu, § 21.
      ”   of Edessa, § 13, 2.
    About, E., § 185, 3.
    Abraham a St. Clara, § 158, 2.
    Abrahamites, § 165, 16.
    Abrasax, § 27, 3.
    Abrenunciatio diaboli, § 35; 58, 1.
    Absolution, Formula of, § 89, 5.
    Abstinence, Days of, § 56, 2.
    Abulfarajus, § 72, 2.
    Abyssinian Church, § 64, 1; 72, 2; 150, 4; 152, 1; 160, 7;
        166, 3; 184, 9.
    Acacius of Amida, § 64, 2.
    Acacius of Constantinople, § 52, 5.
    Acceptants, § 165, 7.
    Accommodation Controversy, § 156, 12.
    Acceptants, § 165, 7.
    d’Achery, § 158, 2.
    Achterfeld, § 191, 1.
    Acindynos, § 69, 2.
    Acoimetæ, § 44, 3; 52, 5, 6.
    Acolytes, § 34, 3.
    Acominatus, § 68, 5.
    Acosta, Uriel, § 156, 14.
    _Acta facientes_, § 22, 5.
    Acta Pilati, § 22, 7; 32, 4.
    Acta Sanctorum, § 158, 2.
    Acton, Lord, § 189, 2.
    Acts of Apostles, Apocryphal, § 32, 5, 6.
    Acts of Martyrs, § 32, 8.
    Adalbert of Bremen, § 96, 6; 97, 2.
        ”    the Heretic, § 78, 6.
        ”    of Prague, § 93, 13.
        ”    of Tuscany, § 96, 1.
    Adam, Book of, § 32, 3.
    Adam, St. Victor, § 104, 10.
    Adamantius (Origen), § 31, 5.
    Adamites, § 27, 8.
        ”     Bohemian, § 116, 5; 210, 2.
    Adamnan, § 77, 8.
    Addai [Addæi], § 32, 6.
    Adeodatus, § 47, 18.
    Adiaphorist Controversy, § 141, 5.
    Adoptionists, § 91, 1; 102, 6.
    Adrianus, § 48, 1.
    Adrumetum, § 53, 5.
    Advent, § 56, 5.
    Adventists, § 211, 11.
    Advocatus diaboli, § 104, 8.
        ”     ecclesiæ, § 86.
    Aedesius, § 64, 1.
    Aelfric, § 100, 1.
    Aeneas [Æneas] of Gaza, § 47, 7.
       ”   [Æneas] of Sylvius, _see_ Pius II.
    Aeons [Æons], § 26, 2.
    Aepinus [Æpinus], § 141, 3.
    Aërius, § 62, 2.
    _Aeternus [Æternus] ille_, § 149, 4.
    Aetius [Aëtius], § 50, 3.
    Africa, § 76, 3.
    Africanus, § 31, 8.
    Agape, § 17, 7; 36, 1.
    Agapetæ, § 39, 3.
    Agapetus, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
    Agathangelos, § 64, 3.
    Agatho, § 46, 11; 52, 8.
    Agenda Controversy in Prussia, § 177, 1.
    Agenum, Synod of, § 50, 3.
    Agilulf, § 76, 8.
    Agnostics, § 174, 2.
    Agobard, § 90, 4, 9; 91, 1; 92, 2.
    Agreda, § 156, 5.
    Agricola, John, § 141, 1.
        ”     Rudolph, § 120, 3.
    Agrippa of Nettesheim, § 146, 2.
    Aguas, § 209, 1.
    Aguilar, § 209, 1.
    Aguirre, § 158, 2.
    Ahle, Rud., § 160, 5.
    Aidan, § 77, 5.
    d’Ailly, § 110, 7; 118, 4; 119, 5.
    Aistulf, § 82, 1.
    Aizanas, § 64, 1.
    Ἀκέφαλοι, § 52, 5.
    Ἀκρόασις, § 39, 2.
    Ἀκροώμενοι, § 35, 1.
    Alacoque, § 156, 6.
    Alanus ab Insulis, § 102, 5.
    Alaric, § 76, 2.
    Alaviv, § 76, 1.
    Alba, § 59, 7.
      ”   Duke of, § 136, 3; 139, 12.
    _Albati_, § 116, 3.
    Alberich, § 96, 1.
    Albert the Great, § 103, 5.
       ”   of Apeldern, § 93, 12.
       ”   the Bear, § 93, 9.
       ”   of Buxhöwden, § 93, 12.
       ”   of Franconia-Brandenburg, § 137, 2, 4.
       ”   of Mainz, § 122, 2; 123, 8; 134, 5.
       ”   of Prussia, § 126, 4; 127, 3; 141, 2.
       ”   of Suerbeer, § 73, 6; 93, 12.
    Alberti, § 160, 3.
    Albigensians, § 109, 1.
    Albinus, § 160, 4.
    Alboin, § 76, 8.
    Albrechtsleute, § 208, 4; 211, 1.
    Alcantara, Peter of, § 149, 16.
    Alcantarmes [Alcantara], § 98, 8; 149, 6.
    Alcibiades, § 40, 1.
    Alcuin, § 90, 3; 91, 1, 2; 92, 1.
    Aldgild, § 78, 3.
    Aleander, § 123, 6, 7.
    d’Aleman, Cardinal, § 110, 8; 118, 4.
    Alemanni, § 78, 1.
    d’Alembert, § 165, 14.
    Alexander II., § 96, 6.
        ”     III., § 96, 15, 16.
        ”     IV., § 96, 20.
        ”     V., § 110, 6; 119, 4.
        ”     VI., § 110, 12.
        ”     VII., § 156, 1, 2, 4, 5; 157, 5.
        ”     VIII., § 156, 1, 3.
        ”     I., Czars I., II., III., § 203, 1; 207, 3.
        ”     of Alexandria, § 50, 1.
        ”     ”  Antioch, § 50, 8.
        ”     ”  Hales, § 103, 4.
        ”     ”  Newsky, § 73, 6.
        ”     ”  Parma, § 139, 12.
        ”     Severus, § 22, 3.
    Alexandrian School, § 31, 4; 47, 2, 3.
    Alexis, § 73, 5.
    Alexius Comnenus, § 71, 1, 4.
    Alfarabi, § 103, 1.
    Alfred the Great, § 90, 10.
    Algazel, § 103, 1, 2.
    Alger of Liege, § 102, 7.
    Alkindi, § 103, 1.
    Allatius, Leo, § 158, 2.
    Allégri, § 158, 3.
    Allen, W., § 139, 6.
    Allendorf, § 167, 6.
    Alliance, The Holy, § 173.
        ”     The Evangelical, § 178, 2.
    All Saints’ Day, § 57, 1; 88, 5.
    All Souls’ Day, § 104, 7.
    Almansor, § 95, 2.
    Almohaden [Almohades], § 95, 2.
    Almoravides, § 95, 2.
    Alms, Dispensers of, § 17, 2.
    Alogians, § 33, 2.
    Alpers, § 211, 10.
    Alphonso the Catholic, § 81, 1.
        ”    the Chaste, § 81, 1.
        ”    of Aragon [Arragon], Castile, and Portugal, § 95, 2.
    Alphonso XII., § 205, 3.
    Alsace-Lorraine, § 196, 7.
    Altar, § 38; 60, 5; 88, 5.
    Altenburg, § 194, 2.
    Alting, § 160, 7.
    Alumbrados, § 149, 16.
    Alvarus, § 81, 1; 90, 6.
       ”     Pelagius, § 118, 2.
    Alzog, § 5, 6.
    Amadeus of Savoy, § 110, 8.
    Amalarius, § 90, 4; 91, 5.
    Amalrich of Bena, § 108, 4.
    Amandus, § 78, 3.
    Ambo, § 60, 5.
    Ambrose, § 47, 15; 50, 4; 57, 2, 3; 59, 5.
    Ambrosian Chant, § 59, 5.
    Ambrosiaster, § 47, 15.
    Amen Sect, § 211, 8.
    America, § 150, 3; 208; 209.
    Amesius, § 161, 7; 162, 4.
    Amling, § 144, 3.
    Ammon, § 182, 2.
    Ammonius, § 44, 3.
        ”     Saccas, § 24, 2.
    Amort, § 165, 12.
    Amsdorf, § 127, 4; 135, 5; 141, 4, 6, 7.
    Amulets, § 188, 13.
    Amyrald [Amyrault], § 161, 3, 7.
    Anabaptists, § 124, 1; 130, 5; 133, 6; 147; 148, 1; 163, 1, 2.
    Anacletus I., § 17, 1.
        ”     II., § 96, 13.
    Ἀνάδοχαι, § 35, 3.
    Ἀναγνώσται, § 34, 3.
    Anastasius Biblioth. [ Bibliothecarius], § 90, 6.
         ”     I., § 46, 4; 51, 2.
         ”     II., § 46, 8.
         ”     IV., § 96, 10.
         ”     Sinaita, § 47, 12; 60, 6.
    Anathema, § 52, 3.
    Anatolius, § 46, 7.
    Anchorets, § 44.
    Ancyra, Council of, § 50, 3.
    Anderledy [Anderlady], § 182, 1.
    Anderson, § 139, 1.
    Andreä, Jac., § 141, 12.
       ”    Val., § 160, 1.
    Andrew II. of Hungary, § 94, 4.
       ”   of Crain, § 110, 11.
       ”   “  Crete, § 70, 2.
    Andronicus Paläologus, § 67, 5.
    Angela of Brescia, § 149, 7.
    Angelicals, § 149, 7.
    Angels, Worship of, § 57, 3.
    Angelo, Michael, § 115, 13; 149, 15.
    Angelus Silesius, § 157, 4; 160, 3.
    Angilram [Angilramnus], § 87, 1.
    Anglican Church, § 139, 6; 155; 202.
    Anglo-Saxon Church, § 77, 4, 5, 6.
    Anhalt, Reformation in, § 133, 4; 144, 3.
    Anicetus, § 37, 2.
    Anjou, § 96, 21, 22.
    Ann, Veneration of St., § 57, 2; 115, 1.
    Anna of Russia, § 73, 4.
      ”  ”  Prussia, § 154, 3.
    Annats, § 110, 15.
    Anno of Cologne, § 96, 6; 97, 2.
    Annunciation, Order of the, § 112, 8.
    Anomæans [Anomœans], § 50, 3.
    Ansbert [Ausbert] of Milan, § 83, 3.
    Ansegis, § 87, 1.
    Anselm of Canterbury, § 67, 4; 96, 12; 101, 1, 3.
    Anselm of Havelberg, § 67, 4.
       ”   ”  Laon, § 101, 1.
       ”   ”  Lucca, § 96, 6.
    Ansgar, § 80, 1.
    Anthimus of Constantinople, § 52, 6.
    Anthimus [Anthimos], Exarch, § 207, 3.
    Anthony, St., § 44, 1.
       ”     of Padua, § 98, 4.
       ”     Order of St., § 98, 2.
    Anthusa, § 47, 1.
    Antidicomarianites, § 62, 2.
    Ἀντίδωρα, § 58, 4.
    Antilegomena, § 36, 8.
    Ἀντιμήνσιον, § 60, 5.
    Antinomianism, § 27, 8.
    Antinomian Controversy, § 141, 1.
    Antioch, Council of, § 50, 2.
    Antiochean School, § 31, 1; 47, 1; 52, 2.
    Antiphonal Music, § 59, 5.
    _Antiphonarium_, § 59, 5.
    Antitrinitarians, § 148.
    Anton of Bourbon, § 139, 14.
    Anton Paul, § 159, 3.
    Antonelli, § 185, 2, 4; 189, 1; 196, 7; 197.
    Antonians, § 207, 2.
    Antoninus Pius, § 22, 3.
        ”     [Antonine] of Florence, § 113, 7.
    Apelles, § 27, 12.
    Aphraates, § 47, 13.
    Apiarius, § 46, 5, 6.
    Apocrisiarians, § 46, 1.
    Apocrypha, Non-Canonical, § 32.
        ”      Deutero-Canonical, § 59, 1; 136, 4.
    Apocryphal Controversy, § 161, 8; 183, 4.
    Apollinaris, § 47, 5; 52, 1.
         ”       Claudius, § 30, 8.
    Apollonius of Tyana, § 24, 1.
    Apollos, § 18, 3.
    Apologists, Early Christian, § 30, 8.
    Apology of Augsburg Confession, § 132, 7.
    Apostles of the Lord, §§ 14-16.
    Apostles, New Testament Office of, § 17, 5; 37, 1.
    Apostles, Teaching of XII., § 30, 7.
    Apostles, Doctrine of the, § 18, 2.
    Apostles’ Creed, § 35, 2; 59, 2.
    Apostolic Age, Beginning and Close of, § 14.
    Apostolic Church, Constitution of, § 17.
    Apostolic Epistles, § 32, 7.
        ”     Fathers, § 30, 3-6.
        ”     Constitutions and Canons, § 43, 4.
    Apostolics, § 62, 1.
    Appellants, § 165, 7.
    _Appellatio ab abusu_, § 185, 4; 192, 4; 197, 9.
    Appenfeller, § 170, 4.
    Apse, § 60, 1.
    Aquarii, § 27, 10.
    Aquaviva, § 149, 8, 10, 12; 156, 13.
    Arabia, § 21.
    Arbues [Arbires], § 117, 2.
    Arcadius, Emperor, § 42, 4; 51, 3.
    Archbishop, § 46, 1.
    Arch-chaplain, § 84, 1.
    Archdeacon, § 45, 3; 84, 2; 97, 3.
    Archelaus of Cascar, § 29, 1.
    Archimandrite, § 44, 3.
    Architecture, § 60, 1; 88, 6; 104, 12; 115, 13; 149, 15;
        158, 3; 174, 9.
    Archpresbyter, § 45, 3.
    Areopagite, Dionysius the, § 47, 11.
    Arialdus [Ariald], § 97, 5.
    Arians, § 50; 76.
    Aribert, § 76, 8.
    Aristides, § 30, 8.
    Aristobulus, § 10, 1.
    Ariston of Pella, § 30, 8.
    Aristotle, § 7, 4; 68, 2; 103, 1.
    Arius, § 50, 1, 2.
    Arles, Synod at, § 50, 2.
    Armenian Church, § 64, 3; 72, 2; 82, 8; 207, 4.
    Arminians, § 161, 2.
    Arnaud, § 153, 4.
    Arnauld, § 157, 5.
    Arndt, E. M., § 174, 6; 181, 1.
      ”    John, § 160, 1.
    Arno of Salzburg, § 79, 1.
      ”  ”  Reichersberg, § 102, 6, 7.
    Arnobius, § 31, 12,
        ”     the Younger, § 53, 5.
    Arnold of Brescia, § 96, 13.
       ”   ”  Citeaux, § 109, 1.
       ”   the Dominican, § 108, 6.
       ”   Gottfried, § 5, 3; 159, 4; 160, 2, 4.
    Arnoldi, Bishop, § 187, 6.
    Arnoldists, § 108, 7.
    Arnulf of Carinthia, § 82, 8.
       ”   ”  Rheims, § 96, 2.
    Arran, Earl of, § 139, 8.
    Ars Magna, § 103, 7.
     ”  Moriendi, § 115, 5.
    Arsacius, § 51.
    Arsenius, § 70, 1.
    Art, Early Christian and Mediæval, § 38, 3; 60.
    Artemon, § 33, 3.
    Articles of English Church, The XXXIX., § 139, 6.
    Articles, Organic, § 203, 1.
    Artotyrites, § 40, 4.
    Ascension, Festival of, § 56, 4.
        ”      of Mary, § 32, 4; 57, 2.
    Asceticism, § 39, 3; 44, 6; 70, 3; 107.
    Aschaffenberg [Aschaffenburg] Concord, § 110, 8.
    Ash Wednesday, § 56, 4.
    Asia Minor, Theological School of, § 31, 1.
    Asinarii, § 23, 2.
    Asseburg, § 170, 1.
    Assemani, § 165, 12.
    Assenath, § 32, 3.
    Asses, Feast of, § 105, 2.
    Asterius, § 50, 6.
        ”     of Amasa, § 57, 4.
    Astruc, § 165, 11.
    Asylum, Right of, § 43, 1.
    Athanaric, § 76.
    Athanasian Creed, § 59, 2.
    Athanasius, § 44; 47, 3; 50; 52, 2.
    Athenagoras, § 30, 10.
    Athos, Monks of Mount, § 70, 3; 69, 1.
    _Atrium_, § 60, 1.
    Attila, § 46, 7.
    Atto of Vercelli, § 100, 2.
    d’Aubigné, Merle, § 178, 2.
        ”      Th. A., § 139, 17.
    Audians, § 62, 1.
    _Audientes_, § 35, 1.
    _Audientia episc._, § 43, 1.
    Augsburg Confession, § 132, 7.
    Augsburg Religious Peace, § 137, 5.
    Augustus of Saxony, § 141, 12.
    Augusta, § 139, 19.
    Augusti, § 182, 5.
    Augustine, § 47, 18, 19; 53, 2-5; 54, 1; 61, 1, 4; 63, 1.
    Augustine, Missionary to England, § 77, 4.
    Augustinus Triumphus, § 118, 2.
    Augustinian Order, § 98, 6; 112, 5.
    August Conference, § 179, 1.
    Aurelian, Emperor, § 22, 5; 33, 8.
        ”     Bishop, § 63, 1.
    Auricular Confession, § 61, 1; 104, 4.
    Aurifaber, § 129, 1.
    _Ausculta fili_, § 110, 1.
    Australia, § 184, 7; 202, 12.
    Austria, § 165, 9; 190, 3; 198.
    Autbert, § 81, 1.
    Auto al nasciemento, § 115, 12.
      ”  de fé, § 117, 2.
      ”  sacramentale, § 115, 12.
    Autocephalic Bishops, § 46, 1.
    Auxentius of Dorostorus, § 76, 1.
        ”     of Milan, § 47, 14.
    Avars, § 79, 1.
    Avenarius, § 142, 6.
    Aventin [Aventinus], § 120, 3.
    Averrhoes [Averroes], § 103, 1, 2.
    Avicenna, § 103, 1, 2.
    Avignon, § 110, 2-5.
    Avitus, § 53, 5; 76, 5.
    Azimites [Azymites], § 67, 3.


    Baader, Francis, § 175, 5; 187, 3; 191, 2.
    Baanes, § 71, 1.
    Babäus, § 52, 3.
    Babeuf, § 212, 1.
    Babylonian Exile of Popes, § 110, 2-5.
    Bach, Sebastian, § 167, 7.
    Bacon, Roger, § 103, 8.
    Bacon, Lord Verulam, § 164, 1.
    Baden, § 196, 2, 3; 197, 13.
    Bahrdt, § 170, 4, 7.
    Baius, Michael, § 149, 13.
    Bajazet, § 110, 11.
    Baläus, § 48, 7.
    Balde, Jac., § 158, 3.
    Baldwin of Jerusalem, § 94, 1; 98, 7.
       ”    of Flanders, § 94, 4.
       ”    the Heretic, § 108, 4.
    Balsamon, § 68, 5.
    Balthazar of Fulda, § 151, 2.
    Baltic Provinces of Russia, § 139, 3; 206, 3.
    Baltimore, Lord, § 208, 5.
    Baltzer, § 191, 1, 3.
    Baluzius, § 158, 2.
    Bampfield, § 163, 3.
    Ban, § 89, 6; 106, 1.
    Bañez, § 149, 13.
    Bangor, § 85, 4.
    Baphomet, § 112, 7.
    Baptism, § 35, 2-4; 58, 1, 4; 141, 13.
    Baptismal Font, § 60, 4; 88, 5.
    _Baptismus Clinicorum_, § 35, 3.
    Baptists, § 163, 3; 170, 6; 208, 1; 211, 3.
    Baptistries, § 60, 4.
    Bär, David, § 170, 4.
    Baradai, § 52, 7.
    Barbatianus, § 62, 2.
    Barbs, § 108, 10.
    Barckhausen, § 169, 1.
    Barclay, § 163, 5.
    Bar-Cochba, § 25.
    Bardesanes, § 27, 5.
    Barefooted Friars, § 98, 3; 149, 6.
    Bar Hanina, § 47, 15.
    Bar Hebræus, § 72, 2.
    Bari, Synod at, § 67, 4.
    Barkers, § 170, 7.
    Barlaam, § 67, 5; 69, 2.
    Barlaam and Josaphat, § 68, 6.
    Barletta, § 115, 2.
    Barnabas, § 14; 30, 4.
    Barnabites, § 149, 7.
    Barnim, § 133, 4.
    Baronius, § 5, 2; 149, 14.
    Barriere [Barrière], § 149, 6.
    Barrow, § 143, 4.
    Barsumas, § 52, 3.
    Bartholomew, Massacre of St., § 139, 16.
    Bartholomew of Pisa, § 98, 3.
    Bartolemeo [Bartolomeo], Fra, § 115, 13.
    Basedow, § 171, 4.
    Basel, § 130, 3, 8; 196, 4.
      ”    Council of, § 110, 8, 9; 119, 7.
    Basil the Great, § 44; 47, 4; 59, 6.
      ”   chief of Bogomili, § 71, 4.
      ”   of Ancyra, § 50, 3.
      ”   the Macedonian, § 67, 1; 68, 1; 71, 1; 73, 1.
    Basilica, § 60, 1, 2.
    Basilicus, § 139, 26.
    Basilides, the Gnostic, § 27, 2.
        ”      the Martyr, § 22, 4.
    Basnage, § 5, 2; 161, 7.
    Basrelief [Bas-relief], § 60, 6.
    Bassi, § 149, 6.
    Bathori, Steph., § 139, 18.
    Bauer, Bruno, § 174, 1; 182, 6.
      ”    Lor., § 171, 7.
    Baumgarten-Crusius, § 182, 4.
        ”      M., § 180, 1; 194, 6.
        ”      Sigism. Jac., § 167, 4.
    Baumstark, § 175, 7.
    Baur, Chr. F., § 182, 7; 5, 4.
      ”   Gust., § 194, 1.
    Bautain, § 91, 1.
    Bavaria, § 78, 2; 151, 2; 165, 10; 195; 197, 14.
    Bavo, § 78, 3.
    Baxter, § 162, 3.
    Bayle, § 164, 4.
    Bayly, Lewis, § 162, 3.
    Beatification, § 104, 8.
    Beaton, § 139, 8.
    Beaumont, § 165, 7.
    Bebel, § 212, 5.
    Bebenburg, § 118, 2.
    Beccus, § 67, 4.
    Beck, Tob., § 182, 12.
    Becket, § 96, 16.
    Bede, The Venerable, § 90, 2.
    Beethoven, § 174, 10.
    Begging Friars, § 98, 3-6; 103, 3-6; 112, 2-6.
    Beghards and Beguins [Beguines], § 98, 7; 116, 5.
    Bekker, Balthaz., § 161, 5.
    Belgium, § 200, 4-7.
    Bellarmine, § 149, 4, 10, 14.
    Beller, Card., § 188, 13.
    Bellini, § 115, 13.
    Bells, § 60, 5.
      ”    Baptism of, § 88, 5.
    Βῆμα, § 60, 1.
    Bembo, § 120, 1.
    Benard [Bernard], Lor., § 156, 7.
    Bender, § 176, 4.
    Benedetto of Mantova, § 139, 23.
    Benedict III., § 82, 5.
        ”    V., § 96, 1.
        ”    VI., VII., § 96, 2.
        ”    VIII., IX., 96, 4.
        ”    X., § 96, 6.
        ”    XI., § 110, 1.
        ”    XII., § 110, 4; 67, 5; 112, 1.
        ”    XIII., XIV., § 165, 1.
        ”    of Aniane, § 85, 2.
        ”    Levita, § 87, 1.
        ”    of Nursia, § 85, 1.
    Benedictines, § 85; 98, 1; 112, 1; 186, 2.
    Benedict Medal, § 188, 13.
    Benefice System, § 86, 2.
    Bengel, § 167, 3.
    Benno of Meissen, § 93, 9; 129, 1.
    Berengar, § 101, 1, 2.
    Berengar, I., II., § 96, 1.
    Berg, John, § 153, 7.
      ”   Book of, § 141, 12.
    Berlage, § 188, 6.
    Berleburger [Berleburg] Bible, § 170, 1.
    Bern, § 130, 4; 199, 3, 4.
    Bernard of Clairvaux, § 102, 2, 3; 94, 2; 96, 13; 104, 10;
        108, 2, 3, 7; 109.
    Bernard the Missionary, § 93, 10.
        ”   Sylvester, § 102, 9.
        ”   de Saisset, § 110, 1.
        ”   Tolomei, § 112, 1.
    Bernardino of Siena, § 112, 3.
    Bernardines, § 98, 1.
    Berno of Clugny, § 98, 1.
    Berruyer, § 165, 14.
    Bertha, § 77, 4.
    Bertheau, § 182, 11.
    Berthold of Limoges, § 98, 6.
        ”    of Loccum, § 93, 12.
        ”    of Regensburg, § 104, 1.
        ”    Leonard, § 171, 7.
    Berti, § 165, 15.
    Bertrada, § 96, 10.
    Bertrand de Got, § 110, 2.
    Berylle [Barylla], Pet., § 156, 7.
    Beryllus, § 33, 6.
    Bespopowtschini, § 163, 10.
    Bessarion, § 67, 6; 68, 2; 120, 1.
    Besser, § 181, 4.
    Bestmann, § 182, 21.
    Bethel, § 183, 1.
    Bethman [Bethmann]-Hollweg, § 193, 4.
    Beuggen, § 183, 1.
    Beust, von, § 198, 2, 4.
    Beyschlag, § 182, 10.
    Beza, § 138, 8; 139, 14; 143, 2, 5.
    Bianchi, § 116, 3.
    Bible Societies, § 183, 4; 185, 1.
      ”   Communists, § 211, 6.
      ”   Revision, § 181, 4.
      ”   Translations, § 37, 1; 59, 1; 115, 4.
    Bible reading forbidden, § 105, 3; 185, 1.
    _Biblia pauperum_, § 115, 3.
    Bickell, § 194, 4.
    Biedermann, § 182, 19.
    Biel, Gebr [Gabriel], § 113, 3.
    Bienemann, § 142, 4.
    Bilderdijk, § 200, 2.
    Billicanus, § 122, 2.
    Bilocation, § 105, 4.
    Bingham, § 169, 6.
    Bischof, Conrad, § 175, 2.
    Bishops, § 17, 5; 34, 2; 45; 84; 97.
       ”     Election of, § 34, 3; 45; 84; 97, 3.
    Bishops’ Bible, § 202, 1.
       ”     Paragraph, § 197, 11, 12.
    Bismarck, § 197; 212, 5.
    Bittner, § 175, 2.
    Blackburne, § 171, 1.
    Blahoslaw, § 139, 19.
    Blanc, Louis, § 212, 1.
    Blandina, § 22, 3.
    Blandrata, § 148, 3.
    Blasilla, § 44, 4.
    Blastus, § 37, 2.
    Blau, Dr., § 165, 13.
    Blaurer, § 125, 1; 133, 3; 143, 2.
    Blaurock, § 147, 3.
    Blavatski [Blavatsky], § 211, 18.
    Bleek, § 182, 11.
    Blondel, § 161, 7.
    Blood vases, § 35, 2.
       ”  baptism, § 35, 4.
       ”  revenge, § 88, 5.
    Bloody Marriage, § 139, 16.
    Blot-Sweyn, § 93, 3.
    Blount, § 168, 3.
    Blue Ribbon Army, § 211, 2.
    Blum, Bishop, § 197, 6, 11.
    Blumhardt, § 196, 5.
    Bluntschli, § 180, 1; 196, 3.
    Boabdil, § 95.
    Bobadilla, § 149, 8.
    Bobbio, § 78, 1; 85, 4.
    Boccaccio, § 115, 10.
    Bochart, § 161, 6.
    Bodelschwingh, § 183, 1.
    Bodin, § 117, 4; 148, 3.
    Boeckh, § 181, 3.
    Boethius [Boëthius], § 47, 23.
    Bogatzky [Bogatsky], § 167, 6, 8.
    Bogomili, § 71, 4.
    Bogoris, § 72, 3.
    Böhl v. Faber, § 174, 7.
    Böhme, Jacob, § 160, 2.
      ”    Mart., § 142, 4.
    Bohemia, § 79, 3; 93, 6; 139, 19; 153, 2.
    Bohemian Brethren, § 119, 8; 139, 19.
    Böhmer, § 167, 5.
    Böhringer, § 5, 4.
    Bois, Professor, § 203, 8.
    Bolanden, Cour. v., § 175, 2.
    Boleslaw of Poland, § 93, 7.
        ”    ”  Bohemia, § 93, 6.
        ”    Chrobry, § 93, 7.
    Boleyn, Anne, § 139, 4.
    Bolingbroke, § 170, 1.
    Bolivia, § 209, 2.
    Bollandists, § 158, 2.
    Bolsec, § 138, 3.
    Bolsena, Mass of, § 104, 7.
    Bomberg, § 120, 9.
    Bomelius, § 125, 2.
    Bona, § 158, 2.
    Bonald, § 188, 1.
    Bonaventura, § 103, 4; 104, 10.
    Boniface, Apostle of Germany, § 78, 4-8.
        ”     I., § 46, 6.
        ”     II., § 46, 8.
        ”     III., IV., § 46, 10.
        ”     VI., § 82, 8.
        ”     VII., § 96, 2.
        ”     VIII., § 110, 1; 99, 4; 117, 1.
        ”     IX., § 110, 6; 117, 2.
    _Boni homines_, § 108, 2.
    Bonner, Bp., § 139, 4, 5.
    Bonosus, § 62, 2.
    Book of Discipline, § 139, 9.
    Boos, Mart., § 187, 2.
    Booth, General, § 211, 2.
    Bordelum, Sectaries at, § 170, 4.
    Borgia, § 110, 10, 12.
       ”    Francis, § 149, 8.
    Borromeo, § 149, 17; 151, 2.
        ”     Society, § 186, 4.
    Borsenius, § 170, 4.
    Boruth, § 79, 1.
    Borziwoi, § 79, 3.
    Bosio, Ant., § 38, 1.
    Boso, § 95, 3.
    Bossuet, § 5, 2; 153, 7; 156, 3; 157, 3; 158, 2.
    Bost, Pastor, § 156, 1.
    Bothwell, § 139, 10.
    Bourdaloue, § 159, 2.
    Bourgos, Pragmatic Sanction of, § 110, 9.
    Bourignon, § 157, 4.
    Bouthillier de Rancé, § 156, 8.
    Boyle, § 164, 3.
    Bradacz, M. v., § 119, 8.
    Bradwardine, § 113, 2.
    Braga, Syn. of, § 76, 4.
    Brakel, § 169, 2.
    Bramante, § 115, 3; 149, 15.
    Brandenburg, § 134, 5; 154, 3.
    Brandt, § 181, 4.
    Braniss, § 174, 2.
    Brant, Seb., § 115, 11.
    Braun, Hermesian, § 191, 1.
    Brazil, § 150, 3; 209, 3.
    Breckling, § 163, 9.
    Breithaupt, § 159, 3.
    Breitinger, § 162, 6.
    Bremen, § 127, 4; 144, 2.
    Brendel, § 151, 1.
    Brentano, § 188, 3.
    Brenz, § 131, 1; 133, 3; 141, 8; 142, 2, 6.
    Brest, Synod of, § 72, 4; 151, 3.
    Brethren, The four long, § 51, 3.
        ”     of the Free Spirit, § 116, 5.
        ”     of the Common Life, § 112, 9.
        ”     Bohemian and Moravian, § 119, 7.
        ”     The United, § 168.
    Bretschneider, § 174, 3; 182, 2.
    Bretwalda, § 77, 4.
    Breviary, § 56, 2; 149, 14.
    Briçonnet, § 120, 8; 138, 1.
    Bridaine, § 158, 1.
    Bridge-Brothers, § 98, 9.
    Bridget, St., § 110, 5; 112, 4, 8.
    Bridgewater Treatises, § 174, 3.
    Brief, Papal, § 110, 16.
    Briesmann, § 139, 3.
    Brinckerinck, § 112, 9.
    Brinkmann, § 197, 6, 11.
    Britons, Ancient, § 77.
    Broad Churchmen, § 202, 1.
    Broglie, Duc de, § 203, 5, 6.
       ”     Bishop, § 200, 1.
    Brothers of the Common Life, § 112, 9.
        ”    of Mercy, § 149, 7.
        ”    of the Free Spirit, § 116, 5.
    Brown, Archbishop, of Dublin, § 139, 7.
      ”    Rob. (Brownist), § 143, 4.
      ”    Thomas, § 164, 3.
    Bruccioli, § 115, 4.
    Brück, Dr., § 132, 7.
    Brucker, Jac., § 167, 8.
    Bruggeler, Sectaries, § 170, 4.
    Brunehilde [Brunehilda], § 77, 7; 46, 10.
    Bruneleschi, § 115, 13.
    Bruno of Cologne, § 97, 2.
      ”   the Missionary, § 93, 13.
      ”   of Rheims, § 98, 2.
      ”   of Toul, § 96, 5.
      ”   Giordano, § 146, 3.
    Brunswick, § 127, 4; 135, 6; 194, 5.
    Bucer, § 122, 2; 124, 3; 131, 1; 133, 8; 135, 1, 3, 7; 139, 5.
    Buchel, Anna v., § 170, 4.
    Buchführer, § 128, 1.
    Büchner, § 174, 3.
    Budæus [Buddæus], § 120, 8.
    Buddeus, § 167, 1, 4.
    Buffalo Synod, § 208, 4.
    Bugenhagen, § 125, 1; 127, 4; 133, 4; 139, 2; 142, 2.
    Bülau, § 139, 3.
    Bulgaria, § 67, 1; 73, 3; 175, 4; 207, 3.
    _Bulgari_, § 108, 1.
    Bulls, Papal, § 110, 16.
    Bull, The Golden, § 97, 2; 110, 4.
    Bullinger, § 133, 8; 138, 7; 161, 4.
    Bunsen, § 181, 1, 4; 182, 17; 198, 1.
    Bunyan, § 162, 3.
    Büren, § 144, 2.
    Burgundians, § 76, 5.
    Burmann, § 161, 7.
    Burnet, Bishop, § 161, 3.
    Bursfeld, Congregation of, § 112, 1.
    Busch, John, § 112, 1.
    Busembaum, § 158, 1; 149, 10.
    Buttlar Sectaries, § 170, 4.
    Butter week, § 56, 7.
    Buxhöwden, § 93, 12.
    Buxtorf, § 161, 3, 6.
    Byron, § 174, 7.
    Byse, § 200, 8.


    Caballero, § 174, 7.
    Cabasilas, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
    Cabet, § 212, 3.
    Cabrera, § 205, 4.
    Cadan, Peace of, § 133, 3.
    Cæcilius, § 63, 1.
    Cædmon, § 89, 3.
    Cæsarius of Arles, § 47, 20; 53, 5; 61, 4.
       ”     of Heisterbach, § 103, 9.
    Cainites, § 27, 6.
    Caius, § 31, 7; 33, 9.
    Cajetan, Card., § 122, 3.
       ”     of Thiene, § 149, 7.
    Calas, § 165, 5.
    Calatrava, Order of, § 98, 8.
    Calderon, § 158, 3.
    Calendar Reform, § 149, 3.
    Calixt, Geo., § 153, 7; 159, 2, 4.
    Calixtines, § 119, 7.
    Calixtus II., § 96, 11.
        ”    III., § 96, 15; 110, 10.
    Callinice, § 71, 1.
    Callistus, § 33, 5; 41, 1.
    Calmet, § 165, 14.
    Calov, § 153, 7; 159, 2, 4, 5; 160, 2.
    Calvin, § 138; 143, 5.
    Camaldulensian Order, § 98, 1.
    _Camera Romana_, § 110, 16.
    Camerarius, § 142, 6.
    Camisards, § 153, 4.
    Campanella, § 164, 1.
    Campanus, § 148, 1.
    Campbellites, § 170, 6.
    Campe, § 171, 4.
    Campegius, § 126, 2, 3; 132, 6.
    Campello, § 190, 3.
    Camp-Meeting, § 208, 1.
    _Cancellaria Romana_, § 110, 16.
    Canisius, § 149, 14; 151, 1.
        ”     Society, § 186, 4.
    Canon, Biblical, § 36, 8; 59, 1.
      ”    of the Mass, § 59, 5.
      ”    in Music, § 115, 8.
      ”    Law, § 43, 2.
    _Canones Apostt._, § 43, 4.
    Canonesses, § 85, 3.
    Canonical Age, § 45, 1.
        ”     Life, § 84, 4; 97, 3.
    _Canonici_, § 84, 4; 97, 3.
    Canossa, § 96, 8.
    Canova, § 174, 9.
    Canstein, § 167, 8.
    _Cantores_, § 34, 3.
    _Cantus Ambros._, § 59, 5.
    _Cantus_ figuratus, § 104, 11.
        ”    firmus, § 59, 5.
    Canute the Great, § 93, 2, 4.
    Canus, § 149, 14.
    Canz, § 167, 2.
    Capistran, § 112, 3.
    Capito, § 124, 3; 130, 3; 131, 1.
    _Capitula Carisiaca_, § 91, 5.
         ”    _Clausa_, § 111.
         ”    _episcoporum_, § 87, 1.
    Capitularies, § 87, 1.
    Cappadocians, The Three, § 47, 5.
    Cappadose, § 200, 2.
    Cappel, Peace of, § 130, 9, 10.
    Cappellus, § 161, 3, 6.
    Capuchins, § 149, 6.
    Caraccioli, § 139, 24.
    Caraffa, § 149, 2, 7; 139, 22, 23.
    Carantanians, § 79, 1.
    Carbeas, § 71, 1.
    Cardale, § 211, 10.
    Cardinals, § 97, 1.
    Carey, § 172, 5.
    Carl, Dr., § 170, 1.
    Carlomann, § 78, 5.
    Carlstadt, § 122, 4; 124, 1, 3; 131, 1; 139, 2.
    Carmelites, § 98, 6; 149, 6.
    Carnesecchi, § 139, 22, 23.
    Carnival, § 56, 4; 105, 2.
    Carpentarius, § 128, 1.
    Carpocrates, § 27, 8.
    Carpov, § 167, 4.
    Carpzov, J. B., § 117, 4, 158, 3; 167, 1.
    Carpzov, J. G., § 167, 4.
    Carranza, § 139, 21.
    Carrasco, § 205, 4.
    Carthusians, § 98, 2; 112.
    las Casas, § 150, 3.
    Casimir of Berleburg, § 170.
       ”    ”  Brunswick, § 126, 4.
    Cassander, § 137, 8.
    Cassel, Religious Conference of, § 154, 4.
    Cassianus, § 44, 4; 47, 21; 53, 5.
    Cassiodorus, § 47, 23.
    Castellio, § 138, 4; 143, 5.
    Castellus, § 161, 6.
    Castelnau, Pet. v., § 109, 1.
    Casuists, § 113, 4.
    Casula, § 59, 7.
    Catacombs, § 38, 1-3.
    Cataphrygians, § 40, 1.
    Catechetical School, § 31, 1.
    Catechism, Heidelberg, § 144, 1.
        ”      Luther’s, § 127, 1.
    Catechisms, § 115, 5.
    Catechismus Genevensis, § 138, 2.
         ”      Romanus, § 149, 14.
    Catechoumens, § 35, 1.
    _Catenæ_, § 48, 1.
    Cathari, § 108, 1.
    Catharine of Aragon [Arragon], § 139, 4.
        ”     Bora, § 129.
        ”     de Medici, § 139, 13 ff.
        ”     II. of Russia, § 165, 9.
        ”     St., of Sweden, § 112, 8.
        ”     of Siena, § 112, 4; 110, 5, 6.
    Cathedral, § 84, 4.
        ”      Schools, § 90, 8.
    Catholicus, § 52, 7.
    Catholicity, § 20, 2; 34, 7.
    Cave, § 161, 7.
    Celbes, § 28, 4.
    Celibacy, § 39, 3; 45, 2; 84, 3; 96, 7; 111, 1; 187, 4.
    Cellites, § 116, 3.
    Celsus, § 23, 3.
    Celtes, Conrad, § 120, 3.
    Celtic Church, § 77.
    Cemeteries, § 38; 60, 2.
    Cencius, § 96, 7.
    Centuries, The Magdeburg, § 5, 2.
    Ceolfrid, § 77, 3, 8.
    Cerdo, § 27, 11.
    Cerinthus, § 17, 3; 27, 1.
    Cesarini, § 110, 7.
    Cesena, § 112, 2.
    Cevennes, Prophets of the, § 153, 4; 170, 2, 7.
    Chaila, du, § 153, 4.
    Chalcedon, Council of, § 46, 1, 7; 52, 4.
    Chaldean Christians, § 52, 3; 72, 1; 150, 4.
    Chalmers, § 178, 2; 202, 7.
    Chalybæus, § 174, 2.
    _Chambre ardente_, § 139, 13.
    Chamier, § 161, 7.
    Chandler, § 171, 1.
    Channing, § 208, 4.
    Chantal, § 156, 7; 157, 1.
    Chapels, § 84, 1, 2.
    Chaplain, § 84, 1, 2.
    Chapter of Cathedral, § 84, 4; 97, 2; 111.
    Chapters, Controversy of the three, § 52, 6.
    Charlemagne, § 78, 9; 79, 1; 81, 1; 82, 2, 3; 89, 2; 90, 1;
        92, 1.
    Charles of Anjou, § 96, 20-22.
       ”    the Bald, § 82, 4, 5, 8; 90, 1.
       ”    Martel, § 81; 82, 1.
       ”    IV., Emperor, § 110, 4, 5; 117, 2.
       ”    VII. of France, § 110, 9.
       ”    V., Emperor, § 123, 5.
       ”    I., II. of England, § 153, 6; 155, 1, 3.
       ”    IX. of France, § 139, 14-16.
       ”    IX. of Sweden, § 139, 1.
       ”    XII. of Sweden, § 165, 4.
       ”    Albert of Sardinia, § 204, 1.
       ”    Felix of Sardinia, § 204, 1.
       ”    Alexander of Württemberg, § 165, 5.
       ”    Theodore of Bavaria, § 165, 10.
       ”    of Lorraine, Cardinal, § 139, 13; 149, 2, 17.
    Charisms, § 17, 1.
    Chastel, § 5, 5.
    Chateaubriand, § 174, 7.
    Chatel, Abbé, § 187, 6.
    Chatimar, § 79, 1.
    Chazari, § 73, 2.
    Chemnitz, § 141, 2, 12; 142, 2, 6.
    Cherbury, § 164, 3.
    Children, The Praying, § 167, 1.
        ”     Baptism of, § 17, 7; 35, 4; 58, 1.
    Children’s Communion, § 36, 3; 58, 4.
    Children’s Crusade, § 94, 4.
    Chili, § 209, 2.
    Chiliasm, § 33, 9; 40, 4; 108, 5; 162, 1; 211, 7.
    Chillingworth, § 161, 3.
    China, § 93, 15; 150, 1; 156, 12; 165, 3; 184, 6; 186, 7.
    Chinese Rites, § 156, 12.
    Choir, § 60, 1.
    Chorale, § 142, 5; 160, 5; 181, 2.
    _Chorepiscopi_, § 34, 3; 45; 84; 97, 3.
    Choristers, § 97, 3.
    _Chorisantes_, § 116, 2.
    Chosroes, § 11; 64, 2.
    Chrism, § 35, 4.
    Christ, Order of, § 112, 8.
    Christian Association (German), § 172, 5.
    Christian, Bishop, § 93, 13.
        ”      II., III. of Denmark, § 139, 2.
    Christian Baptists, § 170, 6; 208, 1.
    Christina of Sweden, § 153, 1.
    Christopher of Württemberg, § 133, 3.
    _Christo sacrum_, § 172, 4.
    Χριστὸς πάσχων, § 48, 5.
    Chrodegang of Metz, § 48, 4.
    _Chronicon paschale_, § 48, 2.
    Chrysolaras, § 120, 1.
    Chrysologus, § 47, 17.
    Chrysostom, § 47, 8; 51, 3; 53, 1.
    Chubb, § 171, 1.
    Churches, § 38.
    Church Army, § 211, 2.
       ”   Discipline, § 39; 61; 89, 6; 106.
       ”   History, Idea, Periods, Sources, etc., of, §§ 1-5.
       ”   Law, Catholic, § 43, 3-5; 68, 5; 87; 99, 5.
       ”   Law, Protestant, § 167, 5.
       ”   Property, § 45, 4; 86, 1; 96, 15.
       ”   States, § 82, 1; 185, 3.
       ”   Year, § 56, 6.
    Chytræus, § 141, 12; 142, 6.
    _Ciborium_, § 60, 5.
    Cilicium, § 106.
    Cimabue, § 104, 14.
    Circumcelliones, § 63, 1.
    Cistercians, § 98, 1.
    Ciudad, § 147, 7.
    Clara of Assisi, § 98, 3.
      ”   Nuns of St., § 98, 3.
    Clarendon, Council at, § 96, 16.
    Clarke, Sam., § 171, 1.
    _Classes_, § 143, 1.
    Classical Synods, § 143, 1.
    Claude, § 161, 3, 7.
    Claudius Apollinaris, § 30, 4.
        ”    I., Emperor, § 22, 1.
        ”    II.,   ”     § 22, 5.
        ”    of Savoy, § 148, 3.
        ”    ”  Turin, § 90, 4; 92, 2.
        ”    Matthias, § 171, 11.
    Clausen, § 201, 1.
    Clemangis, § 110, 3; 118, 4.
    Clemens, F. J., § 191, 3.
    Clement of Alexandria, § 31, 4.
       ”    of Rome, § 30, 3.
       ”    II., § 96, 4, 5.
       ”    III., § 96, 8, 16.
       ”    IV., § 96, 20; 103, 8.
       ”    V., § 110, 2; 112, 7.
       ”    VI., § 110, 4, 5.
       ”    VII., § 110, 6; 126, 2; 132, 2; 149, 1.
       ”    VIII., § 110, 7; 149, 2, 13, 14.
       ”    IX., X., § 156, 1.
       ”    XI., § 165, 1, 7.
       ”    XIII., XIV., § 165, 9.
       ”    a Heretic of Britain, § 78, 6.
    Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, § 28, 3, 4.
    _Clementinæ_, § 99, 5.
    Cleomenes, § 33, 5.
    Clergy, § 34, 4.
    _Clerici vagi_, § 84, 2.
    _Clericis laicos_, § 110, 1.
    Clericus, § 169, 6.
    Clermont, Synod at, § 94; 96, 7.
    Climacus, § 47, 12.
    _Clinici_, § 34, 3; 45, 1.
    Cloister Schools, § 90, 8.
    Cloots, Anach., § 165, 12.
    Clothilda, § 76, 5, 9.
    Clovis, § 76, 9.
    Clugny, § 98, 1; 165, 2.
    Cluniacs, § 98, 1.
    Cocceius, § 161, 4, 6; 162, 5.
    Cochlæus, § 129, 1; 135, 10.
    Cock, H. de, § 200, 2.
    Codde, § 165, 8.
    Codex Alexandrinus, § 152, 2.
      ”   Sinaiticus, § 182, 11.
    Cœlestine I., § 46, 1; 52, 3; 53, 4.
        ”     II., § 96, 13.
        ”     III., § 96, 16.
        ”     IV., § 96, 19.
        ”     V., § 96, 22.
    Cœlestines, § 98, 2.
        ”       Eremites, § 98, 4.
    Cœlestius, § 53, 4.
    Cœlicolæ, § 42, 6.
    Cœnobites, § 44.
    Coisi, § 77, 4.
    Coke, § 169, 4.
    Colani, § 203, 8.
    Colenso, § 202, 4.
    Coleridge, § 202, 1.
    Colet, § 120, 6, 7.
    _Colidei_, § 77, 8.
    Coligny, § 139, 14, 16; 143, 6.
    _Collatio cum Donatist._, § 63, 1.
    _Collegia philobibl._, § 159, 3.
         ”    _pietatis_, § 159, 3.
    Collegial System, § 167, 5.
    Collegiants, § 163, 1.
    Collegiate Foundations, § 84, 4.
    _Collegium caritativum_, § 169, 1.
         ”     _Germanicum_, § 151, 1.
         ”     _Helveticum_, § 151, 2.
    Collenbusch, § 172, 3.
    Collins, § 171, 1.
    Collyridian Nuns, § 57, 2.
    Colman, § 77, 6.
    Cologne, Cathedral of, § 104, 13.
       ”     Conflict of, § 190, 1.
       ”     Reformation of, § 135, 7; 136, 2; 137, 7.
    Colombière, § 156, 6.
    Colonna, § 110, 1, 3.
       ”     Vittoria, § 139, 22.
    Columba, § 77, 2.
    Columbanus, § 77, 7.
    Columbus, § 116.
    Comenius, § 163, 9; 168, 2.
    _Comes Hieron._, § 59, 3.
    Commendatory Abbots, § 85, 5; 111, 2.
    Commodian, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
    Commodus, § 22, 2.
    Common Prayer, Book of, § 139, 5, 6.
    _Communicatio idiomatum_, § 141, 9.
    Communism, § 211, 6; 212, 1.
    Compact, The Basel, § 119, 7.
    Competentes, § 35, 1.
    Compiegne, Diet of, § 82, 4.
    Composition, § 89, 5, 6.
    Compromise, Belgian, § 139, 12.
    Comte, § 174, 2; 210, 1.
    Concha, § 60, 1.
    _Concilium Germanicum_, § 78, 5.
    Conclave, § 96, 21.
    Concomitantia, § 105, 1.
    Concord of Wittenberg, § 133, 8.
       ”    Formula of, § 141, 12.
    Concordat of Austria, § 198, 2.
        ”     ”  Baden, § 196, 2.
        ”     ”  Bavaria, § 195, 1.
        ”     ”  France, § 203, 1.
        ”     ”  Holland, § 200, 1.
        ”     ”  Portugal, § 205, 5.
        ”     ”  Prussia, § 193, 1.
        ”     ”  Spain, § 205, 1.
        ”     ”  Upper Rhine, § 196, 1.
        ”     ”  Vienna, § 110, 7.
        ”     ”  Worms, § 96, 5.
        ”     ”  Württemberg, § 96, 5.
    Condé, § 139, 14, 16, 17.
      ”    Louise de, § 186, 2.
    Conference, Evangelical, § 178, 4.
    _Confessio_, § 57, 1.
    Confession, § 36, 3; 61, 1; 89, 6; 104, 4.
    _Confessio Augustana_, § 132, 7.
         ”         ”       _Variata_, § 141, 4, 7.
         ”     _Belgica_, § 139, 12.
         ”     _Bohemica_, § 139, 19.
         ”     _Czengeriana_, § 139, 20.
         ”     _Gallicana_, § 139, 14.
         ”     _Hafnica_, § 139, 2.
         ”     _Helvetica_ I., § 133, 8.
         ”          ”      II., § 138, 7.
         ”     _Hungarica_, § 139, 20.
         ”     _Marchica_, § 154, 3.
         ”     _Saxonica_, § 136, 8.
         ”     _Scotica_, § 139, 9.
         ”     _Sigismundi_, § 154, 3.
         ”     _Tetrapolit._, § 132, 7.
    Confession, Westminster, § 155, 1.
         ”      Württemberg, § 136, 8.
    _Confessores_, § 22, 5; 39, 2, 5.
    Confirmation, § 35, 4; 139, 19; 167, 2.
    _Confutatio Conf. August._, § 132, 7.
    Congregatio de auxiliis, § 149, 13.
         ”      _de propag. fides_, § 156, 9.
    Congregationalists, § 143, 4; 162, 1; 202, 5.
    Congregations, § 98, 1; 186, 2.
    Conon, Pope, § 46, 11.
    Cononites, § 57, 2.
    Conrad I., Emperor, § 96, 1.
       ”   II., § 96, 4.
       ”   III., § 96, 13; 94, 2.
       ”   IV., § 96, 20.
       ”   of Hochsteden, § 104, 13.
       ”   ”  Marburg, § 109, 3.
       ”   ”  Massovia, § 93, 13.
       ”   ”  Megenburg, § 118, 2.
    Conradin, § 96, 20.
    Consalvi, § 185, 1; 192, 3.
    Conscientiarii, § 164, 4.
    Consensus Dresdensis, § 141, 10.
        ”     Genev., § 138, 7.
        ”     Sendomir, § 139, 18.
        ”     repetitus, § 159, 2.
        ”     Tigurinus, § 138, 7.
    Consilia evangelica, § 39.
    Consistories, § 142, 1.
    _Consolamentum_, § 108, 2.
    Constance, Council of, § 110, 7; 119, 5, 7.
    Constantia, § 50, 2.
    Constantine the Great, § 22, 7; 42, 1, 2; 60, 1; 63, 1.
         ”      I., Pope, § 46, 11.
         ”      II., “ § 82, 2.
         ”      Chrysomalus, § 70, 4.
         ”      Copronymus, § 66, 2.
         ”      of Mananalis, § 71, 1.
         ”      Monomachus [Monómachus], § 67, 3.
         ”      Pogonnatus, § 52, 8.
         ”      Porphyrogenneta, § 68, 1.
    Constantinople, Second Œcum. Council at, § 46, 1; 50, 4, 5; 52, 2.
          ”         Fifth Œcum. Council at, § 52, 6.
          ”         Sixth Œcum. Council at, § 52, 8.
          ”         Seventh Œcum. Council at, § 66, 2, 3.
          ”         Eighth Œcum. Council at, § 67, 1.
    Constantius, § 42, 2; 50, 2.
         ”       Chlorus, § 22, 6.
    _Constitutio Rom._, § 82, 4.
    Constitution of Early Church, § 17.
    Constitutiones apost., § 43, 4.
    Contarini, § 135, 2; 139, 22.
    _Continentes_, § 39, 3.
    Contraremonstrants, § 161, 2.
    _Convenensa_, § 108, 2.
    Conventuals, § 112, 3.
    _Conversi_, § 98.
    Converts, Romish, § 153, 1; 165, 6; 175, 7.
    Convocation, English, § 202, 3.
    Copts, § 52, 7; 72, 2.
    Coquerel, § 203, 4, 8.
    Coracion, § 33, 9.
    Coran, § 65.
    Corbinian, § 78, 2.
    Cordeliers, § 149, 6.
    Cornelius, Bishop, § 42, 3.
    Coronation, Papal, § 96, 23; 110, 15.
    _Corporale_, § 60, 5.
    Corporations Act, § 155, 3; 202, 5.
    _Corpus Cathol. et Evangel._, § 153, 1.
        ”   _Christi_ Festival, § 104, 7.
        ”   _doctr. Misnicum_, § 141, 10.
        ”   _juris canon._, § 99, 5.
        ”   _Pruthen._, § 141, 2.
    _Correctores Rom._, § 99, 5.
    Correggio, § 115, 13.
    Cosmas of Jerusalem, § 70, 2.
       ”   Indicopleustes, § 48, 2.
       ”   Patr., § 70, 4.
       ”   Usurpator, § 66, 1.
    Cossa, Cardinal, § 110, 7.
    Costa, Is. da, § 200, 2.
    Coster, § 149, 14.
    Cotta, Urs., § 122, 1.
    Councils, Œcumenical, § 43, 2.
    Counter-Reformation, § 151; 153; 165, 4.
    Cour, Did. de la, § 156, 4.
    Courland, § 93, 12; 139, 3.
    Court, Ant., § 165, 5.
    Covenant, § 139, 8; 155, 1.
    Cowper, § 172, 4.
    Cranach, § 142, 2.
    Cranmer, § 139, 4, 5.
    Cranz, § 115, 8.
    Crasselius, § 167, 6.
    Crato of Crafftheim, § 141, 10; 137, 8.
    Creationism, § 53, 1.
    Crell, J., § 148, 4.
      ”    Nich., § 141, 13.
      ”    Paul, § 141, 10.
    Crescens, § 30, 9.
    Crescentius, § 96, 2, 4.
    Creuzer, § 174, 4.
    Cromwell, § 153, 5, 6; 155, 1-3.
    Crookes, § 211, 17.
    Cross, § 38, 2; 60, 6.
      ”    Discovery of the, § 57, 5.
      ”    Ordeal of the, § 88, 5.
      ”    Sign of the, § 39, 1; 59, 8; 73, 5.
    Crotus, Rubianus, § 120, 2, 5.
    Crucifix, § 60, 6.
    Cruciger, § 136, 7.
    Cruco, § 93, 9.
    Crüger, § 160, 5.
    Crusaders, § 98, 8.
    Crusades, § 94; 105, 3.
    Crusius, Mart., § 139, 26.
       ”     Chr. Aug., § 167, 4.
    Crypto-Calvinists, § 141, 10, 13.
    Crypts, § 38, 1; 60, 1.
    Cubricus, § 29, 1.
    Cudworth, § 164, 3.
    Culdees, § 77, 8.
    _Cum ex apostolatus officio_, § 149, 2.
    Cummins, § 208, 1.
    Cunæus, § 161, 6.
    Cupola, § 60, 3.
    _Curati_, § 84, 2.
    Curæus, § 141, 10.
    Curci, § 187, 5.
    Curia, The Papal, § 110, 15.
    Curio, § 139, 24.
    Cursores, § 60, 5.
    Cusa, Nich. of, § 113, 6.
    Cynewulf, § 89, 3.
    Cyprian, St., § 22, 5; 31, 11; 34, 1, 7, 8; 35, 3; 39, 2;
        41, 2, 3.
       ”     of Antioch, § 48, 8.
       ”     Sal., § 167, 4; 169, 1.
    Cyran, St., § 157, 2.
    Cyriacus, § 104, 9.
    Cyril of Alexandria, § 47, 6; 52, 2, 3.
      ”   of Jerusalem, § 47, 10; 52, 2, 3.
      ”   Lucar, § 152, 2.
      ”   and Methodius, § 73, 2, 3; 79, 2, 3.
    Cyrillonas, § 48, 7.
    Cyrus of Alexandria, § 52, 8.
    Czersky, § 186, 6.


    Dach, Sim., § 160, 3.
    Dächsel, § 186, 4.
    Dagobert I., § 78, 1.
    Daillé, § 161, 3, 7.
    Dalberg, J. v., § 120, 2, 3.
       ”     K. Th. v., § 187, 3; 192, 2.
    Dale, § 202, 3.
    _Dalmatica_, § 59, 7.
    Damascus I., § 46, 4; 59, 1, 4.
        ”    II., § 96, 5.
    _Dames du Cœur sacré_, § 186, 1.
    Damiani, Petrus [Peter], § 97, 4; 104, 10; 106, 4.
    Damiens, § 158, 1.
    Dandalo [Dandolo], § 94, 4.
    Daniel of Winchester, § 78, 4.
    Danites, § 211, 14.
    Dankbrand, § 93, 5.
    Dannecker, § 174, 9.
    Dannhauer, § 159, 5.
    Dante, § 115, 10.
    Danzig, § 139, 18.
    Darboy, § 189, 3; 203.
    Darbyites, § 211, 11.
    Darnley, § 139, 10.
    Darwin, § 174, 3.
    _Dataria Rom._, § 110, 16.
    Daub, § 182, 6.
    Daumer, § 175, 7.
    David of Augsburg, § 103, 10.
      ”   ”  Dinant, § 108, 4.
      ”   Christian, § 167, 9.
    Davidis, Fr., § 148, 3.
    Davis, § 211, 17.
    Deacon, § 17, 5; 34, 3.
    Deaconess, § 34, 3.
    Deaconess-institutes, § 183, 1.
    Dean, § 84, 2.
    Decius, Emperor, § 22, 5.
       ”    Nich., § 142, 3.
    Declaratio Thornuensis, § 153, 7.
    Decretals, § 46, 3.
    Decretists, § 99, 5.
    Decretum Gelasianum, § 47, 22.
        ”    Gratiani, § 99, 5.
    _Defensores_, § 45, 3.
    Deism, § 164, 3; 171, 1.
    Delicieux, § 117, 2.
    Delitzsch, § 182, 14.
    Delrio, § 149, 11.
    Demetrius of Alexandria, § 31, 5.
        ”     Cydonius, § 68, 5.
        ”     Mysos, § 139, 26.
    Demiurge, § 26, 2.
    Denek, § 148, 1.
    Denecker, § 160, 1.
    Denifle, § 191, 7.
    Denison, § 202, 2.
    Denmark, § 80; 93, 2; 139, 2; 201, 1.
    Denzinger, § 191, 9.
    Derezer, § 165, 11.
    Dernbach, § 151, 1.
    _De salute animarum_, § 193, 1.
    Desanctis, § 204, 4.
    Descant, § 104, 11.
    Descartes, § 161, 3; 164, 1.
    Deseret, § 211, 12.
    Desiderius, § 82, 1.
    Desprez, § 203, 3.
    Dessau, Convention of, § 126, 5.
    Dessler, § 167, 6.
    Deutinger, § 191, 6.
    “Deutsche Theologie,” § 114, 2.
    De Valenti, § 174, 3.
    Devay, § 139, 20.
    Dhu Nowas, § 64, 4.
    Diana of Poitiers, § 139, 13.
    Diatessaron, § 30, 9; 36, 7.
    Diaz, Juan, § 135, 10.
    Didache, § 30, 7.
    _Didascalia Apost._, § 43, 4.
    Didenhofen, Synod of, § 82, 4.
    Diderot, § 165, 12.
    Didier de la Cour, § 156, 7.
    Didymus of Alexandria, § 47, 5.
       ”    Gabr, § 124, 1.
    Dieckhoff, § 182, 21.
    Diedrich, § 177, 3.
    Diepenbrock, § 189, 1.
    Dieringer, § 191, 6.
    _Dies Stationum_, § 37; 56, 1.
    Diestel, Past., § 176, 3.
    Dietrich, Meister, § 103, 10.
        ”     Veit, § 142, 2.
    Dillmann, § 182, 11.
    Dinant, David of, § 108, 4.
    Dinder, Archbishop, § 197, 12.
    Dinkel, Bishop, § 187, 3.
    Dinter, § 174, 8.
    Diocletian, Emperor, § 22, 6.
    Diodorus of Tarsus, § 47, 8.
    Diognetus, § 30, 6.
    Dionysius of Alexandria, § 31, 6; 32, 8; 33, 7, 9; 35, 3.
        ”     the Areopagite, § 47, 11; 90, 8.
        ”     _Exiguus_, § 47, 23.
        ”     of Paris, § 25.
        ”     ”  Rome, § 33, 7.
    Dioscurus of Alexandria, § 52, 4.
        ”     ”  Rome, § 46, 8.
    Dippel, § 170, 3.
    Diptychs, § 59, 6.
    _Disciplina arcani_, § 36, 4.
    Disputation at Baden, § 130, 6.
         ”      ”  Basel, § 130, 3.
         ”      ”  Bern, § 130, 7.
         ”      ”  Leipzig, § 122, 4.
         ”      ”  Rome, § 175, 3.
         ”      ”  Zürich, § 130, 2.
    Dissenters, § 143, 3, 4; 155, 1-3; 202, 5.
    Dober, § 168, 3, 4, 11.
    Docetism, § 26, 2.
    _Doctor acutus_, § 113, 2.
        ”   _angelicus_, § 103, 6.
        ”   _audientium_, § 33, 1.
        ”   _Christianiss._, § 113, 4.
        ”   _ecstaticus_, § 114, 5.
        ”   _invincibilis_, § 113, 3.
        ”   _irrefragibilis_, § 103, 4.
        ”   _melifluus_, § 102, 2.
        ”   _mirabilis_, § 103, 8.
        ”   _profundus_, § 103, 8; 116, 2.
        ”   _resolutissimus_, § 113, 3.
        ”   _seraphicus_, § 103, 4.
        ”   _subtilis_, § 113, 1.
        ”   _universalis_, § 103, 5.
    _Doctores audientium_, § 34, 3.
         ”    _ecclesiæ_, § 47, 22.
    Döderlein, § 171, 8.
    Dodwell, § 161, 7.
    Dolcino, § 108, 8.
    Döllinger, § 190, 1; 191, 5, 9; 175, 6; 5, 6.
    Domenichino, § 149, 15.
    Domenico da Pescia, § 119, 11.
    Dominic, St., § 98, 4; 106, 3.
    Dominicans, § 98, 5; 109, 2; 112, 4; 186, 2.
    _Dominus ac redemt._, § 165, 9.
    Domitian, Emperor, § 22, 1.
        ”     Abbot, § 52, 6.
    Domnus of Antioch, § 52, 4.
    _Donatio Constantini_, § 87, 4.
    Donatists, § 63, 1.
    Donnet, Card., § 190, 3.
    Doré, Gustav, § 174, 9.
    Doring, Matt., § 113, 7.
    _Dormitoria_, § 38, 2; 60, 4.
    Dorner, § 182, 10.
    Dorotheus, § 30, 6.
    Dort, Synod of, § 161, 2.
    Dositheus of Samaria, § 25, 2.
        ”     ”  Jerusalem, § 152, 3.
    Drabricius, § 163, 9.
    Dragonnades, § 153, 3.
    Drake, § 174, 9.
    Drey, § 191, 6.
    Druids, § 77, 2.
    Drummond, § 211, 10.
    Drusius, § 161, 6.
    Druthmar, Christ., § 90, 4, 9; 91, 3.
    Dualism, § 26, 2.
    Dualistic Heretics, § 71.
    Dubois, Pet. v., § 118, 1.
       ”    Card., § 165, 7.
    Ducange, § 158, 2.
    Duchoborzians, § 166, 2; 210, 3.
    Dufay, § 115, 8.
    Dufresne, § 158, 2.
    Dulignon, § 163, 8.
    Dumont, Bishop, § 200, 7.
    Dumoulin, § 161, 3, 7.
    Dungal, § 92, 2.
    Dunin, § 193, 1.
    Duns Scotus, § 113, 1.
    Dunstan, § 97, 4; 100, 1.
    Dupanloup, § 189, 3; 203, 3-5.
    Duplessis-Mornay, § 139, 17.
    Duræus, § 154, 4.
    Durandus of Osca, § 108, 10.
        ”    William, § 113, 3.
    Dürer, Albert, § 115, 13; 142, 2.
    Durousseaux, § 200, 7.
    Düsselthal, § 183, 1.
    Dutoit, § 171, 9.
    Duvergier, § 157, 5.


    Eadbald, § 77, 4.
    Eanfled, § 77, 6.
    Eardley, § 178, 2.
    Easter-Festival, § 37, 1; 56, 3, 4.
       ”   Reckoning of, § 56, 3; 77, 3.
    East Friesland, § 170, 3.
    East Indies, § 64, 4; 150, 1; 156, 11; 165, 3; 167, 9; 168, 6;
        184, 5.
    Ebed Jesu, § 72, 1.
    Ebel, § 176, 3.
    Eber, Paul, § 141, 10; 142, 3.
    Eberhard of Bamberg, § 102, 6.
        ”    J. A., § 171, 4-7.
        ”    Bishop of Treves, § 197, 6.
    Eberlin, § 125, 1.
    Ebionites, § 28, 1.
    Ebner, § 114, 6.
    Ebo of Rheims, § 80; 87, 3.
    Ebrard, § 182, 16; 195, 5; 5, 5.
    Ecbert of Schönau, § 107, 1.
    Eccart, John, § 142, 5.
    _Ecclesia Christi_ Bull, § 203, 1.
    Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, § 202, 11.
    Ecetæ, § 70, 3.
    Echter, Jul., § 151, 1.
    Echternach Procession, § 188, 11.
    Eck, § 122, 1, 4; 123, 1; 130, 6; 135, 2, 3; 149, 14.
    Eckhart, Meister, § 114, 1.
    Ecthesis, § 52, 8.
    Edelmann, § 171, 3.
    Edessa, School of, § 31, 1; 47, 1.
    Edward VI. of England, § 139, 5.
    Edwin, § 77, 4.
    Egbert, § 77, 8; 78, 3.
    Egede, § 167, 9.
    Egli, § 199, 3.
    Eichhorn, J. G., § 171, 7.
        ”     Minister, § 196, 2.
        ”     Nich., § 174, 5.
    Eichsfeld, § 151, 1.
    Einhard, § 88, 6.
    εἰρήνη, § 39, 2.
    Eisenach, Conference at, § 172, 2.
        ”     Attentat, § 194, 2.
    Eisenmenger, § 161, 7.
    Eisleben, Magister, § 141, 1.
    Elagabalus, § 22, 4.
    Eleesban, § 64, 4.
    Eleutherus, § 40, 2.
    Elias of Cortona, § 98.
    Eligius, § 78, 3.
    Elipandus, § 91, 1.
    Elisæus [Elisaeus], § 64, 3.
    Elizabeth, St., § 105, 3.
        ”      of Brandenburg, § 128, 1.
        ”      ”  Calenberg, § 134, 5.
        ”      ”  England, § 139, 6-8.
        ”      ”  Herford, § 163, 7, 8.
        ”      ”  Schönau, § 104, 9; 107, 1.
    Elizabeth-Society, § 186, 4.
    Elkesaites, § 28, 2.
    Eller, § 170, 4.
    Elliot, § 162, 7.
    Eltz, Jac. v., § 151, 1.
    Elvenich, § 191, 1.
    Elvira, Syn. of, § 38, 3; 45, 2.
    Elxai, § 27, 2.
    Elzevir, § 161, 6.
    Emanation, § 26, 2.
    Emancipation Bill, § 202, 9.
    Emmerau, § 78, 2.
    Emmerich, § 188, 3.
    Empaytaz, § 199, 5.
    Emser, Jerome, § 123, 4; 149, 14.
    Encratites, § 27, 10.
    Encyclicon, § 52, 5.
    Encyclopædists, § 165, 14.
    Endemic Synods, § 43, 2.
    Energumens, § 35, 3.
    _Enfans sans souci_, § 115, 12.
    Enfantin, § 212, 2.
    England, § 139, 4; 143, 1; 154, 4; 155; 162, 1; 202.
    Ennodius, § 46, 8; 59, 4.
    Enoch, Book of, § 32, 2.
    Enraght, § 202, 3.
    Eoban, St., § 78, 7.
    Epaon, Council of, § 76, 5.
    Ephesus, Council of, § 52, 3; 53, 4.
    Ephraem [Ephraim], § 47, 13; 48, 7; 59, 4.
    Epigonus, § 33, 5.
    Epiphanes, § 27, 8.
    Epiphanius, § 47, 10; 51, 2, 3; 57, 4.
    Episcopal System, § 167, 5.
    _Episcopi in partibus_, § 97, 3.
    Episcopius, § 161, 2.
    _Epistolæ decretales_, § 46, 3.
         ”    _formatæ_, § 34, 6.
         ”    _obscur. vir._, § 120, 5.
         ”    _paschales_, § 34, 6; 56, 3.
         ”    _synodales_, § 34, 6.
    _Epulæ Thyesteæ_, § 22.
    Erasmus, § 120, 6; 123, 3; 125, 3.
    Erastianism, § 202, 7.
    Erastus, § 117, 4; 144, 1.
    Erfurt, University of, § 120, 2.
    Eric of Calenberg, § 136, 1.
      ”  ”  Sweden, § 80, 1; 93, 2.
      ” St., § 93, 3, 11.
      ” the Red, § 93, 5.
    Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
    Erimbert, § 81, 1.
    Erlembald, § 97, 5.
    Ernest the Pious, § 160, 6.
       ”   of Lüneburg, § 126, 4; 127, 3.
    Ernesti, § 171, 6.
    Ernestine Bible, § 160, 6.
    Esch, John, § 128, 1.
    Eschenmayer, § 176, 2.
    Escobar, § 149, 16; 158, 1.
    Essenes, § 8, 4; 28, 2.
    Essenius, § 161, 5.
    Established Church, § 139, 6; 202, 1.
    Esthonia, § 93, 2; 205, 3.
    Estius, § 149, 14.
    Ethelberga, § 77, 4.
    Ethelbert, § 77, 4.
    Ethelwold, Bishop, § 100, 1.
    Etherius of Osma, § 91, 1.
    Ethiopia, § 64, 1.
    Etshmiadzin, § 72, 2.
    Εὐχαριστία, § 17, 7; 36, 3.
    Εὐχέλαιον, § 61, 3.
    Eucherius, § 47, 21.
    Euchites, § 44, 7; 71, 3.
    Eudocia, § 48, 5; 52, 3, 4, 5.
    Eudoxia, § 51, 3.
    Eudoxius, § 50, 8.
    Eugenius II., § 82, 4.
        ”    III., § 96, 13.
        ”    IV., § 67, 6; 110, 8, 9.
    Eulalius, § 46, 6.
    Euler, § 171, 8.
    Eulogies, § 58, 4.
    Eulogius of Cæsarea, § 53, 4.
        ”    ”  Cordova, § 81, 1; 90, 6.
    Eunapius, § 42, 5.
    Eunomius, § 50, 3.
    Euphemites, § 42, 6.
    Euphrates, § 28, 4.
    Euric, § 76, 2.
    Eusebians, § 50, 2.
    Eusebius of Cæsarea, § 36, 8; 47, 2; 50, 1; 59, 1.
        ”    ”  Doryläum, § 52, 3.
        ”    ”  Emesa, § 47, 8.
        ”    ”  Nicomedia, § 50, 1.
        ”    ”  Vercelli, § 50, 2.
    Eustasius of Luxeuil, § 78, 2.
    Eustathians, § 44, 7.
    Eustathius of Antioch, § 50, 8.
         ”     ”  Sebaste, § 44, 3, 7; 62, 1.
         ”     ”  Thessalonica, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
    Euthalius, § 59, 1.
    Euthymius Zigabenus, § 68, 5.
    Eutyches, § 52, 4.
    Euzoius, § 50, 8.
    Evagrius, § 5, 1.
    Evangelical-Party, § 202, 1, 4.
    Evangelists, § 17, 5; 34, 1.
    _Evangelium æternum_, § 108, 4.
    Evolutionists, § 174, 2.
    Ewald, The black and white, § 78, 9.
      ”    H., § 182, 3.
    Exarchate, § 46, 9; 76, 7; 82, 1.
    Exarchs, Episcopal, § 46, 1.
    _Execrabilis_, § 110, 10.
    Exemption, § 98.
    Exercises, Spiritual, § 149, 9; 188, 1.
    Excommunication, § 35, 2; 88, 5; 106, 1.
    Exodus-Churches, § 211, 6, 7.
    ἐξομολόγησις, § 32, 2.
    Exorcism, § 35, 4; 58, 1; 142, 2; 167, 2.
    Exorcists, § 33, 3.
    _Exsurge Domini_, § 123, 2.
    _Extra_, § 99, 5.
    _Extraneæ_, § 39, 3.
    _Extravagantes_, § 99, 5.
    Eyck, § 115, 13.
    Eznik, § 64, 3.
    Ezra, Fourth Book of, § 32, 2.


    Faber, John, § 130, 2, 6.
      ”    Stapulensis, § 120, 8.
    Fabian, Bishop of Rome, § 22, 5.
    Facundus of Hermiane, § 47, 19; 52, 6.
    Fagius, § 139, 5.
    Falk, Dr., § 174, 8; 193, 5, 6; 197, 2, 3, 5.
    Familists, § 146, 5.
    Farel, § 130, 3; 138, 1.
    Fasts, Ascetic, § 44, 4; 107.
      ”    Ecclesiastical, § 37, 3; 56, 4, 7; 115, 1, 12.
    Fatak, § 29, 1.
    Faustus of Mileve, § 54, 1.
       ”    ”  Rhegium, § 47, 21; 53, 5.
    Favre, Pet., § 149, 8.
    Fawkes, Guy, § 153, 6.
    Fazy, § 199, 1.
    Febronius, § 165, 10.
    Fecht, § 167, 1.
    Federal Theology, § 161, 4.
    Felicissimus, § 41, 2.
    Felicitas, § 22, 4.
    Felix II., § 46, 4.
      ”   III., § 46, 8; 52, 5.
      ”   IV., § 46, 8.
      ”   V., § 110, 8.
      ”   of Aptunga, § 63, 1.
      ”   the Manichæan, § 54, 1.
      ”   Pratensis, § 120, 9.
      ”   of Urgellis, § 91, 1.
    Fell, Marg., § 163, 4.
    Feneberg, § 187, 1.
    Fénelon, § 157, 3; 158, 2.
    Fenian-movement, § 202, 10.
    Ferdinand I., § 137, 8; 126, 2, 3; 139, 19, 20.
        ”     II., § 151, 1; 153, 2.
        ”     VII. of Spain, § 205, 1.
        ”     I. of Castile, § 95, 2.
        ”     III. of Castile, § 95, 2.
        ”     the Catholic, § 95, 2; 117, 2; 118, 7.
    Ferguson, Fergus, § 202, 8.
    Ferrara, Council of, § 67, 6; 110, 8.
    Ferrer, Bonif., § 115, 4.
       ”    Vincent, § 115, 2; 110, 6.
    Ferry, Minister, § 203, 6.
    _Ferula_, § 60, 1.
    Fessler, Bishop, § 189, 3.
       ”     Ign., § 165, 13.
    Feudalism, § 86, 1.
    Feuerbach, § 174, 1, 3; 182, 6.
    Feuillants, § 149, 6.
    Feyin, Synod of, § 64, 3.
    Fichte, J. G., § 171, 10.
       ”    J. H., § 174, 2; 211, 15.
    Fiesole, § 115, 13.
    Fifth Monarchy Men, § 162, 1.
    _Filioque_, § 50, 7; 67, 1; 91, 2.
    Finkenstein, § 176, 3.
    Finland, § 93, 11; 139, 1; 206, 3.
    Firmian, § 165, 4.
    Firmcius Maternus, § 47, 14.
    Firmilian, § 34, 3; 35, 3.
    Fischart, § 142, 7.
    Fisher, Bishop, § 139, 4.
    Fisherman’s Ring, § 110, 16.
    Fitzgerald, § 189, 3.
    Five Mile Act, § 155, 3.
    Flacius, § 141, 4-8; 142, 6; 5, 2.
    Flagellants, § 106, 4; 116, 3; 149, 17.
    Flagellation, § 106, 4; 116, 3; 149, 17.
    Flavia Domitilla, § 22, 1.
    Flavian of Antioch, § 50, 8.
       ”    of Constantinople, § 52, 4.
    Flechier, § 158, 2.
    Flemming, § 160, 3.
    Fletcher, § 169, 3.
    Fleury, § 5, 2; 158, 2; 165, 7.
    Fliedner, § 183, 1.
    Flora, § 27, 5.
    Florence, Council of, § 67, 6; 72; 110, 8.
    Florentius Radewin, § 112, 9.
    Florinus, § 31, 2.
    Florus Magister, § 90, 5; 91, 5.
    Folmar, § 102, 6.
    Fontevraux, Order of, § 98, 2.
    Fools, Festival of, § 105, 2.
    Formosus, § 82, 8.
    _Formula Concordiæ_, § 141, 9.
        ”    Consensus Helvet., § 161, 3.
    Förster, J., § 142, 6.
       ”     prelate, § 118, 3; 197, 6.
    Fortunatus, § 48, 6.
    Fouque, de la M., § 174, 5.
    Fourier, § 212, 1.
    Fox, George, Quaker, § 163, 4, 5.
     ”   American Spiritualist, § 211, 17.
    France, § 139, 13-17; 153, 4; 165, 5; 203.
    Francis, St., § 93, 16; 98, 3; 104, 10; 105, 4.
       ”     de Paula, § 112, 8.
       ”     ”  Sales, § 156, 6; 157, 1.
       ”     I., of France, § 110, 9, 14; 120, 8; 126, 5, 6; 139, 13.
       ”     II., of France, § 139, 14.
    Francisca Romana, § 112, 1.
    Franciscans, § 98, 3; 112, 2; 149, 6.
    Francis Xavier Society, § 186, 4.
    Franck, Seb. § 146, 3.
       ”    John, § 160, 4.
       ”    Michael, § 160, 4.
       ”    Sal., § 167, 6.
    Francke, A. H., § 159, 3; 167, 2, 8, 9; 160, 7.
    Franco of Cologne, § 104, 11.
    Frank, J. H., § 182, 15.
    Frankists, § 165, 17.
    Franks, The, § 76, 9.
    Frankfort, Synod of, § 91, 1; 92, 1.
        ”      Concordat of, § 110, 9, 14.
        ”      Parliament of, § 189, 4.
        ”      Recess of, § 141, 11.
        ”      Troubles of, § 134, 3.
    _Fratres de communi vita_, § 112, 9.
        ”    _minores_, § 98, 3.
        ”    _pontifices_, § 98, 9.
        ”    _praedicatores_, § 98, 5.
    _Fraticelli_, § 112, 2.
    Fredigis, § 90, 4.
    Frederick I., Barbarossa, § 96, 14, 15; 94, 3.
        ”     II., Emperor, § 94, 5; 96, 20; 97, 2; 99, 3; 109, 2.
        ”     III., Emperor, § 110, 9.
        ”     III., of Austin, § 110, 3.
        ”     I., of Prussia, § 169, 1.
        ”     II., “ § 165, 9; 171, 4.
        ”     I., of Denmark, § 139, 2.
        ”     IV., “ § 167, 9.
        ”     of Palatinate, § 153, 3.
        ”     Aug. the Strong, § 153, 1.
        ”     the Wise, § 122, 3; 123, 9.
        ”     William, the Great Elector, § 154, 4.
        ”     William II., § 171, 5.
        ”        ”    III., § 171, 5; 172, 3; 177, 1; 193.
        ”        ”    IV., § 177, 2; 193.
    Freemasons, § 171, 2; 104, 13.
    Free-will Baptists, § 162, 3; 208, 1.
    Free-thinkers, § 164, 2; 171, 2.
    Freiligrath, § 174, 5.
    Fresenius, § 167, 8.
    Freylinghausen, § 167, 6-8.
    Fricke, § 182, 21.
    Fridolin, § 77, 7; 78, 1.
    Friedewalt, Convention of, § 126, 6.
    Friedrich, John, § 190, 1; 191, 7.
    Fries, § 174, 1.
    Frisians, § 78, 3.
    Frith, § 139, 4.
    Frithigern, § 76, 1.
    Fritzlar, § 78, 4.
    Fritzsche, § 183, 3.
    Frobenius, § 120, 6.
    Frohschammer, § 191, 6.
    Froment, § 138, 1.
    Fronto, § 23.
    Frumentius, § 64, 1.
    Fry, Elizabeth, § 183, 1.
    Fugue, Musical, § 115, 8.
    Fulbert of Chartres, § 101, 1.
    Fulco, Canonist, § 102, 1.
      ”    of Neuilly, § 104, 1.
    Fulda, § 78, 5; 151, 2.
    Fulgentius, Ferr., § 47, 20.
         ”      of Ruspe, § 47, 20.


    Gabler, Andr., § 182, 6.
       ”    Th. A., § 171, 5.
    Gabriel, Didymus, § 124, 1.
    Galen, § 23.
    Galerius, § 22, 6.
    Galileo, § 156, 4.
    Gall, St., § 130, 4, 8.
    Galle, Peter, § 139, 1.
    Gallienus, § 22, 5.
    Gallican Church, § 156, 3; 203.
    Gallizin, Am. v., § 172, 2.
    Gallus, St., § 178.
       ”    Emperor, § 22, 5.
    Ganganelli, § 165, 8.
    Gangra, Synod of, § 44, 7; 45, 2.
    Gardiner, Allen, § 184, 2.
        ”     Bishop, § 139, 4, 5.
    Garibaldi, § 185, 3.
    Garve, § 170, 4.
    Gasparin, § 203, 4.
    Gannilo, § 101, 3.
    Gauzbert, § 81, 1.
    Gavazzi, § 204, 4.
    Gebhardt of Eichstedt [Eichstadt], § 96, 5.
        ”    ”  Cologne, § 137, 7.
        ”    ”  Salzburg, § 97, 2.
    Gedike, § 154, 3.
    Gedimin, § 93, 14.
    Geibel, § 174, 6.
    Geier, § 159, 4.
    Geiler of Kaisersb., § 115, 2, 11.
    Geisa, § 93, 8.
    Geismar, § 78, 4.
    Geissel, § 194, 1.
    Gelasius, I., § 46, 8; 47, 22; 59, 6.
        ”     II., § 96, 11.
    Gelimar, § 76, 3.
    Gellert, § 171, 11; 172, 1.
    Genesis, The little, § 32, 2.
    Genesius, § 71, 1.
    Geneva, § 138; 199, 1, 2, 5.
    Genghis-Khan, § 72, 1.
    Gennadius, § 47, 16; 48, 3.
        ”      Patr., § 68, 5; 67, 7.
    Genseric, § 76, 3.
    Gentile Christians, § 18.
    Gentilis, § 148, 3.
    Gentilly, Synod of, § 91, 2; 92, 1.
    _Genuflectentes_, § 35, 1.
    George Acyndynos [Acindynos], § 69, 1.
       ”   of Brandenburg, § 127, 3; 132, 6.
       ”   of Saxony, § 122, 4; 126, 5; 128; 134, 2.
       ”   Bishop of the Arabs, § 72, 2.
       ”   of Trebizond, § 68, 2.
    Gerbert, § 96, 2; 100, 2.
    Gereuth, § 188, 6.
    Gerhard Groot, § 112, 9.
       ”    John, § 159, 4; 160, 1.
       ”    Segarelli, § 108, 8.
       ”    Zerbolt, § 112, 9.
    Gerhardt, Paul, § 154, 4; 160, 4.
    Gerike, P., § 139, 18.
    Gerlach, L. v., § 175, 1; 176, 1.
       ”     Otto v., § 181, 4.
       ”     Stephen, § 139, 26.
    St. Germains, Peace of, § 139, 15.
    German Empire, § 192; 197.
       ”   Catholics, § 187, 6.
    Germany, Young, § 174, 5.
    Germanus, Patr., § 66, 1.
    Gerson, § 110, 6, 7; 112, 6; 113, 3; 118, 4; 119, 5.
    Gertrude the Great, § 107, 1.
        ”    of Hackeborn, § 107, 1.
    Gesenius, W., § 182, 3.
        ”     Just., § 160, 3.
    Gewilib of Mainz, § 78, 4.
    Geysa, § 93, 2.
    Gfrörer, § 5, 4; 175, 7.
    Ghazali, § 103, 1.
    Ghent, Pacific. of, § 139, 12.
    Ghetto, § 95, 3; 185, 1.
    Ghiberti, § 115, 13.
    Gichtel, § 163, 9.
    Gieseler, § 5, 4.
    Giessen, University of, § 154, 1; 196, 1, 5.
    Gil, Juan, § 139, 21.
    Gilbertines, § 98, 2.
    Gilbertus Porretanus, § 102, 3.
    Gildas, § 90, 8.
    Giotto, § 115, 13.
    Gisela, § 93, 8.
    Gladstone, § 202, 10.
    Glass, Painting on, § 104, 14; 174, 9.
    Glassius, § 159, 4.
    γλωσσαῖς λαλεῖν, § 17, 1.
    Gnesen, Archbishopric of, § 93, 2.
    Gnosimachians, § 62, 3.
    Gnosticism, § 18, 3; 26-28.
    Goar, St., § 78, 3.
    Gobat, Bishop, § 184, 8, 9.
    Gobel, § 165, 15.
    Goch, John of, § 119, 10.
    God, Friends of, § 116, 4.
    Godfrey of Bouillon, § 94, 1.
       ”    ”  Strassburg, § 105, 6.
    Goethe, § 171, 11.
    Goetze, § 171, 8.
    Gomarus, § 161, 2.
    Gonzago, Cardinal, § 149, 2.
    Gonzalo of Berceo, § 105, 6.
    Good Friday, § 56, 4.
    Goodwin, § 161, 6.
    Gordianus, § 22, 4.
    Görg, Junker, § 123, 8.
    Gorm the Old, § 93, 2.
    Görres, Jos., § 174, 4; 181, 1; 5, 6.
    Göschel, § 179, 1, 2; 182, 6, 15.
    Gossler, § 193, 6; 197, 11.
    Gossner, § 187, 2; 184, 1.
    Gothic Architecture, § 104, 12.
    Goths, § 76.
    Gotter, § 167, 6.
    Gottschalk, Prince of Wends, § 93, 9.
         ”      Monk, § 91, 5, 6.
    Goudimel, § 143, 2; 149, 15.
    Grabau, § 208, 2.
    Grabow, § 210, 10.
    Graf, § 182, 18.
    _Graffiti_, § 38, 1; 39, 5.
    γράμματα τετυπωμένα, § 34, 6.
    Grammont, Order of, § 98, 2.
    Grant, § 184, 9.
    Granvella, § 135, 1, 2, 3.
    Gratian, Emperor, § 42, 4.
       ”     Canonist, § 99, 5; 104, 4.
    Gratius Ortuinus, § 120, 5.
    Graumann, § 142, 3.
    Grebel, § 130, 5.
    Greece, § 207.
    Greeks, United, § 151; 206, 2.
    Green, § 202, 3.
    Greenland, § 93, 1; 167, 9; 184, 2.
    Gregentius, § 48, 3.
    Gregoire, Bishop, § 165, 15.
    Gregory I., § 46, 10; 47, 22; 57, 4; 58, 3; 59, 5, 6, 9; 61, 4;
        76, 8; 77, 4.
    Gregory II., III., § 66, 1; 78, 4; 82, 1.
       ”    IV., § 82, 4.
       ”    V., § 96, 2.
       ”    VI., § 96, 4.
       ”    VII., § 96, 7-9; 94; 101, 2.
       ”    VIII., § 96, 16; 94, 3.
       ”    IX., § 96, 19; 99, 4; 109, 2.
       ”    X., § 96, 21; 67, 4.
       ”    XI., § 110, 5; 114, 4; 117, 2.
       ”    XII., § 110, 6, 7.
       ”    XIII., § 139, 17; 149, 3, 4, 17.
       ”    XIV., § 149, 3.
       ”    XV., § 156, 1, 4, 5.
       ”    XVI., § 185, 1.
       ”    Abulfarajus, § 72, 2.
       ”    Acindynos, § 69, 2.
       ”    of Constantinople, § 207, 1.
       ”    of Heimburg, § 118, 5.
       ”    Illuminator, § 64, 3.
       ”    Palamas, § 69, 2.
       ”    Scholaris, § 68, 5.
       ”    Thaumaturgus, § 31, 6.
       ”    Nazianzen, § 47, 4; 48, 5, 8; 59, 4.
       ”    of Nyssa, § 47, 4.
       ”    of Tours, § 90, 2.
       ”    of Utrecht, § 78, 3.
    Gregorian Chant, § 59, 3.
    Gretna-Green, § 202, 6.
    Grévy, § 203, 5.
    Grey, Lady Jane, § 139, 5.
    Griesbach, § 171, 7.
    Groot, Gerh., § 112, 9.
    Gropper, § 135, 3, 7.
    Grosseteste, § 97, 4.
    Grotius, § 153, 7; 161, 2, 6, 7.
    Gruber, § 170, 1, 2.
    Gruet, Jac., § 138, 4.
    Grundtvig, § 201, 1.
    Grunthler, § 139, 24.
    Grynäus, § 133, 8.
    Gualbertus, § 98, 1.
    Guardian, § 98, 5.
    Guatemala, § 209, 2.
    Guelphs, § 96, 7.
    Guericke, § 5, 5; 176, 1; 177, 2; 182, 13.
    Guerin, § 98, 2.
    Guevara, § 209, 2.
    Guiana, § 184, 2.
    Guibert, Archbishop, § 203, 5.
       ”     of Nogent, § 101, 1.
    Guido of Arezzo, § 104, 11.
      ”   de Castello, § 102, 2; 108, 7.
      ”   of Siena, § 104, 9, 14.
    Guigo, § 98, 2.
    Guise, Dukes of, § 139, 13-17.
    Guizot, § 185, 3; 203, 2, 8.
    Gundiberge, § 76, 8.
    Gundioch, § 75, 5.
    Gundobald, § 76, 5.
    Gundulf, § 108, 2.
    Gunpowder Plot, § 153, 6.
    Gunthamund, § 76, 3.
    Gunther of Cologne, § 82, 7.
    Günther, Ant., § 191, 3.
       ”     Cyriacus, § 160, 4.
    Günzburg, Eberlin of, § 125, 1.
    Gury, § 191, 9.
    Gustavus Adolphus, § 153, 2; 160, 7.
        ”       ”      Society, § 178, 1.
    Gützlaf, § 184, 6.
    Guyon, § 157, 3.
    Gylas, § 93, 8.
    Gyrovagi, § 44, 7.


    Haag, Pastor, § 196, 3.
    Haas, Jos., § 210, 2.
      ”   Charles, § 175, 7.
    Haco the Good, § 93, 4.
    Hadrian, Emperor, § 28, 3; 25; 39, 6.
        ”    I., § 66, 3; 82, 2; 91, 1.
        ”    II., § 67, 1; 79, 2; 82, 7; 83, 2.
        ”    III., § 82, 8.
        ”    IV., § 96, 14.
        ”    V., § 96, 22.
        ”    VI., § 149, 1; 126, 1.
    Hagenau, § 135, 2.
    Hagenbach, § 182, 9; 5, 5.
    Hahn, Aug., § 176, 1.
      ”   Michael, § 172, 3.
      ”   Missionary, § 184, 3.
    Hahn-Hahn, Ida, § 175, 7.
    Hakem, § 95, 2.
    Haldane, § 199, 5.
    Haldanites, § 170, 6.
    Halle, University of, § 167, 1.
    Haller, Alb., § 171, 8.
       ”    Berth., § 130, 4.
       ”    L. v., § 175, 7.
    Hamann, § 171, 11.
    Hamburg, Bishopric, § 80, 1.
    Hamilton, Patrick, § 139, 8.
    Hammerschmidt, § 160, 5.
    Handel, § 167, 7.
    Haneberg, § 189, 4; 197, 6.
    Hanne, Dr., § 180, 3.
    Hannington, Bishop, § 184, 4.
    Hanover, § 193, 8; 194, 3.
    Hans, Brother, § 115, 11.
    Harald the Apostate, § 80.
       ”   Blaatand, § 93, 2.
    Hardenberg, § 144, 2.
    Hard-Shell Baptists, § 170, 6.
    Hardouin, § 165, 11.
    Hare, § 211, 17.
    Harless, § 182, 13; 195, 4.
    Harmonites, § 211, 6.
    Harmonius, § 27, 5.
    Harms, Claus, § 176, 1.
      ”    Louis, § 184, 1.
    Harnack, Th., § 182, 13.
    Hartmann, E. v., § 174, 2.
    Hase, § 5, 4; 176, 1; 182, 5.
    Hasse [Hase], § 5, 5.
    Hassun, § 207, 4.
    Hattemists, § 170, 8.
    Hatto of Reichenau, § 90, 3.
      ”   I. of Mainz, § 83, 3.
    Hatty-Humayun, § 207.
    Hätzer, § 130, 5; 148, 1.
    Haug, § 170, 1.
    Hauge, § 201, 3.
    Hauser, § 188, 5.
    Hausmann, Nich., § 133, 4.
    Hausrath, § 182, 17.
    Haydn, § 174, 10.
    Haymo of Halberstadt, § 90, 5.
    Hebel, § 171, 11.
    Heber, Bishop, § 184, 5.
    Hebræans, Sect of, § 170, 8.
    Hebrews, Gospel of the, § 32, 4.
    Heddo of Strassburg, § 84, 2.
    Hedinger, § 170, 1.
    Hedio, § 130, 3.
    Hedwig of Poland, § 93, 14.
       ”   St. of Silesia, § 105, 3.
    Heermann, § 160, 3.
    Hefele, § 189, 3, 4; 191, 7.
    Hefter, § 184, 8.
    Hegel, § 174, 1.
    Hegesippus, § 31, 7.
    Hegius, § 120, 3.
    Heidanus, § 161, 5, 7.
    Heidegger, § 161, 3.
    Heidelberg Catechism, § 144, 1.
         ”     University, § 120, 3.
    Heine, § 174, 5.
    Heinrichs, § 171, 5.
    Hejira, § 65.
    Held, H., § 159, 3.
      ”   Imperial Orator, § 134, 2.
    Helding, § 136, 5.
    Helena, Empress, § 57, 5, 6.
       ”    of Russia, § 73, 4.
    Heliand, § 89, 3.
    Hell, § 106, 3.
    Hellenists, § 10, 1.
    Helmstedt [Helmstadt], § 159, 2.
    Heloise, § 102, 1.
    Helvetius, § 165, 12.
    Helvidius, § 62, 2.
    Hemero-baptists, § 25, 1.
    Hemmerlin, § 118, 5.
    Hemming of Upsala, § 93, 11.
       ”    Professor, § 141, 10.
    Hengstenberg, § 176, 1; 182, 4.
    Henke, § 5, 3; 171, 7.
    Henoticon, § 52, 2.
    Henricians, § 108, 7.
    Henry I., Emperor, § 93, 2; 96, 1.
      ”   II., § 96, 4.
      ”   III., § 96, 4; 97, 1.
      ”   IV., § 96, 6.
      ”   V., § 96, 11 ff.
      ”   VI., § 96, 16.
      ”   VII., § 110, 2.
      ”   I. of England, § 96, 12.
      ”   II. ”    ”     § 96, 16; 94, 3.
      ”   VIII.    ”     § 125, 3; 139, 4, 7, 8.
      ”   II. of France, § 139, 13.
      ”   III. ”   ”     § 139, 17, 18.
      ”   IV.  ”   ”     § 139, 17.
      ”   of Brunswick, § 126, 5; 135, 6, 10.
      ”   of Saxony, § 134, 4.
      ”   _de Hessia_, § 118, 5.
      ”   of Langenstein, § 118, 5.
      ”   of Lausanne, § 108, 7.
      ”   of Nördlingen, § 114, 6.
      ”   of Upsala, § 93, 11.
      ”   the Lion, § 93, 9.
      ”   Wendish Prince, § 93, 9.
      ”   of Zütphen, § 128, 1.
    Hensel, Louise, § 174, 6.
    Heppe, § 170, 3; 182, 16.
    Heracleon, § 27, 5.
    Heraclius, § 52, 8; 57, 5; 64, 2.
    Herbart, § 174, 2.
    Herder, § 171, 11.
    Heretic’s Baptism, § 35, 5.
    Hergenröther, § 5, 6; 191, 7.
    Heriger, § 80, 1.
    Hermann von Fritzlar, § 114.
       ”    Premonstrat., § 95, 3.
       ”    of Cologne, § 133, 5.
       ”    von Wied, § 133, 5; 135, 7; 136, 2.
    Hermannsburg, § 184, 1; 193, 8.
    Hermas, § 30, 4.
    Hermes, § 191, 1.
    Hermias, § 30, 10.
    Hermogenes, § 27, 13.
    Herrero de Mora, § 205, 5.
    Herrmann, § 182, 20.
    Herrnhut, § 168; 169, 3.
    Hervæus, § 102, 8.
    Herzog, Old Catholic Bishop, § 190, 3; 199, 3.
       ”    Prelate, § 197, 10, 11.
       ”    J. J., § 5, 5.
    Hess, J. Jac., § 171, 6.
    Hesse, § 127, 2.
      ”    Darmstadt, § 196, 4; 197, 15.
      ”    Cassel, § 154, 1; 193, 9; 194, 4.
    Hesshus, § 144, 1, 2.
    Hesychasts, § 69, 2.
    _Hetæræ_, § 22, 2.
    Hettinger, § 191, 6.
    Heubner, § 184, 5.
    Heumann, § 167, 4.
    Hexapla, § 31, 5.
    Hibbert Trust, § 202, 4.
    Hicks, § 211, 3.
    Hieracas, § 39, 3.
    Hierocles, § 23, 3.
    Hieronomites, § 112, 8.
    High-Churchmen, § 202, 1.
    Hilarion, § 44, 3.
    Hilary of Arles, § 46, 7.
       ”   ”  Poitiers, § 47, 14.
    Hildebert of Tours, § 101, 1; 104, 4, 10.
    Hildebrand, § 96, 4 ff.; 101, 2.
    Hildegard, § 97; 107, 1; 109.
    Hilderic, § 76, 9.
    Hilduin, § 90, 8.
    Hilgenfeld, § 182, 7.
    Hilgers, § 191, 6.
    Hiller, § 167, 6.
    Hinemar of Laon, § 83, 2.
       ”    ”  Rheims, § 82, 7; 83, 2; 87, 3; 90, 5; 91, 5.
    Hippolytus, § 31, 3; 33, 5; 40, 2; 41, 1.
    Hirschberger Bible, § 167, 8.
    Hirscher, § 187, 3; 191, 6.
    Hitzig, § 182, 3.
    Hobbes, § 164, 3.
    Hoe v. Hoenegg, § 154, 4; 159, 1.
    Hofacker, § 211, 4.
    Hoffmann, Christ., § 211, 8.
        ”     Fr., § 191, 2.
        ”     G. W., § 196, 5.
        ”     Melch., § 147, 1.
        ”     Chr. K. v., § 182, 14.
        ”     Dan., § 141, 15.
    Hofmeister, Seb., § 130, 4.
    Hofstede de Groot, § 200, 2.
    Hohenlohe, § 188, 2.
        ”      Card., § 189, 1; 197, 7.
    Holbach, § 165, 12.
    Holbein, § 115, 6, 13; 113, 5; 142, 2.
    Holland, § 165, 7; 200, 2, 3.
    Hollaz, § 167, 4, 8.
    Holtzmann, § 182, 17.
    Homberg, Synod of, § 127, 2.
    Homoians, § 50, 3.
    Homoiousians, § 50, 3.
    Homologoumena, § 36, 8.
    Homoousians, § 33, 1; 50, 1.
    Hönigern, § 177, 2.
    Honorius, Emperor, § 42, 4; 53, 4.
        ”     I., § 46, 11; 52, 8, 9.
        ”     II., § 96, 13.
        ”     III., § 96, 19.
        ”     IV., § 96, 22.
    Honter, Jac., § 139, 20.
    Hontheim, § 165, 10.
    Hoogstraten, § 120, 4; 122, 3.
    Hooper, § 139, 5.
    Hormisdas of Rome, § 46, 8; 52, 5, 6.
    Horsley, § 171, 1.
    Hosius, Bishop, § 50, 1, 2, 3.
       ”    Cardinal, § 139, 18.
    Hospinian, § 161, 7.
    Hospital Brothers, § 98, 8.
    Hossbach, § 180, 4.
    Host, § 104, 2.
    Höting, § 197, 10.
    Hottinger, § 5, 2; 161, 6.
    Howard, Catherine, § 139, 4.
    Huber, J., § 189, 1; 190, 1; 191, 7.
      ”    Sam., § 141, 14.
    Hubmeier, § 130, 5; 147, 3.
    Huebald, § 104, 11.
    Huetius, § 158, 1.
    Hug, § 191, 8.
    Hugh Capet, § 96, 2.
    Huguenots, § 139, 14 ff.; 153, 4; 165, 5.
    Hugo a St. Caro, § 103, 9.
      ”  of St. Victor, § 102, 4; 104, 2, 4.
    _Hugo de Payens_, § 98, 8.
    Hülsemann, § 153, 7; 159, 2.
    Humanists, § 120.
    Humbert, § 67, 3; 101, 2.
    Humboldt, Alex. v., § 174, 3.
    Hume, § 171, 1.
    Humiliates, § 98, 7; 101, 2.
    Hundeshagen, § 196, 3.
    Hungary, § 93, 8; 139, 20; 153, 3; 198, 6.
    Hunneric, § 76, 3; 54, 1.
    Hunnius, Ægid. [Ægidius], § 141, 13.
       ”     Nich., § 159, 5.
    Huntingdon, Lady, § 169, 3.
    Hupfeld, § 182, 3; 194, 4.
    Hurter, § 175, 1.
    Husig, § 64, 3.
    Huss, § 113, 7; 119, 3-6.
    Hutten, Ulr. v., § 120, 2, 3; 122, 4.
    Hy, § 77, 2.
    Hyacinth, § 93, 13.
    Hylists, Anc. Materialists, § 26, 2.
    Hymn Music, § 142, 3; 171, 1; 180, 1.
    Hymnology, § 17, 7; 36, 10; 59, 4; 89, 2; 104, 10; 115, 7.
    Hymns, Catholic, § 149, 15.
      ”    Protestant, § 142, 3; 143, 2; 160, 3; 162, 6; 167, 6;
        175, 10.
    Hypatia, § 42, 4.
    Hyperius, § 143, 5; 154, 1.
    Hypophonic singing, § 59, 5.
    Hypostasianism, § 33, 1.
    Hypsistarians, § 42, 6.
    Hystaspes, § 32, 1.


    Iamblichus, § 24, 2.
    Ibas, § 47, 13; 52, 3.
    Iberians, § 64, 4.
    Icarians, § 212, 3.
    Iceland, § 93, 5; 139, 2.
    Idacius, § 54, 2.
    Iglesia Española, § 205, 4.
    Ignatius of Antioch, § 22, 2; 30, 5; 34, 1, 7.
        ”    Patr. of Constant., § 67, 1.
    Ignatius Loyola, § 149, 8.
    _Ignorantins_, § 165, 2.
    Ijejasu, § 150, 2; 156, 11.
    Ildefonsus, § 90, 2, 9.
    Illuminati, § 165, 11.
    Illyria, § 46, 5, 9.
    Images, § 38, 4.
       ”    Controversy about, § 66; 92, 1.
    Image-worship, § 57, 4; 89, 4.
    Immaculate Conception, § 104, 7; 112, 4; 113, 2; 149, 13;
        156, 6; 185, 2.
    Immanuel Synod, § 177, 3.
    Immunity, § 84, 1.
    _Impostores tres_, § 148, 4.
    Incense, § 59, 8.
    _Inclusi_, § 85, 6.
    _In Cœna Domini_, § 117, 3.
    _In commendam_, § 85, 5; 110, 15.
    Independents, § 143, 4; 155, 1; 162, 1.
    _Index prohibitorius_, § 149, 14.
    Indulgences, § 106, 2; 117, 1.
    _Ineffabilis_, § 185, 2.
    _In eminenti_, § 157, 5.
    Infallibility, § 96, 23; 110, 14; 149, 4; 165, 8; 189, 3.
    Infant Baptism, § 35, 3; 58, 1.
    Infralapsarianism, § 161, 1.
    _Infula_, § 84, 1.
    Inge, § 93, 3.
    Ingolstadt, § 120, 3.
    _Innocentum festum_, § 57, 1; 105, 2.
    Innocent I., § 46, 5; 51, 3; 53, 4; 61, 2, 3.
        ”    II., § 96, 13.
        ”    III., § 96, 17, 18; 94, 4; 102, 9; 108, 10; 109, 1.
        ”    IV., § 96, 20; 73, 6.
        ”    V., § 96, 22.
        ”    VI., § 110, 4, 5.
        ”    VII., § 110, 6.
        ”    VIII., § 110, 11; 115, 4.
        ”    IX., § 149, 3.
        ”    X., § 156, 1; 153, 2; 157, 5.
        ”    XI., § 156, 1, 3; 157, 2.
        ”    XII., § 156, 1, 3; 157, 3.
        ”    XIII., § 165, 1.
    _In partibus infidelium_, § 97, 3.
    Inquisition, § 109, 2; 117, 2; 139, 22; 149, 2; 151; 156, 3.
    Inspiration, Doctrine of, § 36, 9.
    _Insula sanctorum_, § 77, 1.
    Intentionalism, § 149, 10.
    Interdict, § 106, 1.
    Interim, The Augsburg, § 136, 5, 6.
       ”      ”  Leipzig, § 136, 7.
       ”      ”  Regensburg, § 135, 3.
    International, § 212, 4.
    Interpreters, § 34, 3.
    Investiture, § 45, 1; 84; 96, 7, 11, 12.
    Iona, § 77, 2.
    Ireland, § 77, 1; 139, 7; 153, 6; 202, 9.
    Irenæus, § 31, 2; 33, 9; 34, 8; 40, 2.
    Irene, § 66, 3.
    Irish Massacre, § 153, 6.
    Irvingites, § 211, 10.
    Isaac, the Great, § 64, 3.
      ”    of Antioch, § 48, 7.
    Isabella of Castile, § 95, 2; 117, 2; 118, 7.
        ”    II. of Spain, § 205, 2.
    Isenberg, § 184, 9.
    Isidore the Gnostic, § 28, 2.
       ”    of Pelusium, § 47, 6; 44, 3.
       ”    the Presbyter, § 51, 2, 3.
       ”    Russ. Metropol., § 73.
       ”    of Seville, § 90, 2.
    Islam, § 65; 81; 95.
    Issy, Conference of, § 157, 3.
    _Itala_, § 36, 8.
    Italy, § 139, 22; 187, 7; 204.
    Ithacius, § 54, 2.
    Ivo of Chartres, § 99, 5.


    Jablonsky, § 168, 3.
    Jacob el Baradai, § 52, 7.
      ”   Basilicus, § 139, 26.
      ”   a Benedictis, § 104, 10.
      ”   of Brescia, § 112, 3.
      ”   ben Chajim, § 120, 8.
      ”   the Conqueror, § 95.
      ”   of Edessa, § 47, 13.
      ”   ”  Harkh, § 71, 2.
      ”   ”  Jüterbegk [Jüterbock], § 118, 5.
      ”   ”  Maerlant, § 105, 5.
      ”   ”  Marchia, § 112, 4.
      ”   ”  Misa, § 119, 7.
      ”   ”  Nisibis, § 47, 13.
      ”   ”  Sarug, § 48, 7.
    Jacobi, § 171, 10.
    Jacobini, § 197, 9, 12.
    Jacobites, § 52, 7; 72, 2.
    Jacopone da Todi, § 104, 10.
    Jaldabaoth, § 27, 7.
    James the Just, § 16, 3.
      ”   V. of Scotland, § 139, 8.
      ”   I. of England, § 117, 4; 139, 11; 153, 6; 155, 1.
      ”   II. of England, § 153, 6; 155, 3.
      ”   III. of Baden, § 153, 1.
      ”   Molay, § 112, 7.
      ”   a Voragine, § 104, 8.
    Jansen, Cornel., § 157, 5.
    Jansenists, § 157, 5; 165, 6.
    Januarius, St., § 188, 10.
    Janus, § 189, 1.
    Japan, § 150, 2; 156, 11; 184, 6; 186, 7.
    Jaroslaw I., § 72, 4.
        ”    II., § 73, 6.
    Jason and Papiscus, § 30, 8.
    Java, § 184, 5.
    Jay, le, § 158, 1.
    Jazelich, § 52, 3.
    Jena, Univ. of, § 141, 1, 6.
    Jeremias II., § 73, 4; 139, 26.
    Jerome, § 17, 6; 33, 9; 47, 16; 48, 1; 51, 2; 53, 4; 59, 3.
       ”    of Prague, § 119, 4, 5.
    Jerusalem, Bishopric, § 184, 8.
        ”      Church of the New, § 170, 4.
    Jesuates, § 112, 8.
    Jesuits, § 149, 8-12; 150; 151; 156, 2-9; 157, 2, 5; 165, 7-9;
        186, 1; 197, 4; 199, 1.
    Jewish Christians, § 18; 28; 211, 9.
       ”   Missions, § 167, 9; 184, 8.
    Jews in Middle Ages, § 90, 9; 95, 3.
    Joachim of Floris, § 108, 5.
       ”    ”  Brandenburg, § 128, 1; 134, 5.
       ”    II. of Brandenburg, § 134, 5; 136, 5.
    Joan of Arc, § 116, 2.
    Joanna, Popess, § 82, 6.
       ”    of Valois, § 112, 8.
    John I., Pope, § 46, 8.
      ”  VIII. and IX., § 82, 8; 79, 2; 67, 1.
      ”  X., XII., XIII., § 96, 1.
      ”  XIV., XV., XVI., § 96, 2.
      ”  XVII., XVIII., § 96, 4.
      ”  XIX., § 96, 4; 57, 1.
      ”  XXI., § 96, 22; 82, 6.
      ”  XXII., § 110, 3; 112, 2; 113, 1; 114, 1.
      ”  XXIII., § 110, 7; 119, 4.
      ”  the Constant, § 124, 5.
      ”  Frederick, the Magnanimous, § 133, 2; 136, 3; 137, 3.
      ”  Lackland, § 96, 18.
      ”  VII. of Portugal, § 205, 4.
      ”  Sigismund, § 154, 3.
      ”  the Apostle, § 16, 2.
      ”  of Antioch, § 52, 3.
      ”  Beccos [Beccus], § 67, 3.
      ”  of Capistrano, § 112, 3.
      ”  ”  Climacus, § 47, 12.
      ”  ”  the Cross, § 149, 6, 16.
      ”  ”  Damascus, § 66, 1; 68, 2-5.
      ”  ”  Ephesus, § 5, 1.
      ”  ”  God, § 149, 7.
      ”  ”  Hagen, § 112, 1.
      ”  ”  Jandun, § 118, 1.
      ”  Jejunator, § 46, 10; 61, 1.
      ”  of Leyden, § 133, 6.
      ”  de Monte Corvino, § 93, 15.
      ”  Moschus, § 47, 12.
      ”  of Nepomuc, § 116, 1.
      ”  Ozniensis, § 72, 2.
      ”  V., Paläologus, § 67, 5.
      ”  VII.,    ”      § 67, 6.
      ”  of Paris, § 118, 1.
      ”  ”  Parma, § 108, 5.
      ”  Philoponus, § 47, 11.
      ”  the Presbyter, § 16, 3; 30, 6.
      ”  Prester, § 72, 4.
      ”  of Ravenna, § 83, 3.
      ”  ”  Salisbury, § 102, 9.
      ”  Scholasticus, § 43, 3.
      ”  Scotus Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
      ”  Talaja, § 52, 5.
      ”  of Trani, § 67, 3.
      ”  ”  Turrecremata, § 110, 15.
      ”  Tzimiskes [Tzimisces], § 71, 1.
      ”  of Wesel, § 119, 10.
    John, St., Festival of, § 57, 1.
      ”   Disciples of, § 25, 1.
      ”   Knights of, § 98, 8.
    Jonas of Bobbio, § 77, 3.
      ”   ”  Orleans, § 90, 4; 92, 2.
      ”   Justus, § 123, 7; 134, 5; 142, 2.
    Jones, § 182, 3.
    Jordanes, § 90, 8.
    Joris, David, § 148, 1.
    Joseph, Patr., § 67, 4; 70, 1.
       ”    I., Emperor, § 165, 1.
       ”    II., § 165, 10; 186, 2.
    Josephus, § 10, 2; 13, 2.
    Jovi, § 80, 1.
    Jovinian, § 62, 2.
    Juarez, § 209, 1.
    Jubilee Year, § 117, 1.
    Jubilees, Book of, § 32, 2.
    _Jubili_, § 85, 2.
    Judä, Leo, § 130, 2; 143, 5.
    Judson, § 184, 5.
    Julia Mammæa, § 22, 4; 31, 5.
    Juliana, § 104, 7.
    Julianists, § 52, 7.
    Julian, Emperor, § 42, 3, 5; 63, 1.
       ”    of Eclanum, § 47, 21; 53, 4.
       ”    ”  Toledo, § 90, 2, 9.
       ”    St., § 188, 8.
    July Law, Pruss., § 197, 10, 11.
    Julius I., § 46, 3; 50, 2.
       ”   II., § 110, 13.
       ”   III., § 149, 2.
       ”   Africanus, § 31, 8.
    Jumpers, § 170, 7.
    Jung-Stillung, § 171, 11.
    Junilius, § 48, 1.
    Junius, Fr., § 143, 5.
    Jurieu, § 161, 7.
    _Jus circa sacra_, § 43, 1; 167, 3.
      ”  _primarum prec._, § 165, 1.
      ”  _regaliæ_, § 156, 1.
      ”  _spoliorum_, § 110, 15.
    Justin I., § 52, 5.
       ”   Martyr, § 30, 9; 33, 9; 36, 3, 7.
       ”   the Gnostic, § 27, 6.
    Justina, St., § 48, 8.
       ”     Empress, § 50, 4.
    Justinian I., § 42, 4; 45, 2; 46, 9; 52, 6.
        ”     II., § 46, 11.
    Juvenal of Jerusalem, § 53, 3.
    Juvencus, § 48, 6.


    Kähler, § 176, 3.
    Kahnis, § 182, 15.
    Kaiser, § 128, 1.
    Kaiserwerth, § 183, 1.
    Kamehameha, § 184, 7.
    Kamel, Sultan, § 94, 4, 5.
    Kanitz, § 176, 3.
    Kant, § 171, 10.
    Karaites, § 72, 1.
    Kardec, § 211, 17.
    Karg, Controversy of, § 141, 3.
    Katerkamp, § 5, 6.
    Kaulen, § 191, 8.
    Keil, § 182, 13.
    Keim, § 182, 17.
    Keller, Bishop, § 196, 6.
    Kellner, § 177, 2.
    Kempen, Stephen, § 125, 1.
    Kempis, Thomas à, § 112, 9; 114, 7.
    Kenrick, § 189, 3.
    Kerner, Just., § 176, 2.
    Kessler, § 124, 1; 130, 4.
    Ketteler, § 175, 2; 187, 3; 189, 3; 196, 1-4; 197, 1, 4, 15.
    Kettler, § 139, 3.
    Kierkegaard, § 201, 1.
    Kiev, § 73, 4.
    Kilian, § 78, 2.
    Kings, § 160, 4.
      ”    the Three Holy, § 56, 5.
    Klebitz, § 144, 1.
    Klee, § 191, 6.
    Kleuker, § 171, 8.
    Kleutzen, § 191, 9.
    Kliefoth, § 181, 3; 182, 14; 194, 6.
    Klopstock, § 171, 11.
    Knapp, A., § 181, 1.
      ”    G. Ch., § 171, 8.
    Knights, Teutonic, § 98, 8; 93, 13.
       ”     of St. John, § 98, 8.
    Knox, § 139, 9, 11.
    Knutzen, § 164, 4.
    Kohlbrügge, § 179, 3.
    Kohler, § 170, 4.
    Köllner, § 5, 5.
    Königsberg, Relig. Process., § 176, 3.
    Köppen, § 171, 8.
    Körner, § 141, 12.
    Kornthal, § 196, 5.
    Krafft, § 195, 2.
    Kraus, Xav., § 5, 6.
    Krüdener, § 176, 2; 199, 5.
    Krummacher, G. D., § 179, 3.
         ”      F. W., § 178, 2.
    Kübel, § 196, 2.
    Kublai-Khan, § 93, 15.
    Kuenen, § 182, 20.
    Kuhn, § 191, 6.
    “Kulturkampf,” German, § 197.
          ”        Belgian, § 200, 5.
          ”        French, § 203, 6.
    Kuyper, § 200, 2.


    Labadie, § 163, 7, 8.
    Labarum, § 22, 7.
    Labrador, § 184, 2.
    Labyrinth, The Little, § 31, 3.
    Lachat, § 199, 3.
    Lacordaire, § 187, 4; 188, 1.
    Lactantius, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
    Ladislaus, St., § 93, 2.
        ”      of Naples, § 110, 7.
    Laforce, § 183, 1.
    Lainez, § 149, 8.
    Laity, § 34, 4.
    Lamartine, § 174, 7.
    Lambert le Begue [Bèghe], § 98, 7.
       ”    of Avignon, § 127, 2; 130, 2.
    Lambeth Articles, § 143, 5.
    Lamennais, § 187, 4; 188, 1.
    Lämmer, § 175, 2.
    Lammists, § 163, 1.
    Lampe, § 169, 2, 6.
    Lancelot, § 159, 5.
    Landulf, § 97, 5.
    Lanfranc, § 96, 8; 101, 1, 2.
    Lang, H., § 199, 4.
    Lange, Joach., § 167, 1, 4.
      ”    J. Pet., § 182, 9.
    Langen, Rud. v., § 120, 3.
    Laplace, § 161, 2.
    Lapland, § 93, 11; 163, 4; 184, 2.
    Lapsi, § 22, 5.
    Lardner, § 171, 1.
    Lasalle, § 165, 2; 212, 5.
    Lasaulx, Am. v., § 188, 4.
    Las Casas, § 150, 3.
    Lasco, J. a, § 139, 18.
    Lateran, § 110, 15.
       ”     Synods I., § 52, 8; 96, 11.
       ”        ”   II., § 96, 13.
       ”        ”   III., § 96, 15.
       ”        ”   IV., § 96, 18; 101, 2; 104, 3-5; 106, 1; 109, 2.
    Latimer, § 139, 5.
    Latitudinarians, § 161, 3.
    Latter-day Saints, § 211, 10, 12-14.
    Laud, § 155, 1.
    Laurence, Martyr, § 22, 5.
        ”     Bishop, § 46, 8.
        ”     Archbishop, § 77, 4.
    Laurentius Valla, § 120, 1.
    Lausanne, § 196, 5.
    Lauterbach, § 129, 1.
    Lavater, § 171, 11.
    Lay Abbots, § 85, 5.
     ”  Brethren, § 98.
    Lazarists, § 156, 8.
    Leade, Jane, § 163, 9.
    Leander of Seville, § 76, 2; 90, 2.
    Lectionaries, § 33; 59, 3.
    Ledochowski, § 197, 3, 6, 7, 12.
    Lee, Anna, § 170, 7.
     ”   Bishop, § 211, 14.
    Lefebvre, § 188, 4.
    Legates, § 96, 23.
    _Legenda aurea_, § 104, 8.
    Legends, § 57, 1.
    _Legio fulminatrix_, § 22, 3.
       ”   _Thebaica_, § 22, 6.
    Lehnin, Prophecy of, § 153, 8.
    Leibnitz, § 153, 7; 160, 7; 164, 2.
    Leidecker, § 161, 5.
    Leidrad of Lyons, § 90, 3; 91, 1.
    Leipzig Disputation, § 123, 4.
       ”    Relig. Conference, § 154, 4.
    Leland, § 169, 6; 171, 1.
    Lenau, Nich. v., § 174, 6.
    Lentulus, § 13, 2.
    Leo I., the Great, § 45, 2; 46, 7; 47, 22; 52, 4; 54, 1, 2;
        61, 1.
    Leo II., § 46, 11.
     ”  III., § 82, 3; 91, 2.
     ”  IV., § 82, 5.
     ”  VIII., § 96, 1.
     ”  IX. § 67, 6; 96, 5.
     ”  X., § 110, 14; 121, 1; 122, 2, 3; 194, 4.
     ”  XI., § 149, 3.
     ”  XII., § 185, 1.
     ”  XIII., § 175, 2; 185, 5; 188, 8, 9; 191, 12; 197, 9;
        200, 5; 203, 6.
    Leo of Achrida, § 67, 3.
     ”  the Armenian, § 66, 4.
     ”  Chazarus, § 66, 3.
     ”  the Isaurian, § 66, 1; 71, 1.
     ”  the Philosopher, § 67, 2; 68, 1.
     ”  the Thracian, § 52, 5.
     ”  Henry, § 175, 1.
    Leonardo da Vinci, § 115, 13.
    Leonidas, § 22, 4.
    _Leonistæ_, § 108, 10.
    Leontius of Byzant., § 47, 12.
    Leopardi, § 174, 7.
    Leopold I., Emperor, § 153, 3, 7.
       ”    of Tuscany, § 165, 9.
    Leovigild, § 76, 2.
    Leporius, § 52, 2.
    Lessing, § 171, 6, 8, 11.
    Lestines, Synod of, § 78, 5; 86, 2.
    Lestrange, § 186, 2.
    Leucius, § 32, 4, 5.
    Levellers, § 162, 2.
    Leyser, § 141, 14; 142, 6.
    Libanius, § 42, 4.
    _Libellatici_, § 22, 5.
    _Libelli pacis_, § 39, 2.
    _Liber confirmitat._, § 98, 3.
       ”   _diurnus_, § 46, 11; 52, 9.
       ”   _paschalis_, § 56, 3.
       ”   _pontificalis_, § 90, 6.
    Liberal Arts, § 90, 8.
    Liberation Society, § 202.
    Liberatus of Carthage, § 52, 6.
    Liberius of Rome, § 46, 4; 50, 2, 3.
    Libertins, § 146, 4.
    _Libri Carolini_, § 92, 1.
    _Licet ab initio_, § 139, 23.
    Licinius, § 22, 7.
    Lightfoot, § 161, 6.
    Light, Friends of, § 176, 1.
    Liguorians, § 165, 2; 186, 1.
    Limborch, § 161, 7.
    Limbus infantium, § 106, 3.
       ”   patrum, § 106, 3.
    _Limina apostt._, § 57, 6.
    Linus, § 17, 1.
    Linz, Peace of, § 153, 3.
    Lippe, Princes’ Diet of, § 154, 2; 194, 5.
    Lipsius, § 182, 19.
    Liptinä, Synod of, § 78, 5; 86, 2.
    Lisco, § 181, 4.
    Litany, § 59, 9.
    Lithuanians, § 93, 14.
    _Litteræ formatæ_, § 34, 6.
    Liturgical dress, etc., § 59, 7; 60, 3.
    Liturgy, § 36, 1; 59, 6; 89, 1; 104, 1.
    Liudger, § 78, 3.
    Liutprand, § 82, 1.
    Livingstone, § 184, 4.
    Livinus, § 78, 3.
    Livonia, § 93, 12; 139, 3; 153, 3; 168, 5; 206, 3.
    Locke, § 164, 2.
    Lodges, Free Masons’, § 104, 3.
    Löhe, § 175, 1; 183, 1; 208, 2.
    Lola Montez, § 195, 2.
    Lollards, § 116, 3; 119, 1.
    Lombardus [Lombard], § 102, 7.
    Longobards, § 76, 8.
    Lope de Vega, § 158, 3.
    Loretto, § 115, 9.
    Löscher, § 167, 1, 2, 4.
    Louis the Bavarian, § 110, 3, 4.
      ”    ”  German, § 82, 5, 7.
      ”    ”  Pious, § 82, 4; 90, 1.
      ”   II., Emperor, § 82, 5.
      ”   VII. of France, § 94, 2.
      ”   IX., the Saint, § 93, 15; 94, 6; 96, 21.
      ”   XI., § 110, 13.
      ”   XII., § 110, 13, 14.
      ”   XIII., § 153, 4.
      ”   XIV., § 153, 4; 156, 3; 157, 2, 3, 5.
      ”   I. of Bavaria, § 195, 2.
      ”   II. “ § 195, 3.
      ”   V. of Hesse, § 154, 1.
      ”   VI. of Palatinate, § 143, 6.
    Lourdes, § 188, 14; 203, 5.
    Lothair I., Emperor, § 82, 5.
       ”    II., of Lothringia, § 82, 5, 7.
       ”    III., the Saxon, § 96, 13.
    Lotze, § 174, 2.
    Low Churchmen, § 202, 1.
    Loyola, § 149, 8.
    Loyson, § 187, 8.
    Lübeck, § 127, 4.
    Lübker, § 174, 4.
    Lucar, Cyr., § 152, 2.
    Lucerne, § 199, 1.
    Lucian, Martyr, § 31, 9.
       ”    of Samosata, § 23, 1.
    Lucidus, § 53, 5.
    Lucifer of Calaris, § 47, 14; 50, 2, 8.
    Luciferians, § 50, 8.
    Lucilla, § 63, 1.
    Lucius II., Pope, § 96, 13.
       ”   III., § 96, 16.
    Lucrezia Borzia, § 110, 10.
    Ludmilla, § 79, 3; 93, 6.
    Luis de Leon, § 149, 14, 15.
    Luke of Prague, § 115, 7; 119, 8; 139, 19.
    Lullus of Mainz, § 78, 7.
    Lullus Raimund, § 93, 16; 103, 7.
    Lüneburg, § 127, 3.
    Luthardt, § 182, 14, 21; 194, 1.
    Luther, § 122-135.
    Lutherans, Separatists, Pruss., § 177, 2, 3.
    Luther-Memorial, § 178, 1.
       ”   Jubilee, § 175, 10.
    Lütkemann Controversy, § 159, 1.
    Lutz, Minister, § 195, 3; 197, 4.
    Luxeuil, § 78, 1.
    Lyons, Council of, § 67, 4; 96, 20, 21.
    Lyra, Nich. v., § 113, 7.


    Mabillon, § 158, 2.
    Macarius the Elder, § 47, 7.
        ”    Magnes, § 47, 6.
    Maccabees, Fest. of, § 57, 1.
    Macedonius, § 50, 5.
    Macchiavelli, § 120, 1.
    Maccovius, § 161, 7.
    MacConochie, § 202, 3.
    Macmahon, § 203, 5, 6.
    Macrae, § 202, 8.
    Macrianus, § 22, 5.
    Macrina, § 47, 5.
    Madagascar, § 184, 3.
    Madiai, § 204, 3.
    Maerlant, § 105, 5.
    Magdeburg, § 127, 4; 137, 1.
    _Magister historiarum_, § 105, 3.
         ”    _sententiarum_, § 102, 4.
    _Magna Charta_, § 96, 18.
    Magnoald, § 78, 1.
    Magnus the Good, § 93, 4.
       ”   of Mecklenburg, § 134, 5.
       ”   ”  Upsala, § 139, 1.
    Mai, Cardinal, § 191, 7.
    Maid of Orleans, § 116, 2.
    Maimbourg, § 158, 2.
    Maimonides, § 103, 1.
    Mainau Law, § 197, 11.
    Maintenon, § 157, 3.
    Mainz Cath. Union, § 186, 4; 197, 1.
    Majorist Controversy, § 141, 6, 10.
    Maistre, § 187, 9.
    Malachi, Proph. of, § 149, 5.
    Malakanians, § 166, 2.
    Malan, § 199, 5.
    Malchion, § 33, 8.
    Maldonatus, § 149, 14.
    Maltese, § 98, 8.
    Mamertus, § 59, 9.
    Mandæans, § 25, 1; 28, 2.
    Mandeville, § 171, 1.
    Manfred, § 96, 20.
    Manichæans, § 29; 54, 1.
    Manning, § 189, 3; 202, 2, 11.
    Mansi, § 165, 15.
    Mantua, Council of, § 96, 6.
       ”    Congress of, § 110, 10.
    Manuel Comnenus, § 69, 1.
    Manzoni, § 174, 7.
    Maphrian, § 52, 7.
    Mara, § 13, 2.
    Marburg Bible, § 170, 1.
       ”    Church Order, § 127, 2.
       ”    Colloquy, § 132, 4.
    Marcellus of Ancyra, § 50, 2.
        ”     II., § 149, 2.
    Marcia, § 22, 3; 41, 1.
    Marcian, § 52, 4.
    Marcion, § 27, 11.
    Marcionites, § 27, 12; 54, 1; 64, 3.
    Marco Polo, § 93, 15.
    Marcosians, § 27, 5.
    Marcus Aurelius, § 22, 3.
       ”   Eremita, § 47, 7.
       ”   Eugenicus, § 67, 6; 68, 5.
    Maresius, § 161, 3, 7.
    Margaret of Navarre, § 120, 6; 146, 4.
    Marheincke, § 182, 6.
    Maria Theresa, § 165, 9.
    Mariana, § 149, 10, 14.
    Marinus, § 63, 1.
    Mariolatry, § 57, 2; 104, 8.
    Marius Mercator, § 47, 20.
       ”   Victorinus, § 47, 14.
    Marloratus, § 143, 3.
    Marnix, Ph. v., § 139, 12.
    Maronites, § 52, 8; 72, 3.
    Marot, § 143, 2.
    Marozia, § 96, 1.
    Marriage, Christian, § 39, 1; 61, 2; 70, 2; 88, 3; 89, 4;
        104, 6.
    Marsden, § 184, 7.
    Marsilius of Inghem, § 113, 3.
        ”     ”  Padua, § 118, 1.
    Martensen, § 182, 10.
    Martin I., § 46, 11; 52, 8.
       ”   IV., § 96, 22.
       ”   V., § 110, 6.
       ”   of Braga, § 76, 4; 90, 2.
       ”   ”  Mainz, § 114, 4.
       ”   ”  Paderborn, § 175, 2; 189, 3; 197, 6.
       ”   ”  Tours, § 47, 14; 54, 2.
       ”   St., § 165, 14.
    Martyrs, § 22, 5.
       ”     Acts of, § 32, 8.
       ”     Veneration of, § 39, 5.
    Martyrologies, § 57, 1; 90, 9.
    Marx, § 212, 4.
    Mary of England, § 139, 5.
      ”  ”  Guise, § 139, 8.
      ”  ”  Jesus, § 156, 5.
      ”  ”  Scotland, § 139, 6, 8, 10.
    Maryland, § 208, 5.
    Mass, Canon of, § 59, 6.
      ”   Sacrifice of, § 36, 6; 58, 3; 88, 3.
    Massacre, Irish, § 153, 6.
        ”     of St. Bartholomew, § 139, 16.
        ”     ”  Stockholm, § 139, 1.
        ”     ”  Thorn, § 165, 4.
    Massilians, § 53, 5.
    Massillon, § 158, 2.
    Mastricht, § 161, 7.
    Matamoros, § 205, 4.
    Maternus, Jul. Firm., § 47, 14.
        ”     Pistorius, § 120, 2.
    Mathesius, § 142, 2, 3.
    Matilda, Margravine, § 96, 8, 10.
    Matthias, Emperor, § 153, 2.
    Matthys, Jan., § 147, 8, 9.
    Maulbronn, Formula, § 141, 12.
        ”      Conference, § 144, 1.
    Maur, Monks of St., § 156, 7.
      ”   St., § 85.
    Maurice of Hesse, § 154, 1.
       ”    ”  Orange, § 139, 12; 161, 2.
       ”    ”  Saxony, § 136; 137.
    Mauritius, St., § 22, 6.
        ”      Emperor, § 46, 10.
    Maxentius, § 22, 7.
    Maximianus [Maximian] Herculius, § 22, 6.
    Maximilian I., § 110, 13.
         ”     II, § 137, 8; 139, 9.
         ”     I., Duke of Bavaria, § 151, 1.
         ”     III., Elector of Bavaria, § 165, 10.
         ”     I., King of Bavaria, § 195, 1.
         ”     II., King of Bavaria,
         ”     Francis of Cologne, § 165, 13.
         ”     Emperor of Mexico, § 209, 1.
    Maximilla, § 40, 1.
    Maximinus Daza, § 22, 6, 7.
        ”     Thrax, § 22, 4.
    Maximus, Emperor, § 54, 2.
       ”     Confessor, § 47, 12; 52, 8.
    Mayer, Seb., § 130, 4.
    May Laws, Prussian, § 197, 5, 6.
     ”    ”   Austrian, § 198, 6.
    Maynooth Bill, § 202, 9.
    Mayhew, § 162, 7.
    Mechitarists, § 165, 2.
    Mechthild, § 107, 2.
    Mecklenburg, § 134, 5; 194, 6.
    Medici, § 110, 11.
    Meinhart, § 93, 12.
    Meinrad, § 85, 6.
    Mel, Conrad, § 169, 1.
    Melanchthon, § 122, 5; 139, 13; 141, 7, 9.
    Melchers, § 188, 12; 189, 3; 197, 6, 12.
    Melchiades, § 46, 3; 63, 1.
    Melchionites, § 147, 1.
    Melchisedecians, § 33, 3.
    Melchites, § 52, 7.
    Meletius of Antioch, § 50, 8.
        ”    ”  Lycopolis, § 41, 4.
    Melissander, § 142, 3.
    Melito, § 30, 8; 36, 8; 40, 1.
    Memnon of Ephesus, § 52, 5.
    Menander, § 25, 2.
    Mendelssohn, § 171, 3.
         ”       Bartholdy, § 174, 10.
    Mendez, § 152, 1.
    Mendicant Friars, § 98, 3.
    Menius, § 141, 6.
    Menken, § 172, 3.
    Mennas, § 52, 6.
    Mennonites, § 147, 2; 163, 1.
    Menologies, § 57, 1.
    Menot, § 115, 2.
    Mensurius, § 63, 1.
    Mercedarians, § 98, 9.
    Mercerus, § 143, 5.
    Merlan, § 170, 1.
    Merle d’Aubigné, § 178, 2.
    Mermillod, § 189, 3; 199, 2.
    Mersen, Treaty of, § 82, 5.
    Merswin, § 114, 2, 4.
    Mesmer, § 174, 2.
    Mesrop, § 64, 3.
    Messalians, Christian, § 44, 7.
         ”      Pagan, § 42, 6.
    Meth, § 163, 9.
    Methodists, § 169, 4, 5; 208, 1; 211, 1.
    Methodius, § 73, 3; 79, 2.
        ”      of Olympus, § 31, 9; 33, 9.
    Metraphanes, § 67, 6.
         ”       Critop., § 152, 2.
    Metropolitans, § 34, 3; 83, 3.
    Mettrie, la, § 165, 12.
    Mexico, § 209, 1; 190, 3.
    Meyer, H. A. W., § 182, 11.
    Meyffart, § 160, 3.
    Michael, Archangel, § 88, 4.
       ”     Acominatus, § 68, 5.
       ”     Balbus, § 66, 4.
       ”     of Bradacz, § 119, 8.
       ”     Cærularius, § 119, 8.
       ”     of Cesnea, § 112, 2.
       ”     the Drunkard, § 67, 1.
       ”     Palæologus, § 67, 6.
    Michael Angelo, § 149, 15.
    Michaelis, Chr. Ben., § 167, 3.
        ”      J. D., § 171, 6.
        ”      J. H., § 167, 3.
    Michaelmas, § 57, 3.
    Michaud, § 190, 3.
    Michelians, § 171, 3.
    Michelis, § 190, 1; 191, 6.
    Micislas, § 93, 7.
    Milicz, § 119, 2.
    _Militia Christi_, § 37.
    Mill, Walter, § 139, 8.
    Millennium, § 33, 9.
    Milman, § 182, 4.
    Miltiades of Athens, § 30, 8; 37, 3.
        ”     ”  Rome, § 46, 3.
    Miltiz, § 122, 3.
    Milton, § 172, 3.
    Minimi, § 112, 8.
    Minnesingers, § 105, 6.
    Minorites, § 98, 3.
    Minster, § 84, 4.
    Minucius Felix, § 31, 12.
       ”     Fundanus, § 22, 2.
    _Missa Catechum. et fidelium_, § 36, 2, 3; 58, 4.
    _Missa Solitaria_, § 58, 3.
       ”   _Sponsorum_, § 61, 2; 88, 3; 104, 6.
    Missa Marcelli, § 149, 15.
    _Missale Rom._, § 149, 14.
    Missionary Societies, § 172, 5; 5; 184, 1; 186, 6.
    Missions, Foreign, § 75-78; 93.
        ”        ”     Catholic, § 150; 156, 10, 12; 165, 3; 186, 7.
    Missions, Foreign, Protest., § 142, 8; 143, 7; 160, 7; 162, 7;
        167, 9; 168, 11: 184.
    Missions, Home, Catholic, § 149, 7; 156, 4; 186, 4, 5.
        ”       ”   Protest., § 183.
    Missions, Priests of the, § 156, 8.
    Missouri Synod, § 208, 2, 3.
    Mistewoi, § 93, 9.
    Mitre, § 84, 1.
    Mizetius, § 91, 1.
    Modalists, § 33.
    Moderates, § 202, 7.
    Mogilas, § 152, 3.
    Mogtasilah, § 28, 2.
    Mohammed, § 65.
        ”     II., § 67, 7; 110, 10.
    Mohammedans, § 184, 9.
    Möhler, § 191, 4, 5, 6.
    Molanus, § 153, 7.
    Molay, § 112, 7.
    Moleschott, § 174, 3.
    Molina, § 149, 13.
    Molinæus, § 161, 3.
    Molinos, § 157, 2.
    Momiers, § 199, 5.
    Mommers, § 169, 2.
    Mömpelgard, Relig. Confer., § 138, 8.
    _Monarcha theologor._, § 103, 3.
    Monarchians, § 33.
    _Monasterium Clericor._, § 45, 1.
    Monasticism, § 44; 70; 85; 98; 112; 149; 156; 165; 186.
    Mongols, § 93, 15.
    Monica, § 47, 13.
    _Monita Secreta_, § 149, 9.
    Monod, § 203, 4.
    Monogram, § 38, 4.
    Monophysites, § 52, 5, 7; 72, 2.
    Monothelites, § 52, 8.
    Montalembert, § 188, 1; 189, 1.
    Montalte, § 157, 5.
    Montalto, § 149, 3.
    Montanists, § 40.
    Montanus, Arias, § 149, 14.
    Monte, del, § 149, 2.
    Monte Cassino, § 85.
      ”   Corvino, § 93, 15.
    Montesquieu, § 165, 14.
    Montfaucon, § 165, 11.
    Montfort, Sim. de, § 109, 1.
    Montmorency, § 139, 13, 14.
    Moody, § 211, 1.
    Moors, § 81; 95.
    Moralities, § 105, 5.
    Morata, § 139, 24.
    Moravia, § 79, 2.
    Moravian Brethren, § 119, 5.
    Moray, The Regent, § 139, 11.
    More, Sir Thomas, § 120, 7; 139, 4.
    Morel, § 139, 25.
    Moreno, § 209, 2.
    Morgan, § 171, 1.
    Morinus, § 158, 1.
    Moriscoes, § 95, 2.
    Morland, § 153, 5.
    Mormons, § 211, 12-14.
    Morone, § 135, 2; 137, 5; 139, 22.
    Morison, § 184, 6.
    Mortara, § 175, 8.
    Morton, § 139, 11.
    Morus, § 171, 8.
    Mosaics, § 60, 6; 104, 14.
    Moser, J. F. v., § 167, 6, 8.
      ”    K. F. v., § 171, 10; 172, 2.
    Moses of Chorene, § 64, 3.
    Mosheim, § 5, 3; 167, 4; 169, 1.
    Moslems, § 65.
    Moulin, du, § 161, 3.
    Mouls, § 190, 3.
    Movers, § 191, 8.
    Mozarabians, § 81, 1.
    Mozarabic Liturgy, § 88, 1; 104, 1.
    Mozart, § 174, 10.
    Mtesa, § 184, 4.
    “_Mucker_,” § 176, 3.
    Mühlenberg, § 208, 2.
    Mühler, v., § 193, 4; 197, 2.
    Müller, Ad., § 175, 7.
       ”    Bem., § 211, 6.
       ”    G., § 183, 1.
       ”    H., § 160, 1.
       ”    J. v., § 171, 11.
       ”    J. G., § 171, 8.
       ”    Jul., § 182, 10.
    Münster, City, § 133, 6.
       ”     Seb., § 143, 5.
    Münzer, Thos., § 124, 4, 5.
    Muratori, § 165, 12.
    Muratorian Canon, § 36, 8.
    Murillo, § 158, 3.
    Murner, Thos., § 125, 4; 130, 6.
    Murrone, § 112, 4.
    Musæus, § 141, 7; 144, 2.
    Musculus, Andr., § 141, 12.
        ”     Wolfg., § 141, 14.
    Music, § 59, 3; 104, 11; 115, 8; 149, 15; 158, 3; 172, 1;
        174, 10.
    Muspilli, § 89, 3.
    Mutianus, § 120, 2, 3.
    Mwanga, § 184, 4.
    Myconius, § 125, 1.
        ”     Oswald, § 133, 8.
    Mysos, § 139, 26.
    Mysteries, § 105, 5; 115, 12.
    Mystics, Eastern, § 92; 102; 103; 107; 114.
    Mystics, Grecian, § 47, 7, 11; 68, 3.
    Mystics, Catholic, § 149, 16; 156, 1-4.
    Mystics, Protest., § 146; 160, 2; 169, 3.


    Naassenes, § 27, 6.
    Nägelsbach, § 174, 4.
    Namszanowski, § 197, 2.
    Nantes, Edict of, § 139, 17; 153, 4.
    Napoleon I., § 165, 5; 185, 1; 203, 1.
    Napoleon III., § 185, 3; 203, 3, 4; 209, 1.
    Narthex, § 60, 1.
    Nassau, § 193, 6; 196, 4.
    _Natales episc._, § 45, 1.
        ”    _Martyrum_, § 39, 5.
    Natalis, Alexander, § 5, 2; 157, 2.
    Natalius, § 33, 3.
    National Assembly, French, § 165, 15.
    National Convention, § 165, 15.
    Natorp, § 181, 2.
    Naumburg, Bishopric of, § 135, 5.
        ”     Princes’ Diet, § 141, 11.
    Nauplia, Syn., § 207, 1.
    Nauvoo, § 211, 10.
    Naylor, § 163, 4.
    Nazareans, § 28, 1.
    Neander, § 5, 5; 182, 4.
       ”     Joach., § 162, 6.
    Nectarius, § 61, 1.
    Nemesius, § 47, 6.
    Nennius, § 90, 8.
    Neophytes, § 34, 3.
    Neo-Platonists, § 24, 2; 42.
    Nepomuk, § 116, 1.
    Nepos of Arsinoë [Arsinoe], § 33, 9.
    Nepotism, § 110.
    Neri, Philip, § 149, 7; 158, 3.
    Nero, § 22, 1.
    Nerses I., § 64, 3.
       ”   IV., Clajensis, § 72, 2.
       ”   of Lampron, § 72, 2.
    Nerva, § 22, 1.
    Nestor, § 73, 4.
    Nestorians, § 52, 3; 64, 2; 72, 1; 150, 4; 184, 9.
    Nestorius, § 52, 3.
    Netherlands, § 139, 12; 162, 4; 169, 2; 184, 5; 200.
    Neuendettelsau, § 183, 1.
    Neumann, § 160, 4.
    Neumark, § 160, 4.
    Newman, § 202, 2.
    New Year, § 56, 5.
    Nicæa, Council of, § 40, 1; 41, 4; 46, 3; 50, 1; 56, 3.
    Nicephorus Gregoras, § 69, 2.
         ”     Callisti, § 5, 1.
    Nicetas Acominatus, § 68, 5.
       ”    of Nicomedia, § 67, 4.
       ”    Pectoratus, § 67, 3.
    Nicholas I., § 67, 1; 73, 3; 82, 7; 83, 3; 91, 5.
    Nicholas II., § 96, 6.
        ”    III., IV., § 96, 22.
        ”    V., § 110, 9, 10.
        ”    of Basel, § 114, 4.
        ”    Cabasilas, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
        ”    of Clemanges, § 118, 4.
        ”    ”  Cusa, § 113, 6.
        ”    v. d. Flüe, § 116, 1.
        ”    of Lyra, § 113, 7.
        ”    ”  Methone, § 68, 5.
        ”    Mysticus, § 67, 2.
        ”    of Pisa, § 110, 12.
        ”    I., Czar, § 206, 1, 2; 210, 2.
    Nicolai, Publisher. § 171, 4.
       ”     Henry, § 146, 5.
       ”     Philip, § 142, 4.
    Nicolaitanism, § 96, 5.
    Nicolaitans, § 18, 3; 27, 8.
    Nicole, § 158, 1.
    Niebuhr, § 193, 1.
    Niedner, § 5, 4.
    Niemeyer, § 171, 7.
    Nightingale, § 183, 1.
    Nihilism, § 102, 8.
    Nihilists, § 212, 6.
    Nikon, § 163, 10.
    Nilus Sinaiticus, § 44, 3; 47, 10.
      ”   the Younger, § 100.
    Nimbus, § 60, 6.
    Ninian, § 77, 2.
    Niphon, Monk, § 70, 4.
       ”    Patriarch, § 70, 1.
    Nismes, Edict of, § 154, 4.
    Nitschmann, § 168, 3, 11.
    Nitzsch, § 182, 10; 193, 3, 4.
    Noailles, § 165, 7.
    Nobili, § 156, 11.
    Nobla leiczon, § 108, 14 (vol. ii., p. 471).
    Nobreja, § 150, 3.
    Nobunaja [Nobunaga], § 150, 2.
    Noetus, § 33, 5.
    Nogaret, § 110, 1.
    Nolasque, § 98, 9.
    Nominalists, § 99, 2; 113, 3.
    Nomo-Canon, § 43, 3.
    _Nonæ_, § 86, 2.
    Non-Intrusionists, § 202, 7.
    Nonconformists, § 143, 2, 3; 155, 1, 2.
    Nonna, § 47, 4.
    Nonnus of Panopolis, § 48, 5.
    Norbert, § 98, 2; 96, 13.
    Normans, § 93, 1; 95, 1.
    North African School, § 31, 1.
    North America, § 208.
    Norwegians, § 93, 4; 139, 2; 201, 3.
    Nösselt, § 171, 8.
    Noting of Verona, § 91, 5.
    Notker Balbulus, § 88, 2.
       ”   Labeo, § 100, 1.
    Novalis, § 174, 5.
    Novatian, § 31, 12; 41, 3.
    Novatus, § 38, 2, 3.
    Noviciate, § 44, 2; 86, 1.
    Noyes, § 211, 6.
    Nuñez de Arca, § 175, 2.
    Nunia, § 64, 4.
    Nuns, § 44, 5.
    Nuntio, § 151, 1.
    Nuremberg, Relig. Peace of, § 133, 2.
        ”      Diet of, § 126, 1, 2.


    Oak, Synod of the, § 51, 3.
    Oates, Titus, § 153, 6.
    _Oberammergau_, § 174, 10.
    Oberlin, § 172.
    _Oblati_, § 85, 1.
    Oblations, § 36; 39, 5; 61, 4.
    Obotrites, § 93, 9.
    Observants, § 112, 2; 149, 6.
    Occam, § 112, 2; 113, 3; 118, 2.
    Occultists, § 211, 18.
    Ochino, § 139, 24; 147, 6; 149, 6.
    O’Connell, § 202, 9.
    Octaves, § 56, 4.
    October Assembly, § 178, 3.
    Odensee, Diet of, § 139, 2.
    Odilo of Bavaria, § 78, 5.
    Odo of Clugny, § 98, 1; 100, 2; 104, 10, 11.
    Odoacer, § 46, 8.
    Œcolampadius, § 130, 3, 6; 131, 1.
    Œcumenius, § 68, 4.
    Oersted, § 174, 3.
    Oetingen, § 182, 15.
    Oetinger, § 170, 5; 171, 9.
    Oehler, § 182, 14.
    _Œuvres_, § 186, 4.
    _Officium S. Mariæ_, § 104, 8.
    Οἰκόνομοι, § 45, 3.
    Oischinger, § 191, 6.
    Oktai-Khan, § 93, 15.
    Olaf, § 80, 1.
      ”   Haraldson, § 93, 4, 5.
      ”   Schosskönig, § 93, 3.
      ”   Trygvason, § 93, 4, 5.
      ”   St., § 93, 4.
    Olcott, § 211, 18.
    Oldcastle, § 119, 1.
    Oldenbarneveldt, § 161, 2.
    Oldenburg, § 194, 5.
    Olevian, § 144, 1; 161, 4.
    Olga, § 73, 4.
    Olgerd, § 93, 14.
    Oliva, § 108, 6.
    Olivet, Monks of Mount, § 112, 1.
    Olivetan, § 138, 1; 143, 5.
    Olshausen, § 176, 3.
    Ommaiades, § 81; 95, 2.
    Oncken, § 211, 3.
    Oneida-sect, § 211, 6.
    _Onochoetes Deus_, § 23, 2.
    Oosterzee, § 200, 2.
    Ophites, § 27, 6, 7.
    Opitz, § 160, 3.
    Optatus of Mileve, § 63, 1.
    Opzoomer, § 200, 3.
    Orange, Synod of, § 53, 5.
    Oratories, § 84, 2.
    Oratory of Divine Love, § 139, 22.
       ”    Fathers of the, § 156, 7.
       ”    Priests of the, § 149, 7.
    Ordeals, § 89, 5.
    Ordericus Vitalis, § 5, 1.
    Ordination, § 45, 1.
    _Ordines majores et minores_, § 34, 3.
    _Ordo Romanus_, § 59, 6.
    Organs, § 88, 2; 104, 11; 115, 8; 154, 3.
    Origen, § 31, 5; 33, 6-9; 36, 9; 61, 4.
    Origenist Controversy, § 51.
    Original Sin, Controversy about, § 141, 8.
    Orosius, § 47, 19.
    Ortlibarians, § 103, 4.
    Ortuinus Gratus, § 120, 5.
    _Osculum pacis_, § 35.
    Osiander, Andr., § 126, 4; 135, 6; 141, 2.
    Osiander, Luc., § 159, 1.
    Osiandrian Controversy, § 141, 2.
    _Ostiarii_, § 34, 3.
    Ostrogoths, § 76, 7.
    Oswald, § 77, 5.
    Oswy, § 77, 5, 6.
    Ota, § 78, 2.
    Otfried, § 89, 3.
    Otgar of Mainz, § 87, 3.
    Otternbein, § 208, 4.
    Ottheinrich, § 135, 6.
    Otto I., § 93, 2, 8; 96, 1.
      ”  II., III., § 96, 2, 3.
      ”  IV., § 96, 17.
      ”  of Bamberg, § 93, 10.
      ”  ”  Passau, § 114, 6.
    Overbeek, Painter, § 174, 9.
        ”     Dr., § 175, 5.
    Overberg, § 172, 2.
    Owen, Rob., § 212, 3.
    Oxford, § 202, 2.
       ”    Movement, § 211, 1.


    Pabst, § 191, 3.
    _Pabulatores_, § 44, 7.
    Paccanari, § 186, 1.
    Pachomius, § 44, 1, 3, 5.
    Pacianus, § 47, 15.
    Pacifico, Fra, § 104, 10.
    Pack, O. v., § 132, 1.
    Paderborn, § 133, 5.
    Paez, § 152, 1.
    _Pagani_, § 42, 4.
    Pagi, § 158, 2; 5, 2.
    Pagninus, § 149, 14.
    Pajon, § 161, 3.
    Palamas, § 69, 2.
    Palatinate, § 135, 6; 144, 1; 153, 1, 3; 196, 4.
    Paleario, § 139, 22, 23.
    Palestrina, § 149, 15.
    Paley, § 171, 8.
    Palladius, § 47, 10.
    Pallium, § 46, 1; 59, 7; 97, 3.
    Palm Sunday, § 56, 4.
    Pamphilus, § 31, 6.
    Pan-Anglicanism, § 202, 1.
    Pandulf, § 96, 18.
    Pan-Presbyterianism, § 179, 3.
    Pantänus, § 31, 4.
    Pantheon, § 46, 10.
    _Papa_, § 46, 1.
    Papacy, § 34, 8; 46, 2; 82; 96; 110; 149; 156; 165; 185.
    Papal Elections, § 46, 8, 11; 82, 4; 96, 6, 15, 21.
    Papebroch, § 155, 2.
    Paphnutius, § 45, 2.
    Papias, § 30, 6; 33, 9.
    _Parabolani_, § 45, 3.
    Paracelsus, § 146, 2.
    Paraguay, § 156, 10; 165, 3.
    Pareus, § 159, 5.
    Parker, Matt., § 139, 6.
       ”    Theodore, § 211, 4.
    Parnell, § 202, 10.
    _Parochia_, § 84, 2.
    _Parochus_, § 84, 2.
    Parsimonius, § 141, 8.
    Pasagians, § 108, 3.
    Pascal, § 157, 5; 158, 1.
    Pascale, § 139, 25.
    Πάσχα σταυρώσιμων and ἀναστάσιμον, § 56, 4.
    Paschal Controversy, § 37, 2.
    Paschalis I., § 82, 4.
        ”     II., § 96, 11.
        ”     III., § 96, 15.
    Paschasius, § 99, 5; 91, 3.
    Paschkow, § 206, 1.
    Pasquino, § 149, 1.
    Passaglia, § 187, 5.
    Passau, Treaty of, § 137, 3.
    Passion Play, § 105, 5; 115, 12; 174, 10.
    Pastor, § 84, 2.
    _Pastor æternus_, § 189, 3.
    _Patareni_, § 108, 1.
    Pataria, § 97, 5.
    Patent, Austrian, § 198, 3.
       ”    Hungarian, § 198, 6.
    _Pater Orthodoxiæ_, § 47, 4.
    Patriarchs, § 46.
    Patriciate, Roman, § 82, 1.
    Patrick, St., § 77, 1.
    _Patrimonium pauperum_, § 45, 4.
          ”      _Petri_, § 46, 10; 82, 1.
    Patripassians, § 33, 4.
    Patronage, § 84.
    Patronus, § 57, 1.
    Paul, the Apostle, § 15.
      ”   Burgensis, § 113, 7.
      ”   Diaconus [Warnefrid], § 90, 3.
      ”   Orosius, § 47, 20.
      ”   the Persian, § 48, 1.
      ”   of Samosata, § 33, 8; 39, 3.
      ”   Silentiarius, § 48, 5.
      ”   of Thebes, § 39, 4.
      ”   Warnefried, § 90, 3.
      ”   I., § 82, 1.
      ”   II., § 110, 11, 15; 119, 4.
      ”   III., § 149, 2; 134, 1; 139, 23.
      ”   IV, § 149, 2.
      ”   V., § 156, 1, 2, 4; 149, 13.
      ”   I. of Russia, § 186, 2.
    Paula, St., § 44, 5.
      ”    Francis de, § 112, 8.
      ”    Vinc. de, § 156, 8.
    Pauli, Greg., § 148, 3.
    Paulicians, § 71, 1.
    Paulinus of Antioch, § 50, 8.
        ”    ”  Aquileia, § 90, 3.
        ”    ”  Milan, § 47, 20; 53, 4.
        ”    Missionary, § 77, 4.
        ”    of Nola, § 48, 6; 60, 5.
    Paulus, Dr., § 182, 2.
    _Pauperes de Lugduno_, § 108, 10.
         ”    _Catholici_, § 108, 10.
    Payens, § 98, 7.
    _Pax dissid._, § 139, 18.
    Pearson, § 161, 6, 7.
    Peasants’ War, § 124, 5.
    Pectorale, § 59, 7.
    Pelagius, § 47, 21; 53, 3, 4.
        ”     I., Pope, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
        ”     II.,  ”   § 46, 9.
    Pelayo, § 81, 1.
    Pellicanus, § 120, 4, note.
    Pellico, Silvio, § 174, 7.
    Penance, § 104, 4.
    Penda, § 77, 4.
    Penitential Books, § 61, 1; 89, 6; 103, 6.
    Penn, § 163, 5.
    Pentecost, § 37, 1; 56, 4.
    Pepin, § 78, 5; 82, 1.
    Pepucians, § 40, 1.
    Peraldus, § 103, 9.
    Perates, § 27, 6.
    Peregrinus Proteus, § 23, 1.
    _Pères de la foi_, § 186, 1.
    Perfectionists, § 211, 6.
    Perfectus, § 81, 1.
    Pericopes, § 59, 2; 167, 2.
    Peristerium, § 60, 5.
    Perkins, § 143, 5.
    Peroz, § 64, 2.
    Perpetua, § 22, 5.
    Perrone, § 175, 2; 191, 9.
    Persecution of Christians, § 23; 64.
    Persia, § 64, 2; 93, 15.
    Perthes, § 183, 1.
    Peschito, § 36, 8.
    Pestalozzi, § 171, 12.
    Petavius, § 158, 1.
    Peter the Apostle, § 16, 1.
      ”   d’Ailly, § 118, 4.
      ”   of Alcantara, § 149, 5, 16.
      ”   ”  Alexandria, § 41, 4.
      ”   ”  Amiens, § 94, 1.
      ”   ”  Aragon [Arragon], § 96, 18.
      ”   ”  Bruys, § 108, 7.
      ”   Cantor, § 103, 3.
      ”   of Castelnau, § 109, 1.
      ”   ”  Chelczic, § 119, 7.
      ”   ”  Clugny, § 96, 13.
      ”   Chrysolanus, § 67, 4.
      ”   Chrysologus, § 47, 16.
      ”   Comestor, § 105, 5.
      ”   Damiani, § 97, 4; 104, 10; 106, 4.
      ”   Dresdensis, § 115, 7.
      ”   of Dubois, § 118, 1.
      ”   Fullo, § 52, 5.
      ”   Hispanus, § 96, 22.
      ”   the Lombard, § 102, 5; 104, 2, 4.
      ”   Mongus, § 52, 5.
      ”   of Murrone, § 98, 2.
      ”   ”  Pisa, § 90.
      ”   ”  Poitiers, § 102, 5.
      ”   Siculus, § 71, 1.
      ”   the Venerable, § 98, 1; 102, 2; 109.
      ”   I. of Russia, § 166.
      ”   and Paul, Festival of, § 57, 1.
      ”   Fest. of Chair of St., § 57, 1.
      ”   Church of St., § 115, 13.
    Peter’s Pence, § 82.
    Petersen, § 170, 1.
    Peterson, § 139, 1.
    Petilian, § 63, 1.
    Petrarch, § 115, 10.
    Petrejus, § 120, 2.
    Petrikan, Synod, § 139, 18; 148, 3.
    Petrobrusians, § 108, 7.
    Petrow, § 163, 10.
    Petrucci, § 157, 2.
    Peucer, § 141, 10; 144, 3.
    Peyrerius, § 161, 7.
    Peysellians, § 170, 6.
    Pfaff, § 167, 4, 5, 8.
    Pfefferkorn, § 120, 4.
    Pfeffinger, § 141, 7.
    Pfeiffer, Aug., § 159, 4.
    Pfenninger, § 171, 8.
    Pfleiderer, § 182, 19.
    Pflugk, § 135, 3, 5; 136, 5; 137, 6.
    _Pharensis Syn._, § 77, 6.
    Pharisees, § 8, 4.
    Philadelphia, § 60, 4.
    Philadelphian Churches, § 170, 1.
          ”       Period, § 168, 4.
          ”       Sect, § 163, 8.
    Philaster, § 47, 14.
    Philip, § 14; 17, 2.
       ”    the Arabian, § 22, 4.
       ”    I. of France, § 96, 8, 10.
       ”    II., Aug., § 94, 3; 96, 18.
       ”    the Fair, § 110, 1, 2; 112, 7.
       ”    II. of Spain, § 139, 12, 21.
       ”    of Swabia, § 96, 17.
       ”    the Magnanimous, § 126, 4, 5; 135, 1, 3; 137, 3.
    Philippi, § 182, 13.
    Philippists, § 141, 4 ff.
    Philippones, § 163, 10.
    Philippopolis, Synod of, § 50, 2.
    Philipps, § 175, 7; 191, 7.
    Phillpotts, § 202, 2.
    Philo, § 10, 1.
    Philopatris, § 42, 5.
    Philoponus, § 47, 11.
    Philosophical Sin, § 149, 10.
    Philosophoumena, § 31, 3.
    Philostorgius, § 4, 1.
    Philoxenus, § 59, 1.
    Philumena, § 27, 12.
    Phocas, § 46, 10.
    Phœbe, § 17, 4.
    Photinus, § 50, 2.
    Photius, § 67, 1; 68, 5.
    Phyletism, § 207, 3.
    Φωτιζόμενοι, § 35, 1.
    Φθαρτολάτραι, § 52, 7.
    Piacenza, Council, § 94.
    Piarists, § 156, 7.
    Picards, § 116, 5; 119, 8.
    Pichler, § 191, 7.
    Pick, § 211, 8.
    Picts, § 77, 2.
    Picus of Mirandola, § 120, 1.
    Pideritz, § 133, 5.
    Piedmont, § 204, 3.
    Pietism, Lutheran, § 159, 3; 167, 1.
       ”     Reformed, § 162, 3, 4.
       ”     in 19th Century, § 176, 2.
    Pilate, Acts of, § 13, 2; 31, 2.
    Pilgrim of Passau, § 93, 8.
       ”    Fathers, § 143, 4; 208, 1.
    Pilgrimages, § 57, 6; 89, 4; 104, 8; 115, 9; 188, 5, 6.
    Pin, du, § 158, 2.
    Pionius, § 30, 5.
    Pirkheimer, § 120, 3.
    Pirminius, § 78, 1, 5.
    Pirstinger, § 125, 5; 149, 14.
    Pisa, Council of, § 110, 6.
    Piscator, § 143, 5.
    Pistis, Sophia, § 27, 7.
    Pistoja, Synod of, § 165, 10.
    Pistorius, § 135, 3.
        ”      Maternus, § 120, 2.
    Pius II., § 110, 10; 118, 6; 119, 4.
      ”  III., § 110, 13.
      ”  IV., § 149, 2.
      ”  V., § 149, 3; 139, 23.
      ”  VI., § 165, 9, 10, 15.
      ”  VII., § 185, 1; 203, 1.
      ”  VIII., § 184, 1; 193, 1.
      ”  IX., § 185, 2 ff.; 175, 2; 188, 8; 189, 3; 197, 7; 202, 11.
    Placæus, § 161, 3.
    Planck, § 171, 8.
    _Planeta_, § 59, 7.
    Plastic Arts, § 60, 6; 89, 6; 104, 14; 115, 13.
    Plato, § 7, 4; 47, 5; 68, 3; 99, 2.
    Platon, § 166, 1.
    Platter, § 130, 4.
    _Plebani_, _Plebs_, § 84, 2.
    Plenaries, § 115, 4.
    Pleroma, § 26, 2.
    Pletho, § 68, 2; 120, 1.
    Pliny the Younger, § 22, 2.
    Plotinus, § 24, 2.
    Plotizin, § 210, 4.
    Plutschau, § 167, 9.
    Plymouth Brethren, § 211, 11.
    Pneumatomachians, § 50, 5.
    Pobedonoszew, § 206, 1.
    Poblenz, § 184, 5.
    Pocquet, § 146, 4.
    Pococke, § 161, 6.
    Podiebrad, § 119, 7, 8.
    Poetry, Christian, § 48, 5, 6; 105, 4; 174, 6.
    Poggio, § 120, 1; 119, 5.
    Poiret, § 163, 9.
    Poissy, Relig. Confer., § 139, 14.
    Poland, § 93, 7; 139, 18; 165, 4; 206, 2, 3.
    Pole, § 139, 5, 22.
    Polemon, § 47, 6.
    Polenz of Samland, § 125, 1.
    Poliander, § 142, 3.
    Polo, Marco, § 93, 15.
    Polozk, Synod of, § 206, 2.
    Polycarp, § 22, 3; 30, 6; 37, 2.
    Polychronius, § 47, 9.
    Polycrates, § 37, 2.
    Polyglott, Antwerp, § 149, 14.
        ”      Complutensian, § 120, 8.
        ”      London, § 161, 6.
        ”      Paris, § 158, 1.
    Pomare, § 184, 7.
    Pombal, § 165, 9.
    Pommerania, § 93, 10; 134, 4.
    Pomponazzo, § 120, 1.
    Ponce de la Fuente, § 139, 21.
    _Pœnitentiaria Rom._, § 110, 16.
    Pontianus, § 38, 1.
    Ponticus, § 22, 3.
    Pontius, § 98, 1.
    Popiel, § 206, 1.
    Popular Philosophy, § 171, 4.
    Pordage, § 163, 9.
    Porphyry, § 23, 3; 24, 2.
    Portig, § 180, 3.
    Portiuncula, § 98, 3.
    Port Royal, § 157, 5.
    Portugal, § 165, 9; 205, 5.
    Positivism, § 174, 2; 210, 1.
    Possessor of Carthage, § 53, 5.
    Possevin, § 139, 1; 151, 2, 3.
    Possidius, § 47, 18.
    Post-Apostolic Age, § 20, 1.
    _Postilla_, § 103, 9; 108, 6.
    Potamiæna, § 22, 4.
    Pothinus, § 22, 3.
    _Præceptor Germaniæ_, § 122, 5.
    _Præpositi_, § 84, 2.
    Prætorius, § 160, 1.
    Praxeas, § 33, 4.
    Prayer, § 37; 39, 1.
    Preaching, § 36, 2; 59, 3; 89, 1; 104, 1; 115, 2; 142, 2.
    Preaching Orders, § 98, 5; 112, 4.
    Pre-Adamites, § 161, 4.
    Prebends, § 84, 4.
    Precaria, § 86, 1.
    Precists, § 96, 23.
    Predestination, § 53; 91, 4; 125, 3; 141, 12; 161, 2, 3; 168, 1;
        208, 3.
    Prepon, § 27, 12.
    Presburg, Peace of, § 192.
    Presbyter, § 17, 2, 5; 34, 3; 45.
    Presbyterians, § 143, 3; 162, 1; 202, 4; 208, 1.
    Prierias, § 122, 3.
    Priestley, § 211, 4.
    Primacy, Papal, § 34, 8; 46, 2, 3.
    Primasius, § 48, 1.
    Primian, § 63, 1.
    Prisca, § 40, 1.
    Priscillianists, § 54, 2.
    Probabilism, § 149, 10; 113, 4.
    Procession of Holy Spirit, § 50, 6; 67, 1; 91, 2.
    Processions, § 59, 9.
    Prochorus, § 32, 6.
    Procidians, § 27, 8.
    Proclus, Montanist, § 31, 7; 40, 2.
       ”     Neoplaton., § 24, 2; 42, 5.
    Procopius of Gaza, § 48, 1.
        ”     the Great, § 119, 7.
    Procopowicz, § 166.
    _Professio fid. Trid._, § 149, 14.
    Proles, § 112, 5.
    Proli, § 211, 16.
    Propaganda, § 156, 9; 204, 2.
    Prophecy, § 143, 3, 5.
    _Propositt. Cleri Gallicani_, § 156, 3; 203, 1.
    Proselytes of Gate and Righteousness, § 10, 2.
    Πρόσκλαυσις, § 39, 2.
    Προσφοραί, § 36.
    Prosper Aquit., § 47, 20; 48, 6; 53, 5.
    Proterius, § 52, 5.
    Protestants, § 132, 3.
    “_Protestantenverein_,” § 180.
    Proudhon, § 212, 1.
    _Provida sollersque_, § 196, 1.
    Prudentius, Poet, § 48, 6.
         ”      of Troyes, § 91, 5.
    Psellus, § 68, 5; 71, 3.
    Pseudepigraphs, § 32.
    Pseudo-Basilideans, § 27, 3.
       ”   Clement, § 28, 3; 43, 4.
       ”   Cyril, § 96, 23.
       ”   Dionysius, § 47, 11.
       ”   Ignatius, § 43, 5.
       ”   Isidore, § 87, 2.
       ”   Tertullian, § 31, 3.
    Psychians, § 26, 2; 40, 5.
    _Publicani_, § 108, 1.
    Pufendorf, § 167, 5.
    Pulcheria, § 52, 4.
    Pullus, Rob., § 102, 5.
    Punctation of Ems, § 165, 10.
    Purcell, § 186, 5.
    Purgatory, § 61, 4; 67, 6; 104, 4; 106, 2, 3.
    Purists, § 159, 4.
    Puritans; § 143, 3, 4; 155.
    Puseyites, § 202, 2.
    Puttkamer, v., § 174, 8; 193, 6; 197, 10.


    Quadragesima, § 37, 1; 56, 4, 5, 7.
    Quadratus, § 30, 8.
    _Quadrivium_, § 90, 8.
    Quakers, § 163, 4, 5, 6; 211, 3.
    _Quanta cura_, § 185, 2.
    Quartodecimans, § 37, 2; 56, 3.
    Quenstedt, § 159, 5.
    _Quercum_, _Synod ad_, § 51, 3.
    Quesnel, § 165, 7.
    _Quicunque_, § 50, 7.
    Quietists, § 157.
    _Quinisextum_, § 63, 2.
    _Quinquagesima_, § 37, 1; 56, 4.
    Quintin, § 146, 4.
    _Quod numquam_, § 197, 7.


    Rabanus, § 90, 4; 91, 3, 5.
    Rabaut, § 165, 5.
    Rabinowitz, § 211, 9.
    Rabulas, § 52, 3; 48, 7.
    Racovian Catechism, § 148, 4.
    Radama I., II., § 184, 3.
    Radbertus, § 90, 5; 91, 3, 4.
    Radbod, § 78, 3.
    Radewins, Flor., § 112, 9.
    Radstock, § 206, 1.
    Raimund Lullus, § 93, 16; 103, 7.
       ”    Martini, § 103, 9.
       ”    of Pennaforte, § 93, 16; 99, 5; 113, 4.
       ”    du Puy, § 93, 8.
       ”    of Sabunde, § 113, 5.
    Rakoczy, § 153, 3.
    Rambach, § 167, 6, 8.
    Ramus, § 143, 6.
    Ranavalona, § 184, 3.
    Rancé, de, § 156, 8.
    Raphael, § 115, 13.
       ”     Union, § 186, 4.
    Rapp, § 211, 6.
    Raskolniks, § 163, 10; 210, 3.
    Rasoherina, § 184, 3.
    Raspe, § 105, 3.
    Räss, Bishop, § 196, 7.
    Rastislaw, § 79, 2.
    Ratherius, § 100, 2.
    Rationalism, § 171; 176, 1; 182, 2, 3.
    Ratramnus, § 67, 1; 90, 5; 91, 3, 4, 5.
    “_Rauhes Haus_,” § 183, 1.
    Rauscher, Card., § 189, 3; 198, 2.
    Ravaillac, § 139, 17.
    Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse, § 109, 1.
    Raynaldi, Oderic, § 5, 2.
    Realism and Nominalism, § 99, 2; 113, 2.
    Recafrid, § 81, 1.
    Reccared, § 76, 2.
    Rechiar, § 76, 4.
    _Reclusi_, § 85, 6.
    _Recognit. Clem._, § 27, 4.
    _Reconciliatio_, § 39, 2.
    _Recursus ab abusu_, § 185, 4; 192, 4; 194, 9; 197, 9.
    Redemptions, § 88, 5.
    Redemptorists, § 165, 2; 186, 1.
    Reformation in head and members, § 118, 3.
    Refugees, French Huguenot, § 153, 4.
    Regensburg Colloquy, § 130, 3, 10.
         ”     Convention, § 126, 3.
         ”     Declaration, § 135, 4.
         ”     Diet, § 133, 2; 135, 3.
         ”     Reformation, § 135, 6.
         ”     Synod, § 91, 1.
    Regino of Prüm, § 90, 5.
    Reginus, § 104, 11.
    Regionary Bishops, § 84.
    _Regula fidei_, § 35, 2.
    Reichenau, § 78, 1.
    Reimarus, § 171, 6.
    Reinerius Sachoni, § 108, 1.
    Reinhard, Mart., § 139, 2.
    Reinhard, Fr. Volk., § 171, 8.
    Reinkens, § 190, 1.
    Reiser, Fred., § 119, 9; 118, 5.
    Reland, § 169, 6.
    Relics, Worship of, § 39, 5; 57, 5; 88, 4; 104, 8; 115, 9.
    _Religiosi_, § 44.
    Remigius of Auxerre, § 90, 5.
        ”    ”  Lyons, § 91, 5.
        ”    ”  Rheims, § 76, 9.
    Remismund, § 76, 4.
    Remoboth, § 44, 7.
    Remonstrants, § 161, 2.
    Renaissance, § 115, 13; 149, 15.
    Renan, § 182, 8.
    Renata of Ferrara, § 138, 2; 139, 22.
    Renaudot, § 165, 11.
    Reni, Guido, § 149, 15.
    Reparatus of Carthage, § 52, 6.
    Repeal Association, § 202, 9.
    _Reservatio mentalis_, § 149, 10.
    Reservations, § 110, 15.
    _Reservatum ecclest._, § 137, 5.
    Restitution Edict, § 153, 2.
    Reuchlin, § 120, 3, 4.
    Reuss, § 182, 18.
    Revenues of the Church, § 45, 6; 86, 1.
    _Reversurus_, § 207, 4.
    Revivals, § 208, 1.
    Revolution, French, § 165, 14.
         ”      English, § 155.
    _Rex Christianiss._, § 110, 13.
    Rhaw, § 142, 5.
    Rhegius Urbanus, § 120, 3; 127, 3; 125, 1.
    Rheinwald, § 83, 2.
    Rhenius, § 184, 5.
    Rhense, Elector. Union of, § 110, 4.
    Rhetorians, § 62, 3.
    Rhine League, § 192.
    Rhodoald, § 67, 1; 82, 7.
    Rhodon, § 27, 12.
    Rhyming Bible, § 105, 5.
       ”    Legends, § 105, 5.
    Riccabona, § 175, 2.
    Ricci, Laur., § 165, 9.
      ”    Matt., § 150, 1.
      ”    Scipio, § 165, 10.
    Richard Cœur de Leon, § 94, 3.
       ”    of Cornwallis, § 94, 5.
       ”    ”  St. Victor, § 102, 4; 104, 4.
    Richelieu, § 153, 4.
    Richter, C. F., § 167, 6.
       ”     Emil, § 182, 22.
       ”     Greg., § 160, 2.
       ”     Jean Paul, § 171, 11.
       ”     Louis, § 174, 9.
    Ridley, § 139, 5.
    Rieger, § 167, 8.
    Rienzi, § 110, 5.
    Rietschel, § 174, 9.
    Riga, § 93, 12; 139, 3.
    Rigdon, Sidney, § 211, 12, 13.
    Riley, § 209, 1.
    Rimbert, § 80, 2.
    Rimini, Syn., § 50, 3.
    Rinck, Melch., § 147, 1.
    Ring and Staff, § 96, 6, 7.
    Ringold, § 93, 14.
    Rinkart, § 160, 3.
    Rist, § 160, 3.
    _Risus Paschales_, § 105, 2.
    Ritschl, § 182, 7, 20.
    Ritter, Erasm., § 130, 4, 8.
       ”    J. J., § 5, 6.
       ”    Carl, § 174, 4.
    Ritualists, § 199, 2.
    Rizzio, § 139, 10.
    Robber Synod, § 52, 4.
    Robert of Arbrissel, § 98, 2.
      ”    ”  Citeaux, § 98, 1.
      ”    Grosseteste, § 103, 1.
      ”    Guiscard, § 95, 1; 98, 6, 8.
      ”    Pullus, § 102, 5.
      ”    of the Sorbonne, § 103, 9.
    Robert of France, § 104, 10.
    Robespierre, § 165, 15.
    Robinson, § 143, 4.
    Rodigast, § 160, 4.
    Rodriguez, § 149, 8; 150, 4.
    Roëll, § 161, 5.
    Roger of Sicily, § 95, 1; 96, 13.
    Röhr, § 176, 1; 182, 2.
    Rokycana, § 119, 7.
    Rollo, § 93, 1.
    Romanz, § 174, 2.
    Roman Architecture, § 104, 12.
    Romanus, Pope, § 96, 1.
    Romuald, § 98, 1.
    Ronge, § 187, 6.
    Roos, § 171, 8.
    Rosary, § 104, 8; 115, 1.
    Roscelinus [Roscelin], § 101, 3.
    Rose, The Consecrat. Golden, § 96, 23.
    Rosenkranz, § 182, 6.
    Rosicrucians, § 160, 1.
    Rossi de, § 191, 7; 38, 1.
    Röstar, § 211, 5.
    Roswitha, § 100, 1.
    _Rota Romana_, § 110, 16.
    Rothad of Soissons, § 83, 2.
    Rothe, A., § 167, 6; 168, 2.
      ”    Rich., § 5, 4; 180, 1; 182, 10.
    Rothmann, § 147, 9.
    Röublin, § 130, 5; 147, 3.
    Roundheads, § 155, 1.
    Rousseau, § 165, 14.
    Rubianus Crotus, § 120, 2, 5.
    Rückert, § 174, 6.
    Rudelbach, § 182, 13; 194, 1.
    Rudolph of Hapsburg, § 96, 21, 22.
    Rudolph II., § 139, 19; 137, 8.
       ”    of Swabia, § 96, 8.
    Ruet, § 205, 4.
    Rufinus, § 5, 1; 47, 17; 48, 2; 51, 2.
    Ruge, § 174, 1.
    Rügen, § 93, 10.
    Rugians, § 76, 6.
    Ruinart, § 158, 2.
    Rulman Merswin, § 114, 2, 4.
    Rupert, § 78, 2.
       ”    of Deutz, § 102, 8.
    Rupp, § 176, 1; 178, 1.
    Russel, Lord, § 202, 1, 5.
    Russia, § 73, 5-6; 151, 3; 163, 8; 166; 206; 210, 3, 4; 212, 6.
    Rust, § 195, 5.
    Ruysbroek, John of, § 114, 7.
        ”      William of, § 93, 15.


    _Sabatati_, § 108, 10.
    Sabbath, § 56, 1.
    Sabbatarians, § 163, 3; 211, 5.
    Sabeans, § 22, 1.
    Sabellius, § 33, 5, 7.
    Sabinianus, § 60, 5.
    _Sacco di Roma_, § 132, 2.
    Sachs, Hans, § 142, 3, 7.
    Sack, K. H., § 182, 9.
    Sacramentalia, § 58; 104, 2.
    Sacraments, § 58; 70, 2; 104, 2-5.
    _Sacramentarium_, § 59, 6.
    _Sacrificati_, § 22, 5.
    _Sacrum rescript._, § 53, 3.
    Sacy, de, § 158, 1.
    Sadducees, § 8, 4.
    Sadolet, § 138, 3; 139, 22.
    Sagittarius, § 159, 4.
    Sailer, § 165, 12; 187, 1.
    Saints, Worship of, § 57, 1; 88, 4; 104, 8.
    Saladin, § 94, 3.
    Sales, Francis de, § 156, 7; 157, 1.
      ”    Nuns of, § 156, 7.
    Salisbury, John of, § 102, 9.
    Salmeron, § 149, 8.
    Salt Lake, § 211, 10.
    Salvation Army, § 211, 2.
    Salvianus, § 47, 21.
    Salzburg, § 78, 2; 79.
        ”     Emigrants of, § 164, 4.
    Samaritans, § 10; 22.
    Sampseans, § 28, 2.
    Sanbenito, § 117, 2.
    Sanchez, § 149, 10.
    Sanction, Pragmatic, § 96, 21; 110, 9, 14.
    _Sanctissimum_, § 104, 3.
    Sandwich Islands, § 182, 7.
    Sankey, § 211, 1.
    Sapor I., § 29, 1.
    Sapores [Sapor], § 64, 2.
    Sarabaites, § 44, 7.
    Saracens, § 81; 95.
    Sardica, Council of, § 46, 3; 50, 2.
    Sardinia, § 204, 1, 3.
    Sarmatio, § 62, 2.
    Sarpi, § 156, 2; 158, 2.
    Sartorius, § 182, 13.
    Saturnalia, § 56, 5.
    Saturninus, § 27, 9.
    Saunier, § 138, 1; 139, 25.
    Saurin, § 169, 6.
    Savonarola, § 119, 11.
    Savonières [Savonnières], Syn. of, § 91, 5.
    Sbynko, § 119, 3, 4.
    _Scala santa_, § 115, 9.
    Schaffhausen, § 130, 8.
    Schelling, § 171, 10; 174, 1.
    Schenkel, § 182, 17; 196, 3, 4; 180, 1.
    Schiller, § 171, 11.
    Schirmer, § 160, 4.
    Schism, Papal, § 110, 6.
       ”    between East and West, § 67.
    Schisms in the Ancient Church, § 41; 50, 8; 52, 5; 63.
    Schlegel, Fr., § 174, 5; 175, 7.
        ”     J. Ad., § 172, 1.
    Schleiermacher, § 5, 4; 182, 1; 174, 3.
    Schleswig-Holstein, § 127, 3; 156, 2; 201, 1; 193, 7.
    Schlichting, § 148, 4.
    Schmalcald Articles, § 134, 1.
         ”     League, § 133, 1, 7.
         ”     War, § 136.
    Schmerling, § 198, 3, 4.
    Schmid, Leop., § 187, 3; 191, 2; 196, 4.
    Schmidt, Erasm., § 159, 4.
       ”     Lor., § 171, 3.
       ”     Seb., § 159, 4.
    Schmolck, § 167, 6, 8.
    Schnepf, § 122, 2; 131, 1; 133, 3.
    Schnorr, § 174, 9.
    Schöberlein, § 181, 3.
    _Schola palatina_, § 90, 1.
        ”   _Saxonica_, § 82.
    Scholastica, St., § 85, 3.
    Scholasticism, Greek, § 47, 6; 68, 3.
          ”        Latin, § 99 ff.; 113.
    Scholasticus, John, § 43, 3.
    Scholten, § 200, 2.
    Schools.
    Schopenhauer, § 174, 2.
    Schortinghuis, § 169, 3.
    Schroeckh [Schröckh], § 5, 3; 171, 8.
    Schubert, § 174, 3, 8.
    Schultens, § 169, 6.
    Schultz, Herm., § 182, 20.
    Schulz, Dav., § 183, 3.
    Schwartz, § 167, 9.
    Schwarzenberg, § 189, 3.
    Schweizer, § 182, 9.
    Schwenkfeld, § 146, 1.
    Scotists, § 113, 2.
    Scotland, § 77, 2; 139, 8; 202, 7, 8, 11.
    Scots, § 77, 2.
    Scottish Cloister, § 98, 1; 112.
    Scotus, John Duns, § 113.
       ”    Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
    Scriver, § 160, 1.
    Scythianus, § 29, 1.
    _Seculum obscurum_, § 100.
    Secundus, § 50, 1.
    _Sedes Apostolicæ_, § 34.
    Sedulius, § 48, 6.
    Segarelli, § 108, 8.
    Segneri, § 157, 2.
    Seiler, § 171, 8.
    Selden, § 161, 6.
    Selnecker, § 141, 12; 142, 4.
    Sembat, § 71, 2.
    Semi-arians, § 50, 3.
    Semi-jejunia, § 37, 2.
    Semi-pelagians, § 53, 5.
    Semler, § 171, 6; 5, 3.
    Sendomir Compact, § 139, 18.
    Seneca’s Correspondence, § 32, 7.
    Sententiarists, § 102, 5.
    Sepp, § 191, 8; 174, 4.
    Septimius Severus, § 22, 4.
    Septuagint, § 10, 2; 36, 8; 48, 1.
    Sequences, § 88, 2.
    Serapeion, § 42, 4.
    Seraphic Order, § 98, 3.
    Serenius Granian., § 22, 2.
    Serenus of Marsilia, § 57, 4.
    Sergius of Constantinople, § 52, 8.
       ”    ”  Ravenna, § 83, 2.
       ”    I. of Rome, § 46, 11; 63, 2.
       ”    II., § 82, 5.
       ”    III., § 96, 1.
       ”    IV., § 96, 4.
    Serrarius, § 149, 14.
    Servatus Lupus, § 90, 5; 91, 5.
    Servetus, § 148, 2.
    Servites, § 98, 6.
    _Servus servorum Dei_, § 46, 10.
    Sethians, § 27, 6.
    Seventh-Day Adventists, § 211, 1.
       ”     ”  Baptists, § 163, 3.
    Severa, § 22, 4; 26.
    Severians, § 52, 7.
    Severina, § 28, 4.
    Severinus, Missionary, § 76, 6.
        ”      Pope, § 46, 11.
    Severus, Emperor, § 22, 6.
       ”     Wolfg., § 137, 8.
    Shaftesbury, § 171, 1.
    Shakers, § 170, 7.
    Sherlock, § 171, 1.
    Shiites, § 65, 1.
    Ship of the Church, § 60, 1.
    Sibylline Books, § 32, 1.
    Sicily, § 81; 95.
    Sickingen, § 120, 4; 122, 4; 123, 7; 124, 2.
    Siena, Syn., § 110, 7.
    Sieveking, § 183, 1.
    Sigfrid, § 93, 1.
    Sigillaria, § 56, 5.
    Sigismund of Burgundy, § 76, 5.
        ”     Emperor, § 110, 7, 8; 119, 5.
    Sigismund I. of Poland, § 139, 18.
        ”     Aug.     ”    § 139, 18.
        ”     III.     ”    § 139, 18.
    Sigurd, § 93, 3.
    Silesia, § 127, 3; 153, 2; 165, 4.
    Silesius, Angelus, § 157, 4; 160, 4.
    Silverius, § 46, 9.
    Simeon of Jerusalem, § 22, 2.
       ”   Stylites, § 44, 6.
       ”   called Titus, § 71, 1.
       ”   Czar, § 73, 3.
       ”   Metaphrastes, § 68, 4.
       ”   of Thessalonica, § 68, 5.
       ”   ”  Tournay, § 103, 2.
       ”   VI., VII.; Counts of Lippe, § 154, 2.
    Simeoni, § 205, 4.
    Simon Magus, § 25, 2.
      ”   Rich., § 158, 2.
      ”   St., § 212, 2.
    Simonians, § 27, 8.
    Simons, Menno, § 147, 2.
    Simony, § 96, 5.
    Simplicius, § 42, 5.
    Siricius, § 45, 2; 46, 4.
    Sirmium, Syn., § 50, 2, 3.
    Sirmond, § 158, 2.
    Sisters of Mercy, § 156, 8; 186, 2.
    Sixtus II., § 22, 5.
       ”   III., § 46, 6.
       ”   IV., § 110, 11; 112, 3; 115, 1.
       ”   V., § 149, 3, 4, 14.
       ”   of Siena, § 149, 14.
    Skeleton Army, § 211, 2.
    Smith, Jos., § 211, 10.
      ”    Pearsall, § 211, 1.
      ”    Robertson, § 202, 8.
    Socialism, § 212.
    Socinians, § 148, 4; 202, 5.
    Soissons, Syn., § 78, 4; 102, 8.
    _Sollicitudo omnium_, § 185, 1.
    Somerset, § 139, 5.
    Sophia, Church of, § 60, 3.
    Sophronius, § 52, 8.
    Sorbonne, § 103, 9.
    Soter, § 36, 8.
    Southcote, Joanna, § 211, 5.
    Spain, § 76, 2, 3; 95, 2; 139, 21; 205.
    Spalatin, § 122, 6.
    Spalding, Bishop, § 189, 3.
    Spangenberg, John, § 142, 6.
         ”       Bishop, § 168, 7.
    Spanheim, § 5, 2; 161, 3, 7.
    Speaker’s Bible, § 202, 1.
    Spencer, John, § 161, 6.
       ”     Herbert, § 174, 2.
    Spener, § 158, 3; 167, 5.
    Spiera, Fr., § 139, 2, 4.
    Spinoza, § 164, 1.
    Spires, Diet, § 126, 6; 132, 3; 135, 9; 147, 4.
    Spirit, Sect of the New, § 108, 2.
    _Spiritales_, § 40, 5.
    Spirituals, § 164, 1.
    _Spirituels_, § 146, 4.
    Sponsors, § 35, 5; 58, 1.
    Sufis, § 61, 1.
    Stackhouse, § 168, 6.
    Stahl, § 182, 15; 193, 6.
    Stancarns, § 141, 2.
    Stanislaus, St., § 93, 2.
         ”      Znaim, § 119, 4.
    Stanley, § 184, 4.
    Stapfer, § 169, 6.
    Stapulensis, § 120, 7, 8.
    Starck, § 175, 7.
    Starowerzi, § 163, 10; 210, 3.
    Staudenmaier, § 191, 6.
    Stäudlin, § 171, 8.
    Staupitz, § 112, 6; 122, 1.
    Stedingers, § 109, 3.
    Steffens, § 174, 3; 177, 2.
    Stein, Baron v., § 176, 1.
    Steinbart, § 171, 4, 6.
    Steinmetz, § 167, 8.
    Stephan I., § 35, 3.
       ”    II., § 66, 2; 78, 7; 82, 1.
       ”    III., § 60, 2; 82, 1.
       ”    IV., § 82, 4.
       ”    V., VI., § 82, 8.
       ”    IX., § 96, 6.
       ”    St., § 93, 8; 96, 3.
       ”    of Palecz, § 119, 4, 5.
       ”    ”  Sunik [Sünik], § 72, 2.
       ”    ”  Tigerno, § 98, 2.
       ”    Mart., § 194, 1.
    Stephanas, § 17, 4.
    Stephen Langton, § 96, 18.
    Stier, § 181, 1; 183, 4.
    Stigmatization, § 105, 4; 188, 3.
    Stirner, Max., § 212, 1.
    Stolberg, § 5, 6; 165, 6.
    Storch, Nich., § 124, 1.
    Storr, § 171, 8.
    Strassburg, § 125, 1.
         ”      Minster, § 104, 13.
    Strauss, Dav. Fr., § 174, 1; 182, 6, 8; 199, 4.
    Streoneshalch, Syn., § 77, 6.
    Strossmayer, § 189, 3, 4.
    Stuart, Mary, § 139, 5.
    Studites, § 44, 4.
    Sturm of Fulda, § 78, 4, 5.
    Stylites, § 44, 6; 78, 3; 85, 6.
    Suarez, § 149, 14.
    _Subintroductæ_, § 39, 3.
    Subordinationists, § 33, 1.
    Suevi, § 76, 4.
    Suffragan Bishops, § 84.
    Sully, § 139, 17.
    Sulpicius Severus, § 47, 17.
    _Summa_ of Holy Scripture, § 125, 2.
    Summaries, Württemb., § 160, 6.
    _Summis desiderantes_, § 117, 4.
    Summists, § 102, 4.
    _Summus Episcopus_, § 167, 3.
    Sun, Children of, § 71, 2.
    Sunday, Fest. of, § 17, 7; 37; 56, 1.
    Sunnites, § 65, 1.
    _Supplicationes_, § 59, 9.
    Supralapsarians, § 161, 1.
    Supernaturalists, § 171, 8; 182, 4, 5.
    Suso, H., § 114, 5.
    Sutri, Syn., § 96, 4.
    Swabian Articles, § 132, 5.
       ”    Halle, Sect in, § 108, 6.
    Sweden, § 80; 93, 3; 139, 1; 201, 2.
    Swedenborgians, § 170, 5; 211, 4.
    Sweyn, § 93, 2.
    Switzerland, § 78, 1; 130; 138; 162, 6; 169, 2; 190, 3; 199.
    Sydow, § 180, 4.
    Syllabus, § 185, 2.
    Sylvester I., § 42, 1; 46, 3; 59, 5; 82, 2.
    Sylvester II., § 94; 96, 3.
        ”     III., § 96, 4.
        ”     Bern., § 102, 9.
    _Symbolum Apost._, § 35, 2; 59, 2.
         ”    _Athan._, § 59, 2.
         ”    _Nic. Constant._, § 59, 2.
         ”    _Nicænum_, § 50, 1.
    Symmachus, Pope, § 46, 8.
        ”      Prefect, § 42, 4.
    Sympherosa, § 32, 8.
    Synagogues, § 8, 3.
    Syncretist Controv., § 159, 3.
    Synergists, § 53, 1.
    Synesius, § 47, 7; 59, 4.
    _Syngramma Suevic._, § 131, 1.
    Synod, Holy Russian, § 166.
      ”    The Holy Athens, § 207, 1.
    Synods, § 34, 5; 43, 2.
    _Synodus palmaris_, § 46, 8.
    Syrians, § 184, 9; 207, 2.
    Syzigies, § 27, 3; 28, 3.


    Tabernaculum, § 104, 3.
    Taborites, § 119, 7.
    Taepings, § 211, 15.
    Tafel, Imm., § 211, 4.
    Tahiti, § 184, 6.
    Talmud, § 25.
    Tamerlane, § 72, 1; 93, 15.
    Tamuls, § 184, 5.
    Tanchelm, § 108, 9.
    Tartars, § 73, 1.
    Tasso, § 149, 15.
    Tatian, § 27, 10; 30, 10.
    Tauler, § 114, 2.
    Teellinck, § 161, 4.
    Teetotallers, § 202, 9.
    Telesphorus, § 22, 2.
    Teller, § 171, 4, 7.
    Templars, § 98, 8; 112, 7.
    Terminants, § 98, 3.
    Terminism, § 167, 2.
    Territorial System, § 167, 5.
    Tersteegen, § 169, 1.
    Tertiaries, § 93, 3, 5.
    Tertullian, § 31, 10; 33, 4, 9; 34, 8; 40, 3.
    Tertullianists, § 40, 3.
    _Tessareskaidecatites_, § 37, 2.
    Test Act, § 153, 6; 155, 3; 202, 5.
    Testam. of XII. Patri., § 32, 3.
    Tetzel, § 122, 2.
    Teutonic Knights, § 98, 8; 93, 13.
    Theatines, § 149, 7.
    Thecla, § 32, 6.
    Theiner, § 186, 1; 187, 4; 191, 7.
    Theodelinde, § 76, 8.
    Theodemir, § 92, 2.
    Theodo I., II., § 78, 2.
    Theodora, § 46, 9; 52, 6; 71, 1.
    Theodore of Abyssinia, § 182, 9.
    Theodoret, § 47, 9; 52, 3, 4.
    Theodoric, § 46, 8; 76, 7.
        ”      of Freiburg, § 103, 10.
        ”      of Niem, § 118, 5.
    Theodorus, Pope, § 52, 1.
        ”      Ascidas, § 52, 8.
        ”      Balsamon, § 43, 3.
        ”      Lector, § 5, 1.
        ”      of Mopsuestia, § 47, 9; 48, 1; 52, 3; 53, 4.
        ”      Studita, § 66, 4.
        ”      of Tarsus, § 90, 8.
    Theodosius the Great, § 42, 4; 47, 15; 50, 4.
    Theodosius II., § 42, 4.
    Theodotians, § 33, 3.
    Theodulf of Orleans, § 89, 2; 90, 2.
    Theognis of Nicæa, § 50, 1.
    Theonas, § 50, 1.
    Theopaschites, § 52, 6.
    Theophanies, § 96, 2.
    Theophilus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
         ”      of Alexandria, § 42, 4; 51, 2, 3.
         ”      ”  Antioch, § 30, 10.
         ”      ”  Din, § 64, 4.
         ”      ”  Moscow, § 166, 1.
    Theophylact, § 68, 5.
    Θεοτόκος, § 52, 2, 3.
    Therapeutæ, § 10, 1.
    Theresa, St., § 149, 6, 15, 16.
    _Thesaurus supererogat._, § 106, 2.
    Thiers, § 203, 5.
    Thiersch, § 211, 10.
    Thietberga, § 82, 7.
    Thietgaut of Treves, § 82, 7.
    Thilo, § 160, 3.
    Tholuck, § 182, 4.
    Thomas Aquinas, § 103, 6; 96, 23; 104, 4, 10.
    Thomas Becket, § 96, 16.
       ”   Bradwardine, § 113, 2.
       ”   of Celano, § 104, 10.
       ”   à Kempis, § 112, 9; 114, 7.
    Thomas Christians, § 52, 3.
    Thomasius, Chr., § 117, 4; 159, 3; 167, 4, 5.
    Thomasius, Gottfr., § 182, 13.
    Thomassinus, § 158, 1.
    Thomists, § 113, 3.
    Thontracians, § 71, 2.
    Thorn, Declarat., § 153, 7.
       ”   Massacre, § 165, 4.
       ”   Relig. Confer., § 153, 7; 154, 4.
    Thorwaldsen, § 174, 9.
    Thrasimund, § 76, 3.
    _Thuribulum_, § 60, 5.
    _Thurificati_, § 22, 5.
    Tiara, Papal, § 96, 23.
    Tiberius, § 22, 1.
    Tieck, § 174, 5.
    Tieftrunk, § 171, 7.
    Tillemont, § 158, 2; 5, 2.
    Tillotson, § 161, 3.
    Timotheus Älurus [Aëlurus], § 52, 5.
    Tindal, Matt., § 171, 1.
       ”    William, § 139, 4.
    Tiridates III., § 64, 3.
    Tischendorf, § 182, 11.
    Titian, § 115, 13; 149, 11.
    _Tituli_, § 84, 2.
    Titus of Bostra, § 54, 1.
    Toland, § 171, 1.
    Toledo, Syn., § 76, 2.
    Toleration Acts, English, § 155, 3; 202, 5.
         ”     Edict, Austr., § 165, 10.
         ”     Patent, Pruss., § 193, 3.
    Tolomeo of Lucca, § 5, 1.
    Tolstoi, § 206, 1.
    Tonsure, § 45, 1; 77, 3.
    Tooth, Arth., § 202, 3.
    Torgau, Articles of, § 132, 7.
       ”    Book of, § 141, 12.
       ”    League of, § 126, 5.
    Torquemada, John, § 110, 15; 112, 4.
         ”      Thomas, § 117, 2.
    Toulouse, Syn., § 105, 5; 108, 2; 109, 2.
    Tours, Syn., § 101, 2; 110, 13.
    Tractarianism, § 202, 2.
    Tradition, § 33, 4.
    Traditors, § 22, 6.
    Traducianism, § 53, 1.
    Trajan, § 22, 2.
    Tranquebar, § 167, 9.
    Translations, § 57, 1.
    Transept, § 60, 1.
    Transubstantiation, § 58, 2; 104, 3.
    Transylvania, § 139, 20.
    Trappists, § 156, 8.
    Tremellius, § 143, 5.
    Trent, Council of, § 149, 2; 136, 4.
    _Treuga Dei_, § 105, 1.
    Tribur, Princes’ Diet, § 96, 7.
       ”    Syn., § 83, 3.
    Trinitarian Controversy, § 32; 50.
         ”      Order, § 98, 2.
    Trinity, Festival of the, § 104, 7.
       ”     Order of the Holy, § 149, 4.
    Trishagion, § 52, 5, 6.
    Trithemius, § 113, 7.
    _Trivium_, § 90, 8.
    Troparies, § 59, 4.
    Troubadours, § 105, 6.
    _Trullanum, I. Conc._, § 52, 8.
         ”      _II. ”  _, § 63, 2; 45, 2.
    Tübingen, § 120, 3.
    Turkey, § 207.
    Turrecremata [Torquemada], John, § 110, 15; 112, 4.
    Turrecremata [Torquemada], Thos., § 117, 2.
    Turretin, J. A., § 169, 2, 6.
    Turribius, § 54, 2.
    Tutilo, § 88, 6.
    Twesten, § 182, 10.
    Tychonius, § 48, 1.
    Typus, § 52, 8.
    Tyrol, § 193, 4.
    Tyre, Syn., § 50, 2.


    Ubertino de Casale, § 108, 6.
    _Ubiquitas Corp. Chr._, § 141, 9.
    Udo, § 62, 1.
    Ugolino, § 165, 12.
    Uhlhorn, § 193, 8.
    Uhlich, § 176, 1.
    Ulenberg, § 149, 15.
    Ulfilas, § 76, 1.
    Ullmann, § 182, 10; 196, 3.
    Ulrich of Augsb., § 84, 3.
       ”   ”  Württemb., § 133, 3.
    Ulrici, § 174, 2; 211, 17.
    Ultramontanism, § 188; 197.
    Umbreit, § 182, 11.
    _Unam Sanctam_, § 110, 1.
    _Unctio extrema_, § 61, 3; 70, 2; 104, 5.
    Uniformity, Act of, § 139, 6; 155, 3.
    Unigenitus, § 165, 7.
    Union Attempts in the Eastern Church, § 67, 4, 5; 152, 2;
        175, 4-6.
    Union, Catholic Protestant, § 137, 8; 153, 7.
    Union, Lutheran Reformed, § 154, 4; 167, 4; 169, 1, 2.
    Union, Prussian, § 177, 1.
    Unitarians, § 148; 163, 1; 211, 4.
    United Brethren, § 119, 8.
       ”   Greeks, § 72, 4; 151, 3; 206, 2.
    Universities, § 99, 3.
          ”       Bill, § 199, 5.
    Urban II., § 96, 10; 94.
      ”   III., § 96, 16.
      ”   IV., § 96, 20.
      ”   V., § 110, 5; 117, 2.
      ”   VI., § 110, 6.
      ”   VII., § 149, 3.
      ”   VIII., § 156, 1, 4, 9; 157, 5.
    Urbanus Rhegius, § 127, 3.
    Ursacius, § 50, 3.
    Ursinus of Rome, § 46, 4.
       ”    Zach., § 144, 1; 169, 1.
    Ursula, St., § 104, 9.
    Ursuline Nuns, § 149, 7.
    Ussher, § 161, 6, 7.
    Utah, § 211, 10.
    Utraquists, § 119, 6.
    Utrecht, Church of, § 165, 7.
       ”     Union of, § 139, 12.


    Vadian, § 130, 4.
    Valdez, § 108, 10.
    Valence, Syn., § 91, 5.
    Valens, Emperor, § 50, 4; 42, 4.
    Valentinian I., § 42, 4.
         ”      II., § 42, 4.
         ”      III., § 46, 3; 46, 7.
    Valentinus, § 27, 4.
    Valerian, § 22, 5.
    Valla, § 120, 1.
    Vallombrosians, § 98, 1.
    Valsainte, § 186, 2.
    Valteline Massacre, § 153, 3.
    Vandals, § 76, 3.
    Vanne, Congreg. of, § 156, 7.
    Varanes I., § 29, 1.
       ”    III., § 64, 2.
    _Variata_, § 141, 4.
    Vasa, Gustavus, § 139, 1; 142, 8.
    Vasquez, § 149, 10.
    Vatican, § 110, 15.
       ”     Council, § 189.
    Vatke, § 182, 18.
    Vaud, Canton, § 199, 5.
    Vega, Lope de, § 158, 3.
    Velasquez, § 98, 8.
    Venantius Fortunatus, § 48, 6.
    Venema, § 169, 6.
    Venezuela, § 209, 2.
    Vercelli, Syn., § 101, 2.
    Verdun, Treaty of, § 82, 5.
    Vergerius, § 134, 1; 139, 24.
    Vermilius, Pet. Mart., § 139, 5, 24.
    Veronica, § 18, 2.
    Versailles, Edict of, § 165, 5.
    Vespers, Sicilian, § 96, 22.
    _Vestibulum_, § 60, 1.
    Vestments, Ecclest., § 59, 7.
    Veuillot, § 188, 1; 203, 3.
    _Viaticum_, § 104, 5.
    Vicelinus, § 93, 9.
    Victor I., § 33, 3, 4; 37, 2; 40, 2; 41, 1.
    Victor II., § 96, 5.
       ”   III., § 96, 10.
       ”   IV., § 96, 15.
       ”   of Vita, § 48, 2.
       ”   Emmanuel I., § 204, 1.
       ”       ”    II., § 185, 3; 204, 1, 2.
    Victor, St., Monastery of, § 102, 4, 8.
    Victorinus, Marius, § 47, 14.
         ”      of Pettau, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
    Victorius, § 56, 3.
    Vienna, Congress of, § 192, 3.
       ”    Peace of, § 139, 20.
    Vienne, Council of, § 110, 2; 112, 1, 2, 7.
    Vigilantius, § 62, 2.
    Vigilius, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
    Vigils, § 35; 56, 4.
    Vikings, § 93, 1.
    Villegagnon, § 143, 7.
    Vilmar, § 182, 14; 194, 4.
    Vincent of Beauvais, § 99, 6.
    Vincent Ferrari, § 115, 2; 110, 6.
       ”    of Lerins, § 47, 21; 53, 5.
       ”    de Paula, § 156, 8.
    Vinci, Leon. da, § 115, 13.
    Vinet, § 199, 5.
    Viret, § 138, 1.
    Virgilius of Salzburg, § 78, 6.
    Virgins, The 11,000, § 104, 9.
    Visigoths, § 76, 2.
    Visitation, Articles of, § 141, 13.
    _Vita quadragesimalis_, § 112, 8.
    Vitalis Ordenicus, § 5, 1.
    Vitus, § 46, 3.
    Vitringa, § 161, 6.
    Vladimir, § 73, 4.
    Vladislaw, § 119, 7.
        ”      IV., § 153, 7.
    Voetius, § 161, 4, 5, 7; 162, 4; 163, 7.
    Volkmann, § 169, 1.
    Voltaire, § 165, 5, 14, 15.
    Vorstius, § 161, 2.
    Vossius, § 171, 11.
    Vulgate, § 59, 1; 136, 4; 149, 14.


    Waddington, § 203, 5, 8.
    Wafers, § 104, 3.
    Wagner, Rich., § 174, 10.
    Wala, § 82, 5.
    Walafrid Strabo, § 90, 4; 91, 3.
    Walch, J. G., § 167, 4.
      ”    Fr., § 171, 8.
    Waldemar I., § 93, 10.
        ”    II., § 93, 12.
    Waldensians, § 108, 10-12; 119, 9, 10; 139, 25; 153, 5; 204, 4.
    Waldrade, § 82, 8.
    Wallace, § 211, 17.
    Walter of Habenichts, § 94, 1.
       ”   ”  St. Victor, § 102, 9.
       ”   v. d. Vogelweide, § 105, 6.
    Walther, Hans, § 142, 5.
       ”     Mich., § 159, 4.
       ”     Dr., § 208, 2, 3.
    Walton, Brian, § 161, 6.
    Warburton, § 171, 1.
    Ward, § 156, 8.
    Warnefried, § 90, 3.
    Wartburg, § 123, 8.
    Watts, Isaac, § 169, 6.
    Wazo of Liege, § 109.
    Wearmouth, § 85, 4.
    Weber, F. W., § 174, 6.
    Wecelinus, § 95, 3.
    Wechabites, § 65, 1.
    Wegelin, § 160, 3.
    Wegscheider, § 182, 2.
    Weigel, Val., § 146, 2.
    Weingarten, § 5, 5.
    Weiss, Bern., § 182, 11.
    Weissel, § 160, 3.
    Wellhausen, § 182, 18.
    Wends, § 93, 9.
    Wendelin, § 161, 7.
    Wenilo, § 91, 5.
    Wenzel, § 119, 3.
    Wenzeslaw, § 93, 6.
    Wertheimer Bible, § 171, 2.
    Wesel, John of, § 119, 10.
    Wesley, § 169, 3, 4.
    Wessel, § 119, 10.
    Westeräs, Diet of, § 139, 1.
    Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
    Westphal, § 141, 10.
    Westphalia, Peace of, § 153, 2.
         ”      Reform, § 133, 5.
    Wette, de, § 182, 3.
    Wetterau, § 170.
    Wettstein, § 169, 6.
    Whitaker, § 143, 5.
    Whitefield, § 169, 3, 4.
    Whitgift, § 143, 5.
    Wibert, § 96, 6, 8.
    Wichern, § 183, 1.
    Wiclif, § 119, 1.
    Wido of Milan, § 97, 5.
    Wied, H. v., § 133, 5; 135, 7.
    Wieland, § 171, 11.
    Wigand, § 141, 10.
    Wilberforce, § 184.
    Wilfrid, § 77, 6; 78, 3; 83, 3.
    Wilgard, § 100.
    Wilibrord, § 78, 3.
    Willehad, § 78, 3.
    William of St. Amour, § 103, 3.
       ”    ”  Aquitaine, § 98, 1.
       ”    ”  Champeaux, § 101, 1.
       ”    ”  Conches, § 102, 9.
       ”    the Conqueror, § 96, 8, 12.
       ”    Durandus, § 113, 3.
       ”    of Modena, § 93, 13.
       ”    ”  Nogaret, § 110, 1.
       ”    ”  Occam, § 112, 2; 113, 3; 118, 2.
       ”    Rufus, § 96, 12.
       ”    Ruysbroek, § 93, 15.
       ”    of Thierry, § 102, 2, 9.
       ”    ”  Tyre, § 94, 3.
       ”    ”  Bavaria, § 135, 8; 136, 2, 6; 151, 1.
       ”    IV., V., of Hesse, § 154, 1.
       ”    I. of Orange, § 139, 12.
       ”    III. of Orange, § 153, 6; 155, 3.
       ”    I., German Emperor, § 193; 197.
    Williams, John, § 184, 7.
        ”     Roger, § 162, 2; 163, 3.
    Willigis, § 96, 2; 97, 2.
    Wilsnack, Mirac, host of, § 119, 3.
    Wilson, § 172, 5.
    Winckelmann, § 165, 6; 174, 9.
    Windesheim, § 112, 9.
    Windthorst, § 197, 1, 6; 188, 3.
    Winer, § 182, 4.
    Winfrid, § 78, 4-8.
    Wion, § 149, 3.
    Wiseman, § 202, 11.
    Wishart, § 139, 8.
    Wislicenus, § 176, 1.
    Witch Hammer, § 117, 4.
      ”   Process, § 117, 4.
    Witsius, § 161, 7; 169, 4.
    Wittenberg, § 120, 3.
         ”      Catech., § 141, 10.
         ”      Concord., § 133, 8.
         ”      Sketch of Reform, § 135, 9.
    Witzel, § 137, 8; 149, 15.
    Wolf, J. Chr., § 167, 4.
    Wolfenbüttel Fragments, § 171, 6.
    Wolff, Chr. v., § 167, 4; 171, 10.
    Wolfgang, William, of Palatine Neuburg, § 153, 1.
    Wolfram of Eschenb., § 105, 6.
    Wöllner, § 171, 5.
    Wolmar, Melch., § 138, 2, 8.
    Wolsey, § 120, 7.
    Woltersdorf [Woltersdorff], § 167, 6, 8.
    Woolston, § 171, 1.
    Worms Edict, § 123, 7.
      ”   Concordat, § 96, 11.
      ”   Consultation, § 137, 6.
      ”   Relig. Confer., § 135, 2.
    Wratislaw, § 79, 3.
    Wulflaich, § 78, 3.
    Wulfram, § 78, 3.
    Württemberg, § 133, 3; 193, 5, 6; 197, 14.
    Würzburg, Bish. Congress, § 192, 4.
    Wyttenbach, Dan., § 169, 6.
         ”      Thomas, § 130, 1.


    Xavier, § 119, 8; 150, 1.
    Xenaias, § 59, 1.
    Ximenes, § 117, 2; 118, 7; 120, 8, 9.


    Young, Brigham, § 211, 12.
    Yvon, § 163, 8.


    Zacharias, Pope, § 78, 5, 6; 82, 1.
        ”      of Anagni, § 67, 1.
    Zapolya, § 139, 20.
    _Zelatores_, § 98, 4.
    Zell, Matt., § 125, 1.
    Zeller, Ed., § 182, 9; 199, 4.
    _Zelus domus Dei_, § 153, 2.
    Zeno, Philos., § 8, 4.
      ”   Emp., § 52, 5.
      ”   of Verona, § 47, 14.
    Zenobia, § 32, 8.
    Zephyrinus, § 33, 3, 5; 41, 1.
    Zeschwitz, § 182, 14.
    Ziegenbalg, § 167, 9.
    Zillerthal, § 198.
    Zimmermann, § 178, 1; 182, 2.
    Zinzendorf, § 168; 170, 2, 3; 171, 3.
    Zionites, § 170, 4.
    Ziska, § 119, 7.
    Zollikofer, § 171, 7.
    Zosimus, § 46, 5; 53, 4.
    Zschokke, § 176, 1.
    Zulu Kaffres, § 184, 3.
    Zürich, § 130, 2; 199, 4.
    Zwick, § 143, 2.
    Zwickau, Prophets of, § 124, 1.
    Zwingli, § 130; 131, 1; 132, 4.




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




                              FOOTNOTES.


    [1] Dowling, “Introduction to Study of Eccl. Hist.; its
          Progress and Sources.” Lond., 1838.
        Smedt, “Introd. generalis ad Hist. Eccl. critice
          tractandam.” Gandavi, 1876.

    [2] See Sermon on The Pharisees in Mozley’s “Univ. Sermons.”
          Lond., 1876; also
        Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 1-43, “Pharisees and
          Sadducees.”

    [3] See Lightfoot, _Ep. to the Col._, 5th ed., Lond., 1880,
          Diss. on “Essenes, their Name, Origin, and Relation to
          Christianity.” pp. 349-419; also
        Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 188-218, “The Essenes.”

    [4] Nutt, _Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and
          Literature_. Lond., 1874.

    [5] On Philo, see Schürer, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 321-381.

    [6] J. Bannerman, “The Church of Christ.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1868.
        Jacob, “Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament.”
          Lond., 1871.
        Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Chr. Churches.”
          Lond., 1881; 2nd ed., 1883.
        D. D. Bannerman, “The Doctrine of the Church.”
          Edin., 1887.
        Hodge, “The Church and its Polity.” Edin., 1879.
        Binnie, “The Church.” Edin., 1882.
        Pressensé, “Life and Pract. of Early Church.” Lond., 1879.
        Lightfoot, “Comm. on Philip.” “Essay on Christian
          Ministry.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881, pp. 181-269.

    [7] Mommsen, “De collegiis et sodaliciis Rom.” Kiel, 1843.
        Foucart, “Les associat. relig. chez les Grecs.”
          Paris, 1873.
        Hatch, “Organization of Early Chr. Churches.” pp. 26-39.

    [8] Lightfoot, “Epistle to Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881,
          p. 95. Detached notes on the synonyms “bishop” and
          “presbyter.” “Diss. on Christian Ministry.”
          pp. 187-200.

    [9] Blondel, “Apologia pro sententia Hieron. de episcop. et
          presbyt.” Amst., 1646.

   [10] The φίλημα ἅγιον of Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.

   [11] Of these we probably find fragments in Eph. ii. 14;
          1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13; and perhaps also in
          1 Tim. iii. 1, 16; Jas. i. 17; Rev. i. 4; iv. 11; v. 9;
          xi. 15; xv. 3; xxi. 1; xxii. 10.

   [12] Acts ii. 4, 6; xx. 7.

   [13] John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10.

   [14] Acts ii. 39; xvi. 33; 1 Cor. vii. 14.

   [15] Acts viii. 17; vi. 6; xiii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14.

   [16] On the subject of this section consult:
        Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” Vol. 2,
          “Apostolic Age.” Lond., 1879, pp. 361-381.
        Lechler, “Apostolic and Post Apostolic Times.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1886; Vol. i., pp. 37-67, 130-144.

   [17] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829.

   [18] As authorities for this period consult:
        Moshemii, “Commentarii de reb. Christianor. ante
          Constant.” Helmst., 1753.
        Baur, “First Three Centuries of the Christian Church.”
          Lond., 1877.
        Milman, “Hist. of Chr. to Abol. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.”
          3 vols., Lond., 1840.
        Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” 4 vols.,
          Lond., 1879.

   [19] Consult:
        Killen, “The Ancient Church.” Edin., 1859; “The Old
          Catholic Church.” Edin., 1871.
        Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apost. Times.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1886; Vol. ii., pp. 260-379.
        Robertson, “Hist. of Chr. Church.” Vol. i., (A.D. 64-590),
          Lond., 1858.

   [20] Although the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages are
        sharply enough distinguished from one another in point
        of time and of contents along many lines of historical
        development, and are rightly partitioned off from each
        other, so that they might seem to require treatment as
        independent periods; yet, on the one hand, passing over
        from the one to the other is so frequent and is for the
        most part of so liquid and incontrollable a nature, while
        on the other hand, the opposition of and the distinction
        between these two periods and the œcumenical Catholic
        Imperial Church that succeeds are so thorough-going,
        that we prefer to embrace the two under one period and
        to point out the boundary lines between the two wherever
        these are clearly discernible.

   [21] Inge, “Society in Rome under the Cæsars.” Lond., 1887.

   [22] Uhlhorn, “Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism.”
        Steere, “Account of the Persecutions of the Church under
          the Roman Emperors.”

   [23] Renan, “Antichrist.” Lond., 1874.
        Merivale, “Hist. of Rom. Emp.” Vols. v. vi.,
          Lond., 1856, 1858.
        Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity.” Lond., 1884;
          Bk. I., pp. 1-44.
        Mommsen, “Hist. of Rome.” 6 vols., Lond., 1875 ff.

   [24] Renan, “Marcus Aurelius.” Lond., 1883.
        Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885.

   [25] Lightfoot, “Ignatius.” Vol. i., pp. 469-476.

   [26] “Kirchengesch. v. Dtschl.” I. 94.

   [27] Mason, “The Persecution of Diocletian.” Cambridge, 1876.

   [28] Cotterill, “Peregrinus Proteus.” Edin., 1879; Engl.
          Transl. of Lucian’s works, by Dr. Francklin, 4 vols.,
          Lond., 1781.

   [29] Baur, “Christian Church in First Three Centuries.”
          Lond., 1877.
        “Celsus and Origen.” in vol. iv. of Froude’s “Short
          Studies.”

   [30] Philostratus, “Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” First 2 bks.,
          Transl. by Blount, Lond., 1680.
        Newman, “Hist. Sketches.” Vol. i., chap. ii., “Apollonius
          of Tyana.”

   [31] The works of Plotinus consist of 54 treatises arranged
          in 6 Enneads, “Opera Omnia.” ed. Creuzer, 3 vols.,
          Oxon., 1835. Several of the treatises transl. into
          English by H. Taylor, Lond., 1794 and 1817.

   [32] Zeller, “History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy.”
          Lond., 1831.
        Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” Lond., 1872; Vol. i.,
          pp. 240-252.

   [33] “Narratio orig. rituum et error. Christianor. S. Joannis.”
          Rom., 1652.

   [34] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886; Vol. viii., p. 120.

   [35] In de Sacy’s “Chrestom. Arabe.” 2 ed., I. 333.

   [36] 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19; Gal. ii. 9.

   [37] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829.
        Zeller, “Acts of the Apostles.” 2 vols., London,
          1875, 1876.
        Pressensé, “Apostolic Age.” London, 1879, pp. 66-73;
          318-330.

   [38] Neander’s “First Planting of Christianity and
          Antignostikus.” (Bohn), 2 vols., Lond., 1851.
        Mansel, “Gnostic Heresies of First and Second Centuries.”
          Ed. by Bishop Lightfoot, Lond., 1875.
        King, “Remains of the Gnostics.” Lond., 1864;
          new ed., 1887.
        Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 280-290.

   [39] These are published among the works of Origen. Recently
        Caspari discovered an admirable Latin translation of them
        made by Rufinus, and published it in his “Kirchenhist.
        Anecdota.” I., (Christ., 1883).

   [40] Lipsius, “Valentinus and his School.” in Smith’s “Dict.
          of Biography.” Vol. iv., Lond., 1887.

   [41] In Cureton’s “Spicil. Syr.” Lond., 1855.

   [42] In its extant Coptic form, ed. by Petermann, Brl., 1851.
        In a Latin transl. by Schwartze, Brl., 1853.
        In English transl. in King’s “Remains of the Gnostics.”
          Lond., 1887.

   [43] Yet the school of Baur regard this Gospel of Marcion as
          the original of Luke. Hilgenfeld thinks that both our
          Luke and Marcion drew from one earlier source. Hahn
          has sought to restore the Marcionite Gospel in Thilo’s
          “Cod. Apoc. N.T.” I. 401.
        Sanday, “Gospels in the Second Century.” London, 1876.

   [44] Salmon, “Introd. to the N.T.” London, 1885, pp. 242-248.
        Reuss, “Hist. of N.T.” Edin., 1884, §§ 291, 246, 362, 508.

   [45] Lightfoot, “Comm. on Galatians.” Camb., 1865; Diss.
          “St. Paul and the Three.”

   [46] Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apostol. Times.” Vol. ii.,
          p. 263 ff.
        Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886, Vol. viii.,
          p. 152.

   [47] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Vol. viii., p. 122.

   [48] We possess this work in the original Greek. The first
        complete edition was that of Cotelerius in his “Pp.
        Apost.” The latest and most careful separate ed., is by
        Lagarde, Lps., 1865; Eng. transl. in Ante Nicene Lib.,
        Edin., 1871.

   [49] Existing only in the Latin transl. of Rufinus. Published
          in Cotelerius, “Pp. Apost.”
        Separate ed. by Gersdorf, Lps., 1838; Eng. transl.
          Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1867.

   [50] See de Sacy, “Mem. sur diverses antiqu. de la Perse.”
          Par., 1794.
        The most important of these Arabic works are the Literary
          History of An-Naddim, Kitab al Fihrist, ed. Flügel and
          Roediger, Lps., 1871; then
        Al-Shurstani’s “Hist. of relig. and phil. sects.” ed.
          Cureton, Lond., 1842; and
        Al-Biruni’s “Chron. d. Orient Völker.” ed. Sachau,
          Lps., 1878.

   [51] Among the Mandeans _mana rabba_ means one of the highest
          æons, and is thus perhaps identical with the name
          Paraclete borrowed from the Christian terminology,
          which Manes assumed.

   [52] Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 290-325. Patristic. Phil. down to Council of Nicæa.

   [53] Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Lond., 1874.
        Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome.” 2 vols., Lond., 1869, 1877;
          Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 vols., Lond., 1885.
        Sanday, “The Gospels in the Second Century.” Lond., 1876.

   [54] Luke i. 1; § 32, 4; 36, 7; 59, 1.

   [55] “Patrum Apost. Opera.” Ed. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn,
          3 vols., Lps., 1876 ff.
        “Apostolic Fathers.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Library,
          Edin., 1867.
        Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Edin., 1874.

   [56] At Constantinople, 1875.

   [57] Comp. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome, An Appendix.” etc.,
          Lond., 1877.

   [58] Donaldson, “History of Christian Literature.” Vol. i.,
          Lond., 1864.
        Cunningham, “Dissertation on Epistle of St. Barnabas.”
          Lond., 1877.

   [59] “Hermæ Pastor.” ed. Hilgenfeld, 2 ed., Lps., 1881. Down
          to the middle of the 19th century it was known only in
          a Latin translation, but since then the Greek original
          has been accessible in two recensions, as well as
          in an ancient Ethiopic translation (ed. d’Abbadie,
          Lps., 1860). One of the Greek recensions almost complete
          was found in the monastery of Athos; and an older, but
          less perfect one, was found in the _Codex Sinaiticus_.
        Schodde, “Hermâ Nabî; The Ethiopic version of Pastor
          Hermæ examined.” Lps., 1876.

   [60] Comp.
        Harnack in _Expositor_ for March, 1886, pp. 185-192.
        Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” Lond., 1885, vol. ii.,
          pp. 433-470.

   [61] Cureton, “Corpus Ignatianum.” (Rom., Eph., and Ep. to
          Polyc.), Lond., 1819.

   [62] Against their genuineness:
        Dallæus, “De scrr. quæ sub Dionysii et Ignatii nom.
          circumfer.” Gen., 1666.
        Killen, “Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious.”
          Edin., 1886.

        In favour:
        Pearson, “Vindiciæ St. Ignat.” Cantab., 1672.
        Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885.

   [63] Salmon, “Introd. to the New Testament.” Lond., 1885,
          pp. 104-126.
        Sanday, “Gospels in Second Century.” Lond., 1876.

   [64] Schaff, “The Oldest Church Manual.” Edin., 1886.
        Hitchcock and Brown, “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.”
          New York, 1884.
        Taylor, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles with Illus.
          from the Talmud.” Cambr., 1886.
        _Expositor_, April and June, 1886, pp. 319 f. and
          401 ff.; Nov., 1887, pp. 359-371.

   [65] Donaldson, “Hist. of Chr. Lit. from death of App. to Nic.
          Council.” 3 vols., Lond., 1864, Vols. ii. and iii.,
          “The Apologists.”

   [66] The Syriac translation of a treatise of Melito’s given
          in Cureton’s “Spicileg. Syr.” Lond., 1853, which gives
          itself out as an address delivered before Antoninus
          Cæsar, is not identical with his Apology to Antoninus
          Pius, of which Eusebius has preserved three fragments,
          as these passages are not found in it.

   [67] The fragments of Melito’s works are collected by Routh,
          “Reliquiæ Sacr.” L., Oxon., 1814.

   [68] “Opera.” ed. Otto, 3 vols., Jena, 1876; Engl. transl. in
          Ante-Nicene Library, Edin., 1867.
        Semisch, “Just. Mart.” 2 vols., Edin., 1843.
        Kaye, “Writings and Opin. of Just. Mart.” Lond., 1853.

   [69] Salmon, “Introd. to New Test.” On Tatian, pp. 96-104.
        Wace on “Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron.” in _Expositor_
          for Sept. and Oct., 1882.

   [70] Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.” Bampton
          Lect. for 1886, Oxf., 1886.
        Kingsley, “Alexandria and her Schools.” Camb., 1854.

   [71] “Opera.” ed. Harvey, Cantab., 1857; Introd. II.
        “Life and Wr. of Irenæus.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene
          Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1868, 1869.
        Lightfoot, “Churches of Gaul.” in _Contemp. Review_,
          Aug. 1876.
        Lipsius, “Irenæus.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Biog.”
          III., pp. 253-279.

   [72] Many works ascribed to him have been lost; whatever fragments
          of these exist have been collected by Fabricius and Lagarde.
          These were:
            _Exeget._, a Com. on Daniel;
            _Apolog._, Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους;
            _Polem._,
              against Gnostics and Monarchians,
              against the Asiatic Observance of Easter (§ 37, 2);
            _Dogmat._,
              Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάντος οὐσίας,
              Περὶ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου,
              Περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως (§ 22, 4),
              Περὶ χαρισμάτων;
            Hist.-chron.,
              Chronicle, and Easter-Canon.
        On Philosophoumena:
          Döllinger, “Hippolytus and Callistus.” Edin., 1876.

   [73] “Opera.” ed. Dindorf, 4 vols., Oxon., 1868.
        “Supplementum Clementinum, in Zahn’s Forsch.” Vol. iii.,
          Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1867.
        Bigg, “Chr. Plat. of Alex.” Lectt. II. III., Oxf., 1886.
        Kaye, “Clement of Alexandria.” London, 1855.
        Reuss, “Hist of Canon.” Edin., 1884, pp. 112-116.

   [74] Jerome reckons them at 2,000; Epiphanius at 6,000; these
          must include the thousands of separate epistles and
          homilies.
        Bigg, “Chr. Platonists of Alex.” Lectt. IV.-VI.,
          Oxf., 1886.

   [75] _Hexaplorum quæ supersunt._ Ed. Field, Oxon., 1871.

   [76] Ed. Selwyn, Cantab., 1876; Engl. transl. of C. Celsum
          and De Principiis, in Ante-Nicene Library, 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1869-1872.

   [77] “Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alex. and Archelaus.”
          transl. by Prof. Salmond, Edin., 1871.

   [78] Neander, “Antignosticus, or the Spirit of Tertull.”
          appended to “Hist. of Planting of Chr. Church.”
          2 vols., Lond., 1851.
        Kaye, “Eccles. Hist. of 2nd and 3rd Cents. illustr. from
          Wr. of Tertull.” 2 ed., Camb., 1829.
        Tertullian, “Works.” 3 vols., Ante-Nicene Lib.,
          Edin., 1869.

   [79] “Cyprian’s Treatises and Epistles.” Lib. of Fathers,
          2 vols., Oxf., 1839, 1844.
        “Writings of Cyprian.” Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1868.
        Poole, “Life and Times of C.” Oxf., 1840.
        Pressensé, “Martyrs and Apologists.” Lond., 1879,
          pp. 414-438.

   [80] Dillmann, “Pseudepigraph. des A. Ts.” Herzog, xii. 341.
        Reuss, “Hist. of the N. T.” Edin., 1884.
        Salmon, “Introd. to N. T.” 2nd ed., Lond., 1886.

   [81] “Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. V.T.” Ed. 2., Hamb., 1722.

   [82] Drummond, “Jewish Messiah.” Lond., 1877.
        Lawrence, “Book of Enoch.” Oxf., 1821.
        Schodde, “Bk. of Enoch.” Andover, 1882.
        Schurer, “Hist. of Jew. Peo. in Times of J. Chr.”
          Div. II., Vol. 3., pp. 59 ff., 73 ff., 93 ff., 134 ff.;
          (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.).
        Bensly, “Missing Fragment of Lat. Transl. of 4th Bk. of
          Ezra.” Cambr., 1875.

   [83] Sinker, “Test. XII. Patriarchum.” Cambr., 1869;
          Appendix, 1879.
        Malan, “Book of Adam and Eve.” Lond., 1882.
        Hort on Bks. of Adam, in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Biog.”
          Lond., 1877.

   [84] Salmon, “Introd. to N.T.” Lond., 1885; Lect. XII.,
          “Apoc. and Her. Gospels.” pp. 226-248.

   [85] Nicholson, “The Gosp. acc. to the Hebrews.” Lond., 1879.

   [86] Giles, “Cod. Apoc. N. T.” 2 vols., Lond., 1852.
        Tischendorf, “Evv. Apocr.” Ed. 2, Lps., 1876.

   [87] Wright, “Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.” Syriac and
          English, 2 vols., Lond., 1871.
        Malan, “The Conflicts of the Holy Apostles.” Lond., 1871.
        Tischendorf, “Acta app. Apocr.” Lps., 1851.

   [88] Phillips, “Addai the Apostle.” Syriac and English,
          Lond., 1876.

   [89] Lightfoot, “Comm. on Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881; “Diss.
          on Paul and Seneca.” pp. 270-328; “Letters of Paul
          and Seneca.” pp. 329-333.
        Lightfoot, “Comm. on Col.” 5 ed., Lond., 1880;
          pp. 274-300, “The Epistle from Laodicea.”

   [90] Dorner, “Hist. of Dev. of Doctr. of Person of Chr.”
          5 vols., Edin., 1862.
        Pressensé, “Heresy and Christian Doctrine.” Lond., 1879.

   [91] Deut. xviii. 15; Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xii. 32; Luke i. 35;
          John viii. 40; Acts ii. 22; 1 Tim. ii. 5.

   [92] Tertullian says: _Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ
          procuravit, prophetiam expulit et hæresim intulit,
          paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit._--Ps.-Tertull.:
          _Hæresim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare
          curavit._

   [93] Dorner, “Person of Christ.” Vol. ii.

   [94] Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.”
          Lond., 1872.

   [95] Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Christian
          Churches.” Lond., 1881; “The Growth of Church
          Institutions.” Lond., 1887.
        Bannerman, “Doctr. of the Church.” 2 vols., Edin., 1858;
          espec. vol. i., pp. 277-480.
        Lightfoot, “Comm. on Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881:
          “Dissertat. on Chr. Ministry.”
        Papers in _Expositor_, 1887, on “Origin of Chr. Ministry.”
          by Sanday, Harnack and others.

   [96] We are not carried further than this by Irenæus, iii. 3.
        Similarly, too, Cyprian, _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_, iv.
        Tertullian also does not accept the Roman tradition
        as of supreme authority, but prefers that of Asia
        Minor in regard to the Easter Controversy, and, in the
        _De Pudicitia_, he opposes with bitter invective the
        penitential discipline of the Roman bishop Zephyrinus or
        Callistus. So, too, Cyprian repudiates the Roman practice
        in regard to heretics’ baptism (§ 35, 5); and on the same
        subject Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia hesitates not
        to write: _Non pudet Stephanum, Cyprianum pseudo-christum
        et pseudo-apostolum et dolosum operarium dicere:
        qui omnia in se esse conscius prævenit, ut alteri
        per mendacium objiceret, quæ ipse ex merito audire
        deberet._--Consult:
        Blondel, “Traité hist. de la primauté.” Gen., 1641.
        Salacious, “De Primatu Papæ.” Lugd. Bat., 1645.
        Kenrick, “The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated.”
          New York, 1848.
        “The Pope and the Council.” by Janus, Lond., 1869.

   [97] Wall, “Hist. of Infant Baptism.” with Gale’s Reflections,
          and Wall’s Defence, 4 vols., Oxf., 1836.
        Wilberforce, “Doctr. of Holy Baptism.” Lond., 1849.

   [98] Funk’s assertion that the ἀκροᾶσθαι and the γονυκλίνειν
          were not stages in the Catechumenate, but penal ranks
          in which offending Catechumens were placed, and that
          there was only one order of Catechumens is untenable
          for these reasons:

          1. Because the penitential institution presupposes a
             falling away from the grace of baptism;

          2. Because the Canon of Neo-Cæsarea with its
             κατηχούμενος ἁμαρτάνων, ἐὰν μὲν γονυκλίνων, ἀκροάσθω,
             necessarily implies that γονυκλίνειν is a stage in
             the Catechumenate;

          3. Because this Canon provides that after the first
             penal procedure, not after passing through two
             penitential orders, the sinner will be expelled;

          4. Finally, because the γονυκλίνειν of the Catechumens,
             just like that of the congregation in prayer, is
             even in expression something quite different from
             the ὑπόπτωσις of the penitents.--Consult:

        Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.”
          Lond., 1879, pp. 5-36, 333.

   [99] Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.”
          pp. 201-216, 263-286.
        Lechler, “Apostolic and Post-Apost. Times.” 2 vols.,
          Edin., 1886; Vol. ii. 298.
        Jacob, “Ecclest. Polity of N. T.” Lond., 1871,
          pp. 187-319.

  [100] Jacob, “Ecclest. Polit. of N.T.” Lond., 1871, Lect. vii.,
          “The Lord’s Supper.”
        Waterland, “Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist.”
          Lond., 1737.

  [101] See, _De Doctr. Christiana._ II. ii. 15.--“Old Latin
          Biblical Texts.” Edited by John Wordsworth, Bp. of
          Salisbury, Oxford, 1885, etc.

  [102] Lechler, “Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times.”
          Edin., 1886, Vol. ii., pp. 301-310.

  [103] Bosio, “Roma Sotteranea.” Rom., 1632.
        De Rossi, “Roma sott. crist.” 3 vols., Rome, 1864-1877.
        Northcote and Brownlow, “Roma Sotteranea.” Lond., 1869.
        Withrow, “The Catacombs of Rome.” Lond., 1876.

  [104] Marriott, “Testimony of the Catacombs.” Lond., 1877.

  [105] Zöckler, “The Cross of Christ.” Lond., 1877.
        Allen, “Early Christian Symbolism.” Lond., 1887.
        Didson, “Chr. Iconography.” 2 vols., Lond., 1886.

  [106] Schmidt, “The Social Results of Early Christianity.”
          Lond., 1886.
        Brace, “Gesta Christi.” Lond., 1883.
        Uhlhorn, “Chr. Charity in the Ancient Church.”
          Edin., 1883.
        Pressensé, “Life and Practice in Early Church.”
          Lond., 1879, pp. 345-477.
        Ryan, “Hist. of the Effects of Relig. upon Mankind.”
          Dublin, 1820.

  [107] Morinus, “De discipl. in administr. s. pœnitentiæ.”
          Par., 1651.
        Marshall, “Penitential Discipline of the Prim. Church for
          the First Four Centuries.” Lond., 1844 (1st ed., 1718).
        Tertullian, “De Pœnitentia.” See Transl. in Library of
          Fathers, Tertullian, vol. i., “Apologetic and Practical
          Treatises.” Oxf., 1843; XI. Of Repentance, with long
          and valuable notes by Dr. Pusey, pp. 349-408.

  [108] J. de Soyres, “Montanism and the Primitive Church.”
          Cambr., 1878.
        Cunningham, “The Churches of Asia.” Lond., 1880,
          p. 159 ff.

  [109] Bunsen, “Hippolytus and his Age.” Lond., 1854.
        Wordsworth, “St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.”
          Lond., 1852.
        Döllinger, “Hippolytus and Callistus.” Edin., 1876
          (orig. publ. 1853).

  [110] “Library of Fathers.” Oxf., 1843, Cyprian’s Treatises:
           v.“On Unity of the Church.” vi. “On the Lapsed.” with
          prefaces.
        Also, “Epp. of S. Cyprian.” (1844) xli.-xlv., lii.
          and lix.

  [111] “Library of Fathers.” Oxf., 1844; “Epp. of S. Cyprian.”
          Ep. lii., also Ep. lv.

  [112] Merivale, “Conversion of the Roman Empire.” Lond., 1864.
        Milman, “Hist. of Christianity to Abol. of Pag. in Rom.
          Emp.” 3 vols., Lond.
        Lecky, “Hist. of Eur. Morals.” Vol. ii., “From Constantine
          to Charlemagne.”

  [113] Döllinger, “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle
          Ages.” Lond., 1871.

  [114] Original source is Eusebius, “Life of Constantine.”
          Trans. Lond., 1842.
        See interesting lect. on Constantine in Stanley’s “Hist.
          of Eastern Church.” Lond., 1861.
        Madden, “Christian Emblems on Coins of Constantine I.”
          Lond., 1878.

  [115] Neander, “The Emperor Julian and his Generation.”
          Lond., 1850.
        G. H. Rendall, “The Emperor Julian.” Lond., 1879.
        Newman, “Miracles in Eccl. Hist.” Oxf., 1842.
        Bp. Wordsworth, “Julian.” in Smith’s Dict. of Biog.,
          vol. iii., pp. 484-523.

  [116] On this whole period consult: Histories of Theodoret,
          Sozomen, Socrates, and Evagrius (containing much
          fabulous matter, but useful as contemporary records
          extending down to A.D. 594). Transl. in 4 vols.,
          Lond., 1812-1846.
        For Theodosius I. see Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.”
          vol. ii., p. 341 ff., Edin., 1876.

  [117] A careful reconstruction of the whole as far as
          possible has been attempted by Neumann (Leipz., 1880),
          accompanied by prolegomena and a German translation.

  [118] Hefele, “Hist. of Church Councils.” Edin., 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 1-48.
        Pusey, “Councils of Ch. from A.D. 51 to A.D. 381: their
          constit., obj., and history.” Oxf., 1857.

  [119] Its original form is probably preserved in a Syriac
          translation; see Bunsen’s “Analecta Antenicæna.”
          ii. 45-338, Lond., 1854.

  [120] First published in the Greek original by Bickell under
          the title, inapplicable to the first part: Αἱ διαταγαὶ
          αἱ διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγίων
          ἀποστόλων.

  [121] Maitland, “The Dark Ages.” Lond., 1844.
        Ozanam, “Hist. of Civilization in 5th Cent.” Transl.
          by Glyn, 2 vols.
        Montalembert, “Monks of the West, from Benedict to
          Bernard.” 7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff.

  [122] Stephens, “Chrysostom: his Life and Times.” 3rd ed.,
          London, 1883, pp. 59 ff., 294 ff.

  [123] Hatch, “Organization of the Early Christian Churches.”
          London, 1881, pp. 124-139.
        Hatch, “Ordination.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Bibl. Antiq.”
          Vol. ii.

  [124] Hatch, “Organization of Chr. Ch.” p. 161.
        Bede, “Eccles. Hist.” iv. 1.

  [125] Dale, “Synod of Elvira, and Christ. Life in the 4th cent.”
          London, 1882.
        Lea, “Hist. of Sacerdotal Celibacy.” Philad., 1867.
        Lecky, “Hist. of Europ. Morals.” London, 1877, Vol. ii.,
          pp. 328 ff.
        Hefele, “Hist. of Christ. Councils.” Edin., 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 150, 380, 435.

  [126] Neale, “Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church.” 5 vols.,
          London, 1847-1873.
        Stanley, “Lect. on the Eastern Church.” London, 1861.

  [127] Greenwood, “Cathedra Petri: Pol. Hist. of Great Latin
          Patriarchate from 1st to 16th cent.” 6 vols., London,
          1856 ff.

  [128] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. ii., Edin., 1876,
          pp. 231 ff., 483 ff.

  [129] Comp. Döllinger, “Fables Respecting the Popes of the
          Middle Ages.” Lond., 1871.

  [130] Milman, “Latin Christianity.” Vol. i.

  [131] Bright, “Hist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.” 2 ed.,
          Cambr., 1869.
        Milman, “Latin Christianity.” Vol. i.

  [132] Kellett, “Pope Gregory the Great and his Relations with
          Gaul.” (Cambridge Essays, No. ii.), Cambridge, 1889.

  [133] Engl. Transl.:
        “Eccles. Hist. with Life of Euseb. by Valesius.”
          Lond., 1843.
        “Theophania, or Div. Manifest. of the Lord.” from Syr.
          by Dr. Sam. Lee, Lond., 1843.
        “Life of Constantine.” Lond., 1844.
        “Life of Eusebius.” by Bright, prefixed to Oxf. ed.
          of Eccl. Hist. of 1872.

  [134] “Festal Epp. of Athanasius.” (transl. from Syriac
          discovered in 1842 by Tattam, and first edited by
          Cureton in 1848), Oxf., 1854.

  [135] “Treatises against Arians.” 2 vols., Oxf., 1842 (new ed.,
          1 vol., 1877).
        “Historical Tracts.” Oxf., 1843; “Select Tracts,” with
          Newman’s Notes, 2 vols., Lond., 1881.

  [136] Newman’s, “Hist. Sketches.” Vol. ii., chap. v; Sketches
          of Basil, Gregory, etc. Originally publ. under title
          “Church of the Fathers.” Lond., 1842.

  [137] Ullmann, “Gregory Nazianzen.” Oxford, 1855; and Newman
          “Church of the Fathers.”

  [138] Cyril’s Comm. on Luke is transl. from the Syriac by
          Dr. Payne Smith, Oxf., 1859.

  [139] A very full and admirable account of Synesius and his
          writings is given by Rev. T. R. Halcomb in Smith’s
          “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” Vol. iii., pp. 756-780.

  [140] Neander, “Life of Chrysostom.” Lond., 1845.
        Stephens, “Life of Chrysostom.” 3rd ed., Lond., 1883.
        Chase, “Chrysostom: a Study.” Cambr., 1887.
        His Homilies and Addresses are transl. in 15 vols. in
          the “Lib. of the Fathers.” Oxf., 1839-1851.
        Various Eng. translations of the tract “On the
          Priesthood.”

  [141] Newman’s “Historical Sketches.” Vol. ii., chap. i.,
          “Theodoret.”

  [142] Translated by Dean Church in “Lib. of the Fathers.”
          Oxf., 1838; with interesting and instructive Preface
          by Newman.

  [143] Ueberweg, “Hist. of Philosophy.” Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,
          pp. 349-352.
        Colet, “On the Hierarchies of Dionysius.” ed. by
          Lupton, Lond., 1869.
        Wescott, “Dionysius the Areopagite.” in _Contemp.
          Review_ for May, 1867.

  [144] Etheridge, “The Syrian Churches: their Early Hist.,
          Liturg. and Lit.” Lond., 1846.

  [145] Morris, “Select Writings of Ephraim the Syrian.”
          Oxford, 1817.
        Burgess, “Repentance of Nineveh, Metrical Homily by
          Ephraem.” Lond., 1853.
        “Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Eph. Syr.”
          Lond., 1853.

  [146] Newman, “Church of the Fathers.” 2nd ed., London, 1842.
          Reprinted in Hist. Sketches, vol. ii.
        Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” London, 1844.

  [147] “Lib. of Fathers.” in vol. of Cyprian’s Epps., Oxf., 1844,
          pp. 318-384. For phrase quoted, see p. 322.

  [148] A good account of the writings of Jerome is given by the
          late Prof. William Ramsay in Smith’s “Dict. of Grk. and
          Rom. Biogr.” Vol. ii., p. 460.
        Milman, “Hist. of Chr.” Vol. iii., ch. xi.
        Cutts, “St. Jerome.” Lond., 1877.
        Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” Lond., 1844.

  [149] Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” London, 1844.

  [150] Newman’s “Arians of the 4th Century.” London, 1838.
        Gwatkin, “Studies of Arianism.” Camb., 1882.
        Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vols. i. ii., Edin.,
          1872, 1876.
        Newman’s “Tracts Theolog. and Eccles.” Chap. ii.; Doctrinal
          Causes of Arianism.
        “Select Treatises of Athanasius.” Ed. by Newman, 2 vols.,
          London, 1881, Vol. 2 containing notes on Arius,
          Athanasius, etc.

  [151] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” I., pp. 231-447.
        Kaye, “Hist. of Council of Nicæa.” London, 1853.
        Tillemont, “Hist. of Arians and Council of Nice.”
          London, 1721.

  [152] Newman’s “Select Treat. of Athanasius.” Vol. ii., p. 196 f.
        Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. ii., Edin., 1876, p. 193.

  [153] Newman’s “Select Treat. of Athanasius.” Vol. ii., p. 282 ff.
        Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 217.

  [154] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., pp. 340-373.
        Hort, “Two Dissertations.” ii., On the Constantinople Creed
          and other Eastern Creeds of the 4th cent., Camb., 1874.

  [155] Swete, “The Hist. of the Doctr. of the Procession of the
          Holy Spirit from Apost. Age to Death of Charlemagne.”
          Cambr., 1876.
        Pusey, “On the clause ‘And the Son.’” Oxf., 1876.

  [156] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 348 ff., § 97, The
          Tome and the Creed.

  [157] Stephens, “Chrysostom.” pp. 287-305.
        Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 430 ff.

  [158] The most useful and complete account of Chrysostom is
          that of Stephens. Consult also Milman, “Hist. of Chr.”
          Vol. iii., pp. 206 ff.

  [159] Dorner, “Hist. of the Development of the Doctr. of the
          Person of Christ.” 5 vols., Edin., 1861.

  [160] Newman, “Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical.”
          Chap. iii., Apollinarianism.

  [161] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. iii., pp. 1-156.

  [162] Most informing about all these transactions is Hefele, “Hist.
          of Councils.” iii., Edin., 1883; (Robber Synod, p. 241 ff.;
          Chalcedon, p. 451 ff.).
        Perry, “Second Council of Ephesus.” London, 1877.
        Bright, “Hist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.” Cambr., 1869.

  [163] Butler, “Ancient Coptic Churches.” 2 vols., London, 1884.

  [164] Döllinger, “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle
          Ages.” Lond., 1871.
        Willis, “Pope Honorius and the New Roman Dogma.” Lond., 1879.
        Bottalla, “Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and
          History.” London, 1868.

  [165] Wiggers, “Augustinianism and Pelagianism.” Andover, 1840.
        Müller, “Chr. Doctrine of Sin.” 2 vols., Edin., 1868.
        Ritschl, “Hist. of Chr. Doctr. of Justific. and
          Reconciliation.” Edin., 1872.

  [166] Laidlaw, “The Bible Doctrine of Man.” Edin., 1879.
        Heard, “Tripartite Nat. of Man.” 3rd ed., Edin., 1870,
          pp. 189-200.
        Delitzsch, “Biblical Psychology.” 2nd ed., Edin., 1869,
          pp. 128-142.
        Beck, “Outlines of Biblical Psychology.” Edin., 1877, p. 10.

  [167] For an entirely different representation of the Augustinian
          system see Cunningham, “S. Austin and his Place in Hist.
          of Chr. Thought.” Lond., 1886; esp. chaps. ii. and iii.,
          pp. 45-107.
        A good outline and defence in Hodge’s “System. Theol.”
          Edin., 1874, Vol. ii., pp. 333-353.
        Mosheim, “Eccl. Hist.” ed. by Dr. J. S. Reid, Lond., 1880,
          p. 210, notes 3 and 4; (pt. II., chap. v., § 25.)
        Mozley, “Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination.”
          Lond., 1855.

  [168] Hodge, “Systematic Theology.” Vol. ii., pp. 166-168.

  [169] Lardner, “Credibility of the Gospel Hist.” Vol. iv.,
          London, 1743.

  [170] Butcher, “The Ecclesiastical Calendar.” London.
        Hampson, “Medii Ævi Kalend.”

  [171] Gieseler, “Ecclesiastical History.” Edinburgh, 1848,
          Vol. ii., pp. 141-145.

  [172] Tyler, “Image Worship of Ch. of Rome contrary to Scripture
          and the Prim. Ch.” London, 1847.

  [173] Tyler, “Worship of Virgin Mary contrary to Script. and
          Faith of Ch. of first 5 Cents.” London, 1851.
        Clagett, “Prerogatives of Anna the Mother of God.”
          London, 1688. Also by same: “Discourse on Worship of
          Virgin and Saints.” London, 1686.

  [174] Cosin, “Scholastic History of Popish Transubstantiation.”
          Lond., 1676.

  [175] Reuss, “History of the N.T. Scriptures.” Edin., 1884,
          § 377.
        Keil, “Introduction to the O.T.” Edin., 1870, Vol. ii.,
          pp. 201-203.

  [176] Swainson, “The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds.” Camb., 1875.
        Westcott, “The Historic Faith.” Lond., 1883, note iii.,
          the Creeds.
        Harvey, “Hist. and Theology of the three Creeds.”
          Camb., 1854.
        Hort, Two Dissertations: II. “The Constantinopolitan Creed
          and the Eastern Creeds of 4th cent.” Camb., 1876.
        Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” Edin., 1877, vol. i.
        Lumby, “History of the Creeds.” Camb., 1873.
        Waterland, “Crit. Hist. of Athanasian Creed.” Camb., 1724.
        Heurtley, “The Athanasian Creed.” Oxf., 1872.
        Ommaney, “Ath. Creed: an Exam. of Recent Theories
          respecting its Date and Origin.” Lond., 1875.

  [177] Neale, “Hymns of the Eastern Church.” Lond., 1863.
        “Mediæval Hymns and Sequences.” Lond., 1863.
        Gieseler, “Ecclesiastical History.” Vol. iii., p. 353.

  [178] Hawkins, “History of Music.” Lond., 1853.

  [179] Hammond, “Ancient Liturgies.” Oxf., 1878.
        Neale and Littledale, “Translations of Primitive Liturgies.”
          Lond., 1869.
        Neale, “Essays on Liturgiology.” Lond., 1867.

  [180] Marriott, “Vestiarium Christianum: Origin and gradual
          development of Dress of Holy Ministry of Church.”
          Lond., 1868.

  [181] Woltmann and Woermann, “History of Painting.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1886; vol. i., “Anc., Early Chr. and Mediæval
          Painting.” ed. by Prof. Sidney Colvin.
        “Handbook of Painting: Italian Schools. Based on Kügler’s
          Handbook.” by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard, 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1886.

  [182] Ozanam, “Hist. of Civilization during the 5th Century.”
          2 vols.
        Lecky, “Hist. of European Morals.” Vol. ii.

  [183] Smith’s “Dictionary of Christian Biography.” vol. iii.,
          p. 367.

  [184] Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” Lond., 1840.

  [185] Gieseler, “Eccl. Hist.” ii. 148.

  [186] Ludolphus, “History of Ethiopia.” London, 1684.

  [187] Malan, “Gregory the Illuminator: his Life and Times.”
          London, 1868.
        Article by Lipsius on Eznik in Smith’s “Dictionary of Chr.
          Biography.” Vol. ii., p. 439.

  [188] Muir, “Life of Mohammed and Hist. of Islam.” 4 vols., Lond.
        Bosworth Smith, “Mohammed and Mohammedanism.” Lond., 1874.
        Mühleisen-Arnold, “Islam, its Hist., Chr. and Rel. to
          Christianity.” 3rd ed., Lond., 1874.
        Deutsch, “Literary Remains: Islam.” Lond., 1874.
        Stephens, “Christianity and Islam.” Lond., 1877.
        Mills, “Hist. of Mohammedanism.” Lond., 1817.

  [189] Muir, “Annals of the Earlier Khalifate.”

  [190] Finlay, “Hist. of Greece from Rom. Conquest.” 7 vols.,
          Lond., 1864, new ed., 1877; vols. ii. and iii.
        Bower’s “Lives of Popes.” Vols. iii. and iv., Lond., 1754.
        Comber, “Disc. on 2nd Council of Nicæa.” Reprinted in
          Gibson’s “Preserv. from Popery.” Lond., 1848.
        Didron, “Christian Iconography.” 2 vols., Lond., 1886.

  [191] Mendham, “The Seventh General Council, the Second of
          Nicæa.” in which the worship of images was established.

  [192] Allatius, “De eccl. occid. et orient. perpetua
          consensione.” Colon., 1669.
        Swete, “Hist. of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.”
          Camb., 1876.
        Ffoulkes, “Christendom’s Divisions.” London.
        Neale, “Holy Eastern Church.” 5 vols., London, 1847.

  [193] Popoff, “Hist. of Council of Florence.” Transl. from
          Russian by Neale, London, 1861.

  [194] Lupton, “St. John of Damascus.” London, 1882.

  [195] Badger, “The Nestorians and their Rituals.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1852.

  [196] Baring-Gould, “Curious Myths of the Middle Ages.”
          Lond., 1881.

  [197] Murawieff, “Hist. of the Church of Russia.” Trans. from
          the Russ., Lond., 1842.
        Romanoff, “Sketches of the Rites and Customs of the
          Græco-Russian Church.” Lond., 1869.

  [198] Potthast, “Biblioth. Hist. Modii Ævi.” Berol., 1862, with
          suppl. in 1868.
        D’Achery, “Vett. Script. Spicilegium.” (1655), 3 vols.,
          Par., 1783.
        Eccard, “Corpus Hist. Medii Ævi.” 2 vols., Lps., 1723.
        Du Chesne, “Hist. Francorum Serr.” 5 vols., Par., 1636.
        Parker, “Rer. Brit. Serr. Vetust.” Lugd. B., 1587.
        Gale, “Hist. Brit., Saxon., Anglo-Dan. Scrr.” 2 vols.,
          Oxf., 1691.
        Wharton, “Anglia Sacra.” 2 vols., Lond., 1691.
        Wilkins, “Conc. Brit. et Hib.” 4 vols., Lond., 1737.
        Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccles. Documents.”
          (Revision of Wilkins), Lond., 1879 ff.
        Maitland, “The Dark Ages: Essays on the State of Relig. and
          Lit. in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Centuries.” Lond., 1844.

  [199] Bryce, “The Holy Roman Empire.” Lond., 1866.
        Ranke, “History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations.”
          Lond., 1886.

  [200] Ebrard, “Christian Apologetics.” 3 vols., Edin., 1886-1887,
          Vol. ii., p. 407; “The Religion of the Germans and that
          of the Slavs.”

  [201] Mallet, “Northern Antiquities.” London, 1848.
        Hallam, “Europe during the Middle Ages.”
        Guizot, “Hist. of Civiliz. in Europe.”

  [202] Hodgkin, “Italy and her Invaders: A.D. 376-476.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1880.

  [203] Scott, “Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths.” Cambr., 1885.
        Douse, “Introduction to the Gothic of Ulfilas.” London, 1886.
        Bosworth’s “Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels.” Oxf., 1874.

  [204] Gibbon, “Decline and Fall of Roman Empire.” Chaps. xxxiii.,
          xxxvi., xxxvii.

  [205] Freeman, “Historical Essays.” 3rd series, Lond.; “The Goths
          at Ravenna.”

  [206] Ussher, “Brit. Eccl. Antiqu.” Lond., 1639.
        Perry, “Hist. of English Church.” i., Lond., 1882.
        Lanigan, “Eccl. Hist. of Ireland.” 4 vols., 2nd ed.,
          Dublin, 1829.
        Stokes, “Ireland and the Celtic Ch.” Lond., 1886.
        Lingard, “Hist. and Antiqu. of Anglo-Sax. Ch.” 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1845.
        Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Edinb., 1865.
        Reeves, “The Culdees of the British Islands.” Dublin, 1864.
        Skene, “Celtic Scotland.” 3 vols., Edin., 1876; 2 ed., 1886.
        Bright, “Chapters of Early Eng. Ch. Hist.” Oxf., 1878.
        Pryce, “Ancient British Church.” Lond., 1886.

  [207] Todd, “Life of St. Patrick.” Dublin, 1864.
        Cusack, “Life of St. Patrick.” Lond., 1871.
        O’Curry, “Lects. on Anc. Irish History.” Dublin, 1861.
        Writings of St. Patrick. Transl. and ed. by Stokes and
          Wright, Lond., 1887.

  [208] Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 145-205.
        Adamnan, “Life of Columba.” Ed. by Dr. Reeves, Dublin, 1857.
        Smith, “Life of Columba.” Edin., 1798.
        Forbes, “Lives of Ninian, Columba, Kentigern.” in series of
          Historians of Scotland.

  [209] Ussher, “Discourse of the Religion anciently Professed by
          the Irish and British.” Lond., 1631.
        Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 239-250.
        Warren, “Ritual and Liturgy of the Celtic Church.”
          Oxf., 1881.

  [210] Soames, “The Anglo-Saxon Church.” 4th ed., Lond., 1856.
        Stanley, “Historical Memorials of Canterbury.” Lond., 1855.
        Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury.” Vol. i.
        Sharon Turner, “Hist. of Anglo-Saxons to the Roman
          Conquest.” 6 ed., 3 vols., Lond., 1836.

  [211] Lappenburg, “Anglo-Saxon Kings.” Lond., 1845.
        Bede, “Eccles. History.” Book III.
        Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 217-238.

  [212] Gildas († A.D. 570), “De excidio Britanniæ.” Engl. transl.
          by Giles, London, 1841.
        Bede († A.D. 735), “Eccles. Hist. of Engl.” Transl. by
          Giles, London, 1840.

  [213] Lanigan, “Eccl. Hist. of Ireland.” iii., ch. 13.
        Innes, “Ancient Inhab. of Scotland.” in the Series of
          Historians of Scotland.

  [214] Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” p. 435.
        Reeves, “The Culdees of the British Islands.” Dublin, 1864.
        Robertson, “Scotland under her Early Kings.” Edin.,
          2 vols., 1862.

  [215] Merivale, “Conversion of the Northern Nations.”
          London, 1866.
        Maclear, “Apostles of Mediæval Europe.”

  [216] That he first received the Latin name after his consecration
        as bishop in A.D. 723 is rendered more than doubtful by
        the fact that it is found in letters of earlier date. It
        is probably only a Latinizing of the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid
        or Wynfrith (from Vyn=fortune, luck, health; frid or
        frith=peace; therefore: peaceful, wholesome fortune)
        into the name, widely spread in Christian antiquity, of
        _Bonifatius_ (from _bonumfatum_, Greek: Eutyches, good
        luck). But the transposition into the form Bonifacius
        which might seem the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon word
        “Benefactor” of the German people, is first met with,
        although even then only occasionally, in the 8th century,
        but afterwards always more and more frequently, and then
        is given to the popes and other earlier bearers of the name.
        By the 15th century the original and etymological style of
        writing the name and that used in early documents had been
        completely discarded and forgotten, till modern philology,
        diplomatics and epigraphies have again clearly vindicated
        the earlier form.

  [217] Wright, “Biog. Britannica Literaria.” Lond., 1842.
        Cox, “Life of Boniface.” Lond., 1853.
        Hope, “Boniface.” London, 1872.
        Maclear, “Apostles of Mediæval Europe.”

  [218] Trench, “Lectures on Mediæval Church History.” Lond., 1877.
        Hardwick, “History of Christian Church during Middle Ages.”

  [219] Mosheim, “Eccl. Hist.” Ed. by Reid, London, 1880, p. 285,
          Cent. viii., pt. ii., ch. 5.
        Wright, “Biographia Brit. Literaria.” London, 1842.

  [220] Milman, “Hist. of Latin Christianity.” Vol. ii., Trench’s
        “Lectures on Mediæval Church History.”

  [221] “William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of Kings of England.”
          Bk. I., ch. 4.

  [222] Freeman, “Historical Essays.” 2nd series: “The Southern
          Slavs.”

  [223] Adam of Bremen, “Gesta Hammaburgensia.” A.D. 788-1072.
        Pontoppidan, “Annales Eccles. Danicæ.” Copenhag., 1741.
        Merivale, “Conversion of the Northern Nations.”
          London, 1865.

  [224] Geijer, “History of the Swedes.” Transl. by Turner,
          Lond., 1847.

  [225] Muir, “Annals of Early Khalifate.”
        Ockley, “Hist. of Saracens and their Conquests in Syria,
          Persia and Egypt.”

  [226] Condé, “History of Dominion of Arabs in Spain.” 3 vols.
        Freeman, “Hist. and Conquests of the Saracens.” 2nd ed.,
          Lond., 1876.
        Abd-el-Hakem, “History of the Conquest of Spain.” Tr. from
          Arabic by Jones, Gött., 1858.

  [227] Kingsley, “Roman and Teuton.” Lectures in Univ. of Cambr.:
          “The Popes and the Lombards.”

  [228] Crakenthorp, “The Defence of Constantine, with a Treatise
          on the Pope’s Temporal Monarchy.” Lond., 1621.

  [229] Platina, “Lives of Popes.” Under John VII.
        Bower, “Lives of Popes.” Vol. iv.
        Blondel, “Joanna Papissa.” Amst., 1657.
        Hase, “Church History.” New York, 1855, p. 186.

  [230] Cunningham, “Discussions on Church Principles.”
          Edin., 1863, pp. 101-163; “Temporal Supremacy of the Pope
          and Gallican Liberties.”
        Barrow, “Pope’s Supremacy.” London, 1683.

  [231] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” ch. viii., National
          Churches, pp. 139-154.

  [232] Hefele, “History of Councils.” iii. 69, 131, 149.
        Field, “Of the Church.” Reprint by Eccl. Hist. Society,
          5 vols., London, 1847; vol. iii., pp. 7, 245 ff.
        Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” ch. vii., The
          Metropolitan, pp. 128-135.

  [233] Lea, “Studies in Church History.” Philad., 1869.
        Lecky, “History of European Morals.” 3rd ed., 2 vols.,
          London, 1877.

  [234] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” London, 1887,
          p. 43.

  [235] Marriott, “Vestiarium Christianum.” P. 187 ff.,
          London, 1868.

  [236] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. v., The Parish,
          pp. 89-97.

  [237] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. ix., The
          Canonical Rule, pp. 157-172; Ch. x., The Cathedral
          Chapter, pp. 175-190.

  [238] Hatch, “Growth of Ch. Instit.” Ch. xi., The Chapter of the
          Diocese, pp. 193-208.
        Stubbs, “Constit. Hist. of England.” Vol. iii.

  [239] Walcott, “Cathedralia.”
        _Ibid._, “Sacred Archæology.”
        Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. iii., Fixed
            Tenure of Parish Priest; Ch. iv., The Benefice.

  [240] Lecky, “Hist. of Europ. Morals.” ii., 183-248.
        Montalembert, “Monks of West from Benedict to Bernard.”
          7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff.

  [241] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. vi., Tithes and
          their Distribution, pp. 101-117.

  [242] Roth, however, regards this _divisio_ as putting a complete
        stop to the secularization of church property.

  [243] Hatch, “Growth of Ch. Institutions.” Ch. iv., The Benefice,
          pp. 61-77.
        Art. “Benefice.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Antiquities.”

  [244] Ayliffe, “Parergon Juris Canonici.” Lond., 1726.
        Guizot, “Hist. of Civilization.” Transl. by Hazlitt,
          Lond., 1846.
        Walcott, “Sacred Archæology.”

  [245] Blondel, “Pseudo-Isid. et Turrianus vapulantes.”
          Genev., 1628.

  [246] Hopkins, “The Organ, its hist. and construct.” Lond., 1855.

  [247] Guest, “History of English Rhythms.” Vol. ii.,
          London, 1838.
        Wright, “Biogr. Brit. Lit. Anglo-Saxon Period.”
          London, 1842.
        Thorpe, “Cædmon’s Paraphrase in Anglo-Saxon with Engl.
          Transl.” London, 1832.
        Conybeare, “Illustr. of Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” London, 1827.

  [248] Evans, “Treatise on Chr. Doct. of Marriage.” New
          York, 1870.
        Hammond, “On Divorces.” In his Works, vol. i.,
          London, 1674.
        Cosin, “Argument on the Dissolution of Marriage.” Works,
          vol. iv., Oxf., 1854.
        Tertullian, Treatise in “Lib. of Fath.” Oxf., 1854, with
          two Essays by Pusey, “On Second Marriages of the Clergy.”
          and “On Early Views as to Marriage after Divorce.”

  [249] Babington, “Influence of Chr. in promoting the Abolition
          of Slavery in Europe.” London, 1864.
        Edwards, “Inquiry into the State of Slavery in the Early
          and Middle Ages of the Christian Era.” Edin., 1836.

  [250] Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Antiq.” Vol. i., pp. 785-792; Arts.:
          “Hospitality, Hospitals, Hospitium.”


  [251] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccl. Documents.”
          Vol. iii., Oxf., 1871.

  [252] Barington, “Lit. Hist. of the Middle Ages.” Lond., 1846.
        Hallam, “Europe in Middle Ages.” 2 vols., Lond., 1818.
        Trench, “Lect. on Med. Ch. Hist.” Lond., 1877.

  [253] Lorentz, “Life of Alcuin.” Transl. by Slee, Lond., 1837.

  [254] Kingsley, “Roman and Teuton: Paulus Diaconus.”

  [255] Hampden, “The Scholastic Philosophy in its rel. to Chr.
          Theology.” Oxf., 1833.
        Ueberweg, “Hist. of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 358-365.

  [256] Mullinger, “Schools of Charles the Great and Restoration
          of Education in the 9th cent.” Cambr., 1877.

  [257] Cassiodorus’ work in 12 bks., _De rebus gestes Gotorum_,
          has indeed been lost, but about A.D. 550 Jornandes, who
          also used other documents, embodied this work in his
          _De Getarum orig. et reb. gestis_.

  [258] Gildas wrote about A.D. 560 his: _Liber querulis de
          excidio Britanniæ_ (Eng. transl. in “Six Old English
          Chronicles.” London, Bohn).

  [259] Nennius wrote about A.D. 850 his: _Eulogium Britanniæ s.
          Hist. Britonum_ (Engl. transl. in “Six Old Engl. Chron.”).

  [260] Collected Ed. of Alfred’s works, by Bosworth, 2 vols.,
          Lond., 1858.
        Fox, “Whole Wks. of Alfred the Great, with Essays on Hist.,
          Arts and Manners of 9th cent.” 3 vols., Oxf., 1852.
        Spelman, “Life of Alfred the Great.” Oxf., 1709.
        Pauli, “Life of Alfred the Gt.” transl. with Alfred’s
          Orosius, Lond., 1853.
        Hughes, “Alfred the Great.”
        Giles, “Life and Times of King Alfred the Great.”
          Lond., 1848.

  [261] Robertson, “Hist. of Chr. Church.” Vol. ii., London, 1856;
          pp. 154 ff.
        Dorner, “Hist. Development of Person of Chr.” Div. II.,
          vol. i.

  [262] Ussher, “Gotteschalci et controv. ab eo motæ hist.”
          Dubl., 1631.

  [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.

  [445] Merimée, “The Russian Impostors: the False Demetrius.”
          London, 1852.

  [446] Neale, “History of the Holy Eastern Church.” Vol. ii.,
          p. 356 ff.
        Cyrillus Lucaris, “_Confessio Christianæ Fidei_.”
          Geneva, 1633.
        Smith, “_Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario_.” London, 1707.

  [447] Stevens, “Life and Times of Gustavus Adolphus.”
          New York, 1884.
        Trench, “Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and other Lectures
          on the Thirty Years’ War.” London.
        Gardiner, “The Thirty Years’ War” in “Epochs of Modern
          History.” London, 1881.

  [448] Bray, “Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes.”
          London, 1870.
        Poole, “History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion.”
          London, 1880.
        Agnew, “Protestant Exiles from France in the Reign of
          Louis XIV.” 3 vols., London, 1871.
        Weiss, “History of French Protestant Refugees.”
          London, 1854.

  [449] Macaulay, “History of England from the Accession of
          James II.” London, 1846.
        Hassencamp, “History of Ireland from the Reformation to
          the Union.” London, 1888.
        Adair, “Rise and Progress of the Presbyterian Church of
          Ireland from 1623 to 1670.” Belfast, 1866.
        Hamilton, “History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland.”
          Edin., 1887.

  [450] Butler, “Life of Hugo Grotius.” London, 1826.
        Motley, “John of Barneveld.” Vol. ii., New York, 1874.

  [451] “An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in
          Matters of Controversy.” London, 1685.
        “Variations of Protestantism.” 2 vols., Dublin, 1836.
        Butler, “Some Account of the Life and Writings of Bishop
          Bossuet.” London, 1812.

  [452] “The Work of John Durie in behalf of Christian Union in
          the Seventeenth Century.” By Dr. Briggs in _Presbyterian
          Review_, vol. viii., 1887, pp. 297-300. To which is
          attached an account by Durie himself, never before
          published, of his own union efforts from July, 1631, till
          September, 1633. See pp. 301-309.

  [453] Clarendon, “History of the Rebellion in England,
          1649-1666.” 3 vols., Oxford, 1667.
        Burnet, “History of his Own Time, 1660-1713.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1724.
        Guizot, “History of English Revolution of 1640.”
          London, 1856.
        Gardiner, “History of England, 1603-1642.” 10 vols.,
          London, 1885.
        Marsden, “History of Early and Later Puritans, down to
          the Ejection of the Nonconformists in 1662.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1853.
        Masson, “Life of Milton.” 4 vols., London, 1859 ff.

  [454] Mitchell, “The Westminster Assembly.” London, 1882.
        Mitchell and Struthers, “Minutes of Westminster Assembly.”
          Edinburgh, 1874.
        Macpherson, “Handbook to Westminster Confession.” 2nd ed.,
          Edinburgh, 1882.
        Hetherington, “History of Westminster Assembly.” 4th ed.,
          Edinburgh, 1878.

  [455] Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1845.
        Guizot, “Life of Cromwell.” London, 1877.
        Paxton Hood, “Oliver Cromwell.” London, 1882.
        Picton, “Oliver Cromwell.” London, 1878.
        Harrison, “Oliver Cromwell.” London, 1888.
        Barclay, “The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
          Commonwealth.” London, 1877.

  [456] Guizot, “Richard Cromwell and the Restoration of
          Charles II.” 2 vols., London, 1856.
        Macpherson, “History of Great Britain from the
          Restoration.” London, 1875.

  [457] Bargraves, “Alexander VII. and His Cardinals.” Ed. by
          Robertson, London, 1866.

  [458] Cunningham, “Discussions on Church Principles.”
          Edin., 1863, chap. v.: “The Liberties of the Gallican
          Church.” Pp. 133-163.

  [459] Von Gebler, “Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia.” Transl.
          by Sturge, London, 1879.
        Madden, “Galileo and the Inquisition.” London, 1863.
        Brewster, “Martyrs of Science.” Edin., 1841.
        Von Gebler denies that any condemnation _ex cathedra_
          was given.

  [460] Wilson, “Life of Vincent de Paul.” London, 1874.

  [461] Marsolier, “Life of Francis de Sales.” Translated by
          Coombes, London, 1812.

  [462] “Golden Thoughts from the ‘Spiritual Guide’ of Molinos.”
          With preface by J. H. Shorthouse, London, 1883.

  [463] Upham, “Life, Religious Opinions, and Experience of
          Madame de la Mothe Guyon, with an account of Fénelon.”
          London, 1854.
        Brooke, “Exemplary Life of the Pious Lady Guion.”
          Bristol, 1806.
        Butler, “Life of Fénelon.” London, 1810.

  [464] Beard, “Port Royal.” 2 vols., London, 1861.
        St. Amour, “Journal in France and Rome, containing Account
          of Five Points of Controversy between Jansenists and
          Molinists.” London, 1664.
        Schimmelpenninck, “Select Memoirs of Port Royal.” Fourth
          edition, 2 vols., London, 1835.


  [465] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 98-251.

  [466] Bruce, “Humiliation of Christ.” P. 131, Edin., 1876.

  [467] Dowding, “German Theology during the Thirty Years’ War:
          Life and Correspondence of G. Calixt.” 2 vols.,
          Oxford, 1863.

  [468] Wildenhahn, “Life of Spener.” Translated by Wenzel,
          Philadelphia, 1881.
        Guericke, “Life of A. H. Francke.” London, 1847.

  [469] Jennings, “The Rosicrucians: their Rites and Mysteries.”
          London, 1887.

  [470] Martensen, “Life and Works of Jacob Boehme.” London, 1886.


  [471] All the translations of hymns referred to in this and the
          preceding section are from Miss Winkworth’s “_Lyra
          Germanica_.” London, 1885.

  [472] The “Works of Arminius.” Transl. by Nicholls, to which
          are added Brandt’s “Life of Arminius.” Etc., 3 vols.,
          London, 1825.
        Scott, “Translation of Articles of Synod of Dort.”
          London, 1818.
        Hales, “Letters from the Synod of Dort.” Glasgow, 1765.
        Calder, “Life of Simon Episcopius.” New York, 1837.
        Cunningham, “Reformation and Theology of Reformation.”
          Essay VIII., “Calvinism and Arminianism.” Pp. 412-470.
        Motley, “John of Barneveldt.” 2 vols., London, 1874.

  [473] Barclay, “The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
          Commonwealth.” Second ed., London, 1877.
        Dr. Stoughton’s “History of Religion in England from
          Opening of Long Parliament to End of Eighteenth Century.”
          London.

  [474] See Macpherson, “Presbyterianism.” (Edin., 1883), pp. 8-10,
          where charges of intolerance such as those made against
          Presbyterianism in the text are repudiated.

  [475] Masson, “Life of John Milton.” 4 vols., London, 1859.
        Pattison, “Milton.” In “English Men of Letters” series,
          London, 1880.

  [476] “_Relquiæ Baxterianæ_: Baxter’s Narrative of most Memorable
          Passages in his own Life.” London, 1696.
        Orme, “Life and Times of Richard Baxter, with Critical
          Examination of his Writings.” London, 1830.
        Stalker, “Baxter” in “Evangelical Succession Lectures.”
          Second series, Edinburgh, 1883.

  [477] Froude disputes this, and says, p. 12, that probably he
          was on the side of the Royalists. Brown has shown it to
          be almost certain that in 1644, not 1642, Bunyan, then
          in his sixteenth year, joined the Parliamentary forces.
          See Brown’s “Life.” Pp. 42-52.

  [478] Brown, “Life of Bunyan.” London, 1885.
        Autobiography in “Grace Abounding.” 1622.
        Southey, “Life of John Bunyan.” London, 1830.
        Macaulay, “Essay on Bunyan.” In _Edinburgh Review_, 1830.
        Froude, “Bunyan,” in “English Men of Letters.” London, 1880.
        Nicoll, “Bunyan,” in “Evangelical Succession Lectures.”
          Third series, Edinburgh, 1883.

  [479] “Life of John Eliot, Apostle of the Indians.” By John
          Wilson, afterwards of Bombay, Edin., 1828.

  [480] Crosby, “History of the English Baptists.” 4 vols.,
          London, 1728.
        Ivimey, “History of the English Baptists from 1688-1760.”
          2 vols., London, 1830.
        Cramp, “History of the Baptists to end of 18th Century.”
          3 vols., London, 1872.

  [481] Backus, “History of the English-American Baptists.”
          2 vols., Boston, 1777.
        Cox and Hoby, “The Baptists in America.” New York, 1836.
        Hague, “The Baptists Transplanted.” Etc., New York, 1846.

  [482] Of special importance for the early history of the
          Quakers are,
        “Letters of Early Friends.” Edited by Robert Barclay,
          a descendant of the Quaker apostle, London, 1841.
        “Fox’s Journal; or, Historical Accounts of his Life,
          Travels, and Sufferings.” London, 1694.
        Penn, “Summary of History, Doctrines, and Discipline of
          Friends.” London, 1692.
        Tallack, “George Fox; the Quakers and the Early Baptists.”
          London, 1868.
        Bickley, “George Fox and the Early Quakers.” London, 1884.
        Stoughton, “W. Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania.” London, 1883.

  [483] Sewel, “History of the Quakers.” 2 vols., London, 1834.
        Cunningham, “The Quakers, from their Origin in 1624 to the
          Present Time.” London, 1868.
        Barclay, “Apology for the True Christian Divinity: a
          Vindication of Quakerism.” 4th ed., London, 1701.
        Clarkson, “A Portraiture of Quakerism.” 3 vols.,
          London, 1806.
        Rowntree, “Quakerism, Past and Present.” London, 1839.

  [484] Heard, “The Russian Church and Russian Dissent.”
          London, 1887.
        Mackenzie Wallace, “Russia.” Chaps. xiv., xx., 2 vols.,
          London, 1877.
        Palmer, “The Patriarch and the Tsar.” 6 vols., London,
          1871-1876.

  [485] Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy.” Vol. ii., pp. 31-135.
        Pünjer, “History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion
          from the Reformation to Kant.” Edin., 1887.
        Pfleiderer, “Philosophy of Religion.” Vol. i., London, 1887.
        Erdmann’s “History of Philosophy.” 3 vols., London, 1889.

  [486] “Bacon’s Works.” Ed. by Spedding, Ellis, and Heath,
          14 vols., London, 1870.
        Spedding, “Letters and Life of Lord Bacon.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1862.
        Macaulay on Bacon in _Edinburgh Review_ for 1837.
        Church, “Bacon,” in vol. v. of “Collected Works.”
          London, 1888.
        Nichol, “Bacon: Life and Philosophy.” 2 vols., Edin., 1888.

  [487] “Descartes’ Method, Meditations, and Principles of
          Philosophy.” Transl. by Prof. Veitch, Edin., 1850 ff.
        Fischer, “Descartes and his School.” London, 1887.

  [488] Willis, “Spinoza: his Ethics, Life, and Influence on Modern
          Thought.” London, 1870.
        Pollock, “Spinoza: his Life and Philosophy.” London, 1880.
        Martineau, “Spinoza.” London, 1882.
        “Spinoza, Four Essays by Land, Von Floten, Fischer, and
          Renan.” Edited by Prof. Knight, London, 1884.

  [489] “Locke’s Complete Works.” 9 vols., London, 1853.
        Cousin, “Elements of Psychology: a Critical Examination of
          Locke’s Essay.” Edin., 1856.
        Webb, “Intellectualism of Locke.” London, 1858.

  [490] Guhrauer, “Leibnitz: a Biography.” Transl. by Mackie,
          Boston, 1845.

  [491] Leland, “View of Principal Deistical Writers in England.”
          2nd ed., 2 vols., London, 1755.
        Halyburton, “Natural Religion Insufficient; or, A Rational
          Inquiry into the Principles of the Modern Deists.”
          Edin., 1714.
        Tulloch, “Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in
          England in the 17th Century.” 2 vols., Edin., 1872.
        Cairns, “Unbelief in the 18th Century.” Chap. ii.,
          “Unbelief in the 17th Century.” Edin., 1881.

  [492] Lecky, “History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of
          Rationalism in Europe.” 2 vols., London, 1873.
        Hagenbach, “German Rationalism.” Edin., 1865.
        Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and 19th Centuries.”
          2 vols., London, 1870.
        Leslie Stephen, “History of English Thought in the
          18th Century.” 2 vols., London, 1876.
        Cairns, “Unbelief in the 18th Century.” Edin., 1881.

  [493] Wilson, “The Christian Brothers, their Origin and Work.
          With a Sketch of the Life of their Founder, the Venerable
          Jean Baptiste de la Salle.” London, 1883.

  [494] Neale, “History of the so called Jansenist Church of
          Holland.” Oxford, 1858.

  [495] Cairns, “Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century.” Chap. iv.,
          “Unbelief in France.” Edinburgh, 1881.
        Morley, “Diderot and the Encyclopedists.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1878.
        Morley, “Voltaire.” London, 1872.
        Lange, “History of Materialism.” 3 vols., London, 1877.

  [496] This saying is usually attributed to Voltaire. He used the
          expression in attacking Pierre Bayle.
        Erdmann’s “Hist. of Phil.” Vol. ii., p. 158.
        Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” Vol. ii., p. 125.

  [497] Pressensé, “The Church and the Revolution.” London, 1869.
        Jervis, “The Gallican Church and the Revolution.”
          London, 1882.

  [498] Hagenbach, “History of Church in the 18th and
          19th Centuries.” Vol. i., pp. 109, 116; 2 vols.,
          New York, 1869.
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii., p. 208.

  [499] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 208-227.

  [500] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 266-279.
        Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and 19th Centuries.”
          Vol. i., pp. 117-127.

  [501] Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 259-261.
        Geffcken, “Church and State.” 2 vols., Lon., 1887; vol. i.,
          pp. 456-503.

  [502] Burney, “Life of Handel.” London, 1784.

  [503] Kelly, “Life and Work of Von Bogatsky: a Chapter from the
          Religious Life of the Eighteenth Century.” London, 1889.

  [504] Hough, “The History of Christianity in India.” 5 vols.,
          London, 1839.
        Sherring, “History of Missions in India.” Edited by Storrow.
          London, 1888.
        Pearson, “Memoirs, Life, and Correspondence of Chr. Fr.
          Schwartz.” Etc., 2 vols., London, 1834.


  [505] Hagenbach, “History of the Christian Church in the 18th
          and 19th Centuries.” New York, 1869; Lectures XVIII.
          and XIX., pp. 398-445.

  [506] Spangenberg, “Life of Count Zinzendorf.” London, 1838.

  [507] Spangenberg, “Account of Manner in which the _Unitas
          Fratrum_ Propagate the Gospel, and Carry on their
          Missions among the Heathen.” London, 1788.
        Holmes, “Historical Sketch of the Missions of the United
          Brethren for the Propagation of the Gospel among the
          Heathen from their Commencement down to 1817.”
          London, 1827.

  [508] “Tersteegen: Life and Character, with Extracts from His
          Letters and Writings.” London, 1832.
        Winkworth, “Christian Singers of Germany.” London, 1869.

  [509] For a slightly different account see Tyerman, vol. i.,
          p. 66.

  [510] Wesley himself continued to preach in the open air till
          nearly the end of the year 1790.

  [511] Further details as to the organization of the societies
          are given in Tyerman, 1st ed., vol. i., pp. 444, 445.

  [512] Southey, “Life of John Wesley.” London, 1820.
        Isaac Taylor, “Wesley and Wesleyanism.” London, 1851.
        Tyerman, “Wesley’s Life and Times.” 2 vols., 4th ed.,
          London, 1877.
        Urlin, “Churchman’s Life of Wesley.” London, 1880.
        Abbey and Overton, “English Church in 18th Century.”
          2 vols., London, 1879.
        Lecky, “History of England in the 18th Century.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1878.
        Stoughton, “History of Religion in England to End of
          18th Century.” 6 vols., London, 1882.
        Jackson, “Life of Charles Wesley.” 2 vols., London, 1841.
        Tyerman, “Life of Whitefield.” 2 vols., London, 1877.
        Macdonald, “Fletcher of Madeley.” London.
        Smith, “History of Methodism.” 3 vols., London, 1857.
        Stevens, “History of Methodism.” 3 vols., New York, 1858.
        Stevens, “History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
          United States.” 4 vols., New York, 1864.
        Bangs, “History of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” 4 vols.,
          New York, 1839.

  [513] Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and 19th Centuries.”
          Vol. i., pp. 159-164.

  [514] Hagenbach, “History of the Church in the 18th and
          19th Centuries.” Vol. i., pp. 168-175.

  [515] Tafel, “Documents concerning the Life and Character of
          Swedenborg.” 3 vols., London, 1875.
        White, “Emanuel Swedenborg, his Life and Writings.”
          2 vols., London, 1867.

  [516] Evans, “Shakers: Compendium of Origin, History, Principles,
          and Doctrines of the United Society of Believers in
          Christ’s Second Coming.” New York, 1859.
        Dixon, “New America.” 2 vols., 8th ed., London, 1869.
        Nordhoff, “The Communistic Societies of the United States.”
          London, 1874.

  [517] Pusey, “Historical Inquiry into the Causes of the Prevalence
          of Rationalism in Germany.” London, 1828.
        Rose, “The State of Protestantism in Germany.” Oxford, 1829.
        Saintes, “A Critical History of Rationalism in Germany, from
          its Origin till the Present Time.” London, 1849.
        Lecky, “History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of
          Rationalism in Europe.” 2 vols., London, 1873.
        Farrar, “Critical History of Free Thought in Reference to
          the Christian Religion.” London, 1863.
        Hagenbach, “German Rationalism.” Edinburgh, 1865.
        Hurst, “History of Rationalism.” New York, 1865.
        Gostwick, “German Culture and Christianity, their
          Controversy, 1770-1880.” New York, 1882.

  [518] Stephen, “History of English Thought in the 18th Century.”
          2 vols., London, 1876.
        Cairns, “Unbelief in the 18th Century.” Edinburgh, 1881.
        Pünjer, “History of Christian Philosophy of Religion from
          Reformation to Kant.” § 5, “The English Deists.”
          Edinburgh, 1887.

  [519] Halliwell, “The Early History of English Freemasonry.”
          London, 1840.

  [520] Ritschl, “History of Christian Doctr. of Justification and
          Reconciliation.” Pp. 347-426.
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 277-292.
        Hagenbach, “History of The Church in The 18th and
          19th Centuries.” Vol. i., pp. 251-321.

  [521] Chalybæus, “Historical Development of Speculative
          Philosophy, from Kant to Hegel.” Edin., 1854.
        Räbiger, “Theological Encyclopædia.” Vol. i., pp. 73-76.

  [522] Stahr, “Lessing: his Life and Works.” Translated by
          G. Evans, 2 vols., Boston, 1866.
        Sime, “Lessing, his Life and Writings.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1877.
        Zimmern, “G. E. Lessing: his Life and Works.” London, 1878.
        Smith, “Lessing as a Theologian.” In the _Theological
          Review_, July, 1868.


  [523] Russell, “A Short Account of the Life and History of
          Pestalozzi.” Based on De Guemp’s “_L’Histoire de
          Pestalozzi_.” London, 1888. To be followed by a complete
          English translation of De Guemp’s work.

  [524] Marshman, “Life and Times of Marshman, Carey, and Ward.”
          2 vols., London, 1859.
        Smith, “Life of William Carey.” London, 1886.
        Wilson, “Missionary Voyage of the Ship _Duff_.”
          London, 1799.
        Morison, “Fathers and Founders of the London Missionary
          Society.” London, 1844.

  [525] Baur, “Religious Life in Germany.” London, 1872,
          pp. 177-196.

  [526] Kahnis, “Internal History of German Protestantism since
          the Middle of Last Century.” Edin., 1856.

  [527] Hagenbach, “History of Church in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
          Centuries.” Vol. ii., pp. 413-416.

  [528] Mombert, “Faith Victorious, being an Account of the Life,
          Labour, and Times of Dr. J. W. Ebel, 1714-1861, compiled
          from authentic sources.” London, 1882.
        Dixon, “Spiritual Wives.” London, 1868.

  [529] Strack, “The Work of Bible Revision in Germany.” In
          _Expositor_, third series, vol. ii., pp. 178-187.

  [530] See papers by Driver, Cheyne, Davidson, Kirkpatrick, in
          _Expositor_ for 1886-1888, on various books in Revised
          Old Testament.
        Westcott, “Some Lessons of Revised Version of New
          Testament.” In _Expositor_, third series, vol. v.,
          pp. 81, 241, 453.
        Jennings and Lowe, “Revised Version of Old Testament:
          a Critical Estimate.” In _Expositor_, third Series,
          vol. ii., pp. 57, etc.

  [531] “Schleiermacher’s Life in Letters.” Translated by Rowan,
          London, 1860.
        Baur, “Religious Life in Germany.” London, 1872, pp. 197 ff.
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” Vol. ii.,
          pp. 374-395.

  [532] Cheyne, “Life and Works of Heinrich Ewald.” In _Expositor_,
          third series, vol. iv., pp. 241 ff., 361 ff.

  [533] There are English translations of his “Life of Christ.”
          “First Planting of Christianity.” “Antignostikus.”
          “History of Christian Dogmas.” “Christian Life in the
          Early and Middle Ages.” All published by Bohn.

  [534] Zeller, “David Frederick Strauss, in his Life and
          Writings.” London, 1874. Translations: “Life of Jesus
          Critically Treated.” 1846; “Life of Jesus for the German
          People.” 1865; “The Old Faith and the New.” 1874; “Ulrich
          von Hutten.” 1874.

  [535] Simon, “Isaac August Dorner.” In _Presbyterian Review_ for
          October, 1887, pp. 569-616.

  [536] Rothe, “Still Hours.” Translated by Miss Stoddart, with
          Introductory Essay on Rothe by Rev. J. Macpherson.
          London, 1886.

  [537] Galloway, “The Theology of Ritschl.” In _Presbyterian
          Review_ for April, 1889, pp. 192-209.

  [538] Series of papers in _Good Words_ for 1860, pp. 377 ff.

  [539] Fleming Stevenson, “The Blue Flag of Kaiserswerth.” In
          _Good Words_ for 1861, pp. 121 ff., 143 ff.

  [540] Owen, “History of the First Ten Years of the Bible
          Society.” 3 vols., London, 1816.

  [541] Wiseman, “Recollections of the Last Four Popes.” 3 vols.,
          London, 1853.
        Mendham, “Index of Prohibited Books by order of
          Gregory XVI.” London, 1840.

  [542] Legge, “Pius IX. to the Restoration of 1850.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1872.
        Trollope, “Life of Pius IX.” 2 vols., London, 1877.
        Shea, “Life and Pontificate of Pius IX.” New York, 1877.

  [543] Geffcken, “Church and State.” Vol. ii., pp. 269-293: “The
          Italian Question and the Papal States.”

  [544] Geffcken, “Church and State.” Vol. ii., pp. 236-238.

  [545] Bridges, “Life of Martin Boos.” London, 1836.

  [546] Hamberger, “Sketch of the Character of the Theosophy
          of Baader.” Translated in _American Presbyterian and
          Theological Review_, 1869.

  [547] Laing, “Notes on the Rise, Progress, etc., of the German
          Catholic Church of Ronge and Czerski.” London, 1845.

  [548] Manning, “The True History of the Vatican Council.”
          London, 1877.
        Pomponio Leto, “The Vatican Council, being the impressions
          of a contemporary (Card. Vitelleschi), translated from
          the Italian with the original documents.” London, 1876.
        Quirinus, “Letters from Rome on the Council.” London, 1870.
        Janus, “The Pope and the Council.” London, 1869.
        Bungener, “Rome and the Council in the Nineteenth Century.”
          Edinburgh, 1870.
        Arthur, “The Pope, the Kings, and the People, a History
          of the Movement to make the Pope Governor of the World,
          1864-1871.” 2 vols., London, 1877.
        Acton, “History of the Vatican Council.” London, 1871.
        Friedrich, “_Documenta ad illum. Conc. Vat._” Nördling, 1871.
        Martin (Bishop of Paderborn), “_Omnium Conc. Vat. quæ ad
          doctr. et discipl. pertin. docum. Collectio_.” 1873.

  [549] Geffcken, “Church and State.” Vol. ii., pp. 501-531.
        Smith, “The Falk Legislation from the Political Point of
          View.” In the _Theological Review_ for October, 1875.

  [550] Geffcken, “Church and State.” 2 vols., London, 1877;
          vol. ii., pp. 488-531.

  [551] The Austrian May Laws were in some respects more sweeping
        than the Prussian (§ 197, 5); but the former were framed
        with reference to the police, the latter with reference to
        the law. In Prussia the decision, judgment, and sentence in
        all cases of contravention and collision were assigned to
        the court of law; in Austria they were assigned to the court
        of administration, in the last instance to the minister. The
        Austrian laws could thus be urged and ignored at pleasure.

  [552] Geffeken, “Church and State.” Vol. ii., pp. 469-488.

  [553] R. J. Sandeman, “Alexander Vinet.” In “Evangelical
          Succession Lectures.” Third Series, Edinburgh, 1884.
        Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology.” ii., 470, 478.

  [554] Cairns, “The Present Struggle in the National Church of
          Holland.” In _Presbyterian Review_ for January, 1888,
          pp. 87-108.
        Wicksteed, “The Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland.”
          London.

  [555] Lumsden, “Sweden, its Religious State and Prospects.”
          London, 1855.

  [556] Stoughton, “Religion in England during the First Half of
          the Present Century, with a Postscript on Subsequent
          Events.” 2 vols., London, 1876.
        Molesworth, “History of England from 1830 to 1874.”
          3 vols., London.

  [557] Littledale, “Church Parties.” Art. in the _Contemporary
          Review_ for July, 1874, pp. 287-320.
        Mozley, “Reminiscences of Oriel College.” London, 1882.

  [558] Newman, “_Apologia pro Vita Sua_.” London, 1864.
        Weaver, “Puseyism, a Refutation and Exposure.” London, 1843.

  [559] The very confused, wholly inadequate, and in some points
          positively incorrect statements in the above paragraph
          may be supplemented and amended by reference to the
          following literature:
        Buchanan, “Ten Years’ Conflict.” 2 vols., Edin., 1852.
        Moncrieff, “Vindication of the Claim of Right.” Edin., 1877.
        Moncrieff, “The Free Church Principle: its Character and
          History.” Edin., 1883.
        Mackerrow, “History of the Secession Church.” Glasgow, 1841.

  [560] Smith’s appointment was to the Lord Almoner’s Professorship,
        with a merely nominal salary; but he was afterwards elected
        to the more remunerative office of University librarian, and
        more recently has succeeded Prof. Wright in the Chair of
        Arabic in the University.

  [561] Jarvis, “The Gallican Church and the Revolution.”
          Pp. 324-395, London, 1882.

  [562] Borrow, “The Bible in Spain.” 2 vols., London, 1843.

  [563] Lendrum, “_Ecclesia Pressa_: or, the Lutheran Church in the
          Baltic Provinces.” In _The Theological Review and Free
          Church College Quarterly_, vol. ii., 310-330.
        C. H. H. Wright, “The Persecution of the Lutheran Church
          in the Baltic Provinces of Russia.” In the _British and
          Foreign Evangelical Review_, January, 1887.

  [564] Baird, “Religion in the United States.” Glasgow, 1844.
        “Progress and Prospects of Christianity in the United
          States.” London, 1851.
        Gorrie, “Churches and Sects in the United States.”
          New York, 1850.

  [565] Stevens, “History of the Episcopal Methodist Church in
          North America.” Philadelphia, 1868.
        Gorrie, “History of the Episcopal Methodist Church in the
          United States.” New York, 1881.

  [566] A full account of the recent development of Protestantism
          in Brazil is given in an article in the _Presbyterian
          Review_ for January, 1889, pp. 101-106: “The Organization
          of the Synod of Brazil,” by Dr. J. Aspinwall Hodge.--On
          15th November, 1889, the emperor was expelled and a
          republic proclaimed.

  [567] Hepworth Dixon, “Free Russia.” 2 vols., London, 1870.
        Heard, “The Russian Church and Russian Dissent.” 2 vols.,
        London, 1887.

  [568] Rowntree, “Quakerism Past and Present.” London, 1859.

  [569] Dixon, “New America.” 2 vols., 8th edition, London, 1869.
        Nordhoff, “The Communistic Societies of the United States.”
          London, 1874.

  [570] Oliphant, “Life of Ed. Irving.” 3rd edition, London, 1865.
        Carlyle, in “Miscellaneous Essays.”
        Brown, “Personal Reminiscences of Ed. Irving.” in
          _Expositor_, 3 ser., vol. vi., pp. 216, 257.
        Miller, “History and Doctrine of Irvingism.” 2 vols.,
          London, 1878.

  [571] Darby, “Personal Recollections.” London, 1881.

  [572] Stenhouse, “An Englishwoman in Utah, the story of a Life’s
          Experience in Mormonism.” 2nd ed., London, 1880.
        Gunnison, “The Mormons.” New York, 1884.
        Burton, “The City of the Saints.” London, 1861.

  [573] Wilson, “The ‘Ever-Victorious Army:’ a History of the
          Chinese Campaign under Lieut.-Col. C. G. Gordon, and of
          the Suppression of the Taeping Rebellion.” Edinburgh.

  [574] Edmonds, “American Spiritualism.” 2 vols., New York, 1858.
        Cox, “Spiritualism answered by Science.” London, 1872.
        Crookes, “Spiritualism and Science.” London, 1874.
        Wallace, “A Defence of Spiritualism.” London, 1874.
        Owen, “The Debatable Land.” New York, 1872.
        Carpenter, “Mesmerism, Spiritualism, etc., Historically and
          Scientifically Considered.” London, 1877.
        Mahan, “The Phenomena of Spiritualism Scientifically
          Explained and Exposed.” London, 1875.
        Horne, “Incidents in His Life.” London, 1863.
        “Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism.” London, 1877.

  [575] Sinnett, “Esoteric Buddhism.” London, 1883.

  [576] Sargent, “Rob. Owen and his Social Philosophy.”
          London, 1860.
        Nordhoff, “Communistic Societies in the United States.”
          London, 1875.

  [577] Onslow-Yorke, “The Secret History of the International
          Working-Men’s Association.” London, 1872.
        Lissagaray, “History of the Commune of 1871.” Translated
          by Aveling, London, 1886.

  [578] From the fifteenth century the numbering of the General
        Councils is so variable and uncertain that even Catholic
        historians are not agreed upon this point. They are at
        one only about this, that the anti-papal councils claiming
        to be œcumenical, of Pisa A.D. 1409, Basel A.D. 1438,
        and Pisa A.D. 1511, should be designated schismatical
        “_Conciliabula_.” Hefele, in his “History of the Councils,”
        counts eighteen down to the Reformation. He makes the
        Constance Council in its first and last sessions the
        sixteenth, but does not count the middle session held
        without the pope. He makes that of Basel the seventeenth
        down to A.D. 1438 with its papal continuation at Ferrara
        and Florence. Finally, as eighteenth he gives the fifth
        Lateran Council of A.D. 1512-1517. But others strike
        Basel and Constance out of the list altogether; and many,
        especially the Gallicans, reject also the fifth Lateran
        Council, because occupied with matters of slight or merely
        local interest.




                         TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES.


  The following corrections have been made in the text:

    § 7, 1.
      Sentence starting: There are mysterious phenomena....
        - added omitted Word ‘to’
          (which seemed to establish)

    § 14.
      Sentence starting: The Levite Barnabas,...
        - ‘ministery’ replaced with ‘ministry’
          (and strengthened his own ministry)

    § 16, 1.
      Sentence starting: That Babylon is mentioned....
        - ‘23’ replaced with ‘13’
          (1 Pet. v. 13)

    § 20.
      Sentence starting: As the history of....
        - ‘beginings’ replaced with ‘beginnings’
          (the beginnings of the church)

    § 25, 2b.
      Sentence starting: The school of Baur....
        - ‘§ 183, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 182, 7’
          (school of Baur (§ 182, 7))

    § 26, 4.
      Sentence starting: The most important of extant....
        - ‘Hippolylus’ replaced with ‘Hippolytus’
          (and of Hippolytus Ἔλεγχος)

    § 27, 2.
      Sentence starting: After him there arose...
        - ‘Hebdomes’ replaced with ‘Hebdomas’
          (the so-called Hebdomas)

    § 27, 11.
      Sentence starting: He consequently developed...
        - ‘irreconcileable’ replaced with ‘irreconcilable’
          (the irreconcilable opposition of righteousness)

    § 31, 1.
      Sentence starting: The latter especially gave....
        - ‘gramatico’ replaced with ‘grammatico’
          (grammatico-historical examination of scripture.)

    § 31, 8.
      Sentence starting: Sextus Julius Africanus,...
        - ‘Septimus’ replaced with ‘Septimius’
          (campaign of Septimius Severus)

    § 32, 6 f.
      Sentence starting: It assigns the founding....
        - ‘§ 12, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 13, 2’
          (Christ’s promise (§ 13, 2).)

    § 35, 2.
      Sentence starting: Only a few unimportant....
        - ‘immobolis’ replaced with ‘immobilis’
          (immobilis et irreformabilis)

    § 38, 1.
      Sentence starting: Thereafter they were used....
        - ‘were’ replaced with ‘where’
          (and spots where martyr’s relics)

    § 40, 1.
      Sentence starting: Themison, Alcibiades’ successor,...
        - ‘ἐπστολή’ replaced with ‘ἐπιστολή’
          (a Καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή,)

    § 40, 4.
      Sentence starting: The following are some of....
        - ‘§ 57, 3’ replaced with ‘§ 37, 3’
          (On _dies stationum_ (§ 37, 3) nothing)

    § 44, 4.
      Sentence starting: But twenty years later....
        - ‘portea’ replaced with ‘postea’
          (esset postea gloriæ)
      Sentence starting: Martin of Tours....
        - ‘§ 47, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 47, 14’
          (Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established)

    § 45, 4.
      Sentence starting: But the Council at Macon....
        - ‘§ 85, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 86, 1’
          (Carolingian legislation (§ 86, 1).)

    § 46, 3.
      Sentence starting: In this year, however,...
        - ‘§ 53, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 50, 2’
          (the Council of Sardica (§ 50, 2),)

    § 46, 6.
      Sentence starting: To his legates at the Council....
        - ‘Ephesns’ replaced with ‘Ephesus’
          (at the Council of Ephesus)

    § 47, 15.
      Sentence starting: He deserves special credit for....
        - ‘§ 69, 4-6’ replaced with ‘§ 59, 4-6’
          (Hymn Composition, § 59, 4-6)

    § 47, 22c.
      Sentence starting: Ordained deacon against his....
      - ‘apocrisarius’ replaced with ‘apocrisiarius’
        (a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople)

    § 48, 2.
      Sentence starting: For the history of heresies....
        - ‘§ 57, 21h’ replaced with ‘§ 47, 21f’
          (the author of _Prædestinatus_ (§ 47, 21f).)

    § 48, 7.
      Sentence starting: This cannot, however, be said....
        - ‘Eutchyes’ replaced with ‘Eutyches’
          (against Nestorius and Eutyches)

    § 50, 4.
      Sentence starting: For the restoration of church....
        - ‘followship’ replaced with ‘fellowship’
          (received back into church fellowship)

    § 50, 6.
      Sentence starting: Basil the Great wrote 4 bks....
        - ‘Eunonius’ replaced with ‘Eunomius’
          (4 bks. against Eunomius)
        - ‘Amphilochum’ replaced with ‘Amphilochium’
          (Ad Amphilochium, against the)

    § 52, 4.
      Sentence starting: He appealed to an œcumenical....
        - ‘§ 467’ replaced with ‘§ 46, 7’
          (to =Leo the Great= (§ 46, 7) at Rome)

    § 52, 5.
      Sentence starting: The strict Monophysites of....
        - ‘Diophysites’ replaced with ‘Dyophysites’
          (at the head of the Dyophysites)

    § 56, 4.
      Sentence starting: The pre-eminence of the Christian....
        - ‘Quadrigesma’ replaced with ‘Quadragesima’
          (the whole Quadragesima season)

    § 59 1,
      Sentence starting: This view prevailed....
        - ‘§ 160, 8’ replaced with ‘§ 161, 8’
          (referred to by the Protestants (§ 161, 8))

    § 59, 4.
      Sentence starting: Under the name of Troparies,...
        - ‘§ 71, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 70, 2’
          (church service of Psalms (§ 70, 2).)

    § 63.
      Sentence starting: Owing to various diversities....
        - ‘§ 61, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 61, 1’
          (and discipline (§ 61, 1),)

    § 67, 7.
      Sentence starting: For the executing of his spiritual....
        - ‘divisons’ replaced with ‘divisions’
          (holders of the four divisions)

    § 71, 1.
      Sentence starting: The Catholic polemists of the....
        - ‘Manichiæan’ replaced with ‘Manichæan’
          (to a Manichæan family)

    § 73, 5.
      Sentence starting: Secret remnants of this sect,...
        - ‘§ 162, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 163, 10’
          (a new departure (§ 163, 10))

    § 76, 8.
      Sentence starting: Pope Gregory the Great,...
        - ‘694’ replaced with ‘604’
          (Gregory the Great, A.D. 590-604)

    § 77.
      Sentence starting: This, however, is certain,...
        - ‘§ 23, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 22, 6’
          (end of the 3rd century (§ 22, 6))

    § 77, 4.
      Sentence starting: Two princes of the Jutes....
        - removed duplicate ‘of’
          (led a horde of Angles and Saxons)

    § 77, 6.
      Sentence starting: His wife Eanfled, Edwin’s daughter....
        - ‘decidly’ replaced with ‘decidedly’
          (most decidedly preferred it)

    § 78, 8.
      Sentence starting: Thus he lets himself be informed....
        - ‘forbiden’ replaced with ‘forbidden’
          (and storks is absolutely forbidden)

    § 86.
      Sentence starting: This institution, however,...
        - ‘ust’ replaced with ‘just’
          (just as they chose)

    § 87, 3.
      sentence starting: Langen fixes the date....
        - ‘§ 290, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 90, 5’
          (to Servatus Lupus (§ 90, 5))

    § 91, 2.
      Sentence starting: At a Synod at Gentiliacum....
        - ‘Gentiliscum’ replaced with ‘Gentiliacum’
          (At a Synod at Gentiliacum)

    § 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))

    § 153, 1.
      Sentence starting: He went over in....
        - ‘superfluous reference - destination uncertain.
          (in A.D. 1590 (§ 144, 4))

    § 154, 1.
      Sentence starting: Landgrave =William IV.= of Hesse-Cassel....
        - ‘§ 142, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 141, 9’
          (_ubiquitous_ Christology (§ 141, 9))
        - ‘§ 142, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 141, 10’
          (_Corpus Doctrinæ Philippicum_ (§ 141, 10))

    § 154, 3.
      Sentence starting: In A.D. 1614, owing to....
        - ‘§ 158, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 159, 5’
          (treatise of Hutter (§ 159, 5))

    § 155.
      Sentence starting: They powerfully strengthened....
        - ‘§ 131, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 6’
          (of the State church (§ 139, 6))

    § 156, 3.
      Sentence starting: Although =Louis XIV.= of France,...
        - ‘164, 7’ replaced with ‘165, 7’
          (against the Jansenists (§§ 156, 5; 165, 7))

    § 160, 4.
      Sentence starting: In Denmark, where previously....
        - ‘§ 166, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 167, 6’
          (Danish national hymnology.[471]--Continuation, § 167, 6)

    § 164, 2.
      Sentence starting: =John Locke=, died A.D. 1704,...
        - Subsection caption added to text.
          (§ 164.2. =John Locke=, died)

    § 165, 1.
      Sentence starting: He had a special dislike....
        - ‘§ 155, 12’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 12’
          (dislike of the Jesuits (§ 156, 12))

    § 165, 8.
      Sentence starting: Its beginning was traced back....
        - ‘§ 188, 20’ replaced with ‘§ 186, 2’
          (rosaries and scapularies (§ 186, 2))

    § 168, 2.
      Sentence starting: The settlers were therefore....
        - ‘§ 166, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 167, 6’
          (pastor of Berthelsdorf (§ 167, 6))

    § 170, 1.
      Sentence starting: He founded several Philadelphian....
        - ‘§ 162, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 163, 9’
          (Philadelphian societies (§ 163, 9))

    § 171, 7.
      Sentence starting: Of far greater value....
        - ‘J. E. Eichhorn’ replaced with ‘J. G. Eichhorn’
          (=J. G. Eichhorn= of Göttingen)

    § 174, 1.
      Sentence starting: =The German Philosophy=....
        - ‘§ 170, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 171, 10’
          (=The German Philosophy= (§ 171, 10))

    § 186, 2.
      Sentence starting: Finally the third French Republic....
        - ‘§ 206, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 203, 6’
          (authorized by the State (§ 203, 6))

    § 203, 1.
      Sentence starting: In 1801 Napoleon as Consul....
        - ‘§ 111, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 110, 14’
          (concordat of Francis I. (§ 110, 14))

    Chronological Table
      Sentence starting: 692. Concilium Quinisextum....
        - ‘§ 63, 3’ replaced with ‘§ 63, 2’
          ((Trullanum II.), § 63, 2.)
      Sentence starting: 960. Atto of Vercelli
        - ‘§ 100, 3’ replaced with ‘§ 100, 2’
          (Vercelli dies, § 100, 2.)
      Sentence starting: 974. Ratherius of Verona....
        - ‘§ 100, 3’ replaced with ‘§ 100, 2’
          (Verona dies, § 100, 2.)
      Sentence starting: 1176. Battle of Legnano,...
        - ‘§ 6, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 96, 15’
          (Battle of Legnano, § 96, 15.)
      Sentence starting: 1248. Foundation stone of Cathedral....
        - ‘§ 101, 11’ replaced with ‘§ 104, 13’
          (Cologne laid, § 104, 13.)
      Sentence starting: 1315. Raimund Lullus dies,...
        - ‘§ 93, 17’ replaced with ‘§ 93, 16’
          (Lullus dies, § 93, 16; 103, 5.)
      Sentence starting: 1321. Dante dies,...
        - ‘§ 116, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 115, 10’
          (Dante dies, § 115, 10.)
      Sentence starting: 1521. Melanchthon’s _Loci_,...
        - ‘§ 121, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 124, 1’
          (Melanchthon’s _Loci_, § 124, 1.)
      Sentence starting: 1609. The Royal Letter,...
        - ‘§ 193, 19’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 19’
          (The Royal Letter, § 139, 19.)
      Sentence starting: 1631. Religious Conference....
        - ‘§ 155, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 154, 4’
          (Conference at Leipzig, § 154, 4.)
      Sentence starting: 1863. Congress of Catholic Scholars....
        - ‘§ 190, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 191, 10’
          (Scholars at Munich, § 191, 10.)

    Index
      Sentence starting: Abyssinian Church,...
        - ‘187, 19’ replaced with ‘184, 9’
          (152, 1; 160, 7; 166, 3; 184, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Accommodation Controversy,...
        - ‘§ 155, 12’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 12’
          (Accommodation Controversy, § 156, 12.)
      Sentence starting: Acosta, Uriel,...
        - ‘§ 155, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 14’
          (Acosta, Uriel, § 156, 14.)
      Sentence starting: Albert of Suerbeer,...
        - ‘92, 12’ replaced with ‘93, 12’
          (Suerbeer, § 73, 6; 93, 12.)
      Sentence starting: Alpers,...
        - ‘§ 208, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 211, 10’
          (Alpers, § 211, 10.)
      Sentence starting: Amort,...
        - ‘§ 164, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 12’
          (Amort, § 165, 12.)
      Sentence starting: Apocrisiarians,...
        - ‘Apocrisarians’ replaced with ‘Apocrisiarians’
          (Apocrisiarians, § 46, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Asinarii,...
        - ‘§ 23, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 23, 2’
          (Asinarii, § 23, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Avitus,...
        - ‘§ 53, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 53, 5’
          (Avitus, § 53, 5; 76, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Baptism,...
        - ‘58, 1, 5’ replaced with ‘58, 1, 4’
          (Baptism, § 35, 2-4; 58, 1, 4; 141, 13.)
      Sentence starting: Bernard Sylvester,...
        - ‘§ 102, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 102, 9’
          (Bernard Sylvester, § 102, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Bonald,...
        - ‘§ 186, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 188, 1’
          (Bonald, § 188, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Calas,...
        - ‘§ 164, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 5’
          (Calas, § 165, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Calixt, Geo.,...
        - ‘158, 2, 8’ replaced with ‘159, 2, 4’
          (Calixt, Geo., § 153, 7; 159, 2, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Charlemagne,...
        - ‘79, 5’ replaced with ‘79, 1’
          (Charlemagne, § 78, 9; 79, 1;)
      Sentence starting: Claudius of Turin,...
        - ‘92, 3’ replaced with ‘92, 2’
          (Claudius of Turin, § 90, 4; 92, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Constantine the Great,...
        - ‘§ 28, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 22, 7’
          (Constantine the Great, § 22, 7;)
      Sentence starting: Cross, Sign of....
        - ‘72, 5’ replaced with ‘73, 5’
          (Sign of the, § 39, 1; 59, 8; 73, 5.)
      Sentence starting: _Defensores_,...
        - ‘§ 45, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 45, 3’
          (_Defensores_, § 45, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Demetrius Mysos,...
        - ‘§ 139, 36’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 26’
          (Demetrius Mysos, § 139, 26.)
      Sentence starting: _De salute animarum_,...
        - ‘§ 193, 11’ replaced with ‘§ 193, 1’
          (_De salute animarum_, § 193, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Dinter,...
        - ‘§ 173, 3; 180, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 174, 8’
          (Dinter, § 174, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Dionysius of Alexandria,...
        - ‘§ 31, 6, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 31, 6; 32, 8;’
          (Dionysius of Alexandria, § 31, 6; 32 8;)
      Sentence starting: Döllinger,...
        - ‘§ 190, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 190, 1’
          (Döllinger, § 190, 1;)
      Sentence starting: East Indies,...
        - ‘155, 11’ replaced with ‘156, 11’
          (East Indies, § 64, 4; 150, 1; 156, 11;)
      Sentence starting: Estius,...
        - ‘§ 150, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 149, 14’
          (Estius, § 149, 14.)
      Sentence starting: Euler,...
        - ‘§ 150, 14’ replaced with ‘§ 171, 8’
          (Euler, § 171, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Fichte, J. G.,...
        - ‘§ 170, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 171, 10’
          (Fichte, J. G., § 171, 10.)
      Sentence starting: Francis, St.,...
        - ‘106, 5’ replaced with ‘105, 4’
          (§ 93, 16; 98, 3; 104, 10; 105, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Franco of Cologne,...
        - ‘§ 144, 11’ replaced with ‘§ 104, 11’
          (Franco of Cologne, § 104, 11.)
      Sentence starting: Gellert,...
        - ‘§ 176, 11’ replaced with ‘§ 171, 11’
          (Gellert, § 171, 11; 172, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Gerbert,...
        - ‘100, 3’ replaced with ‘100, 2’
          (Gerbert, § 96, 2; 100, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Gil, Juan,...
        - ‘§ 129, 21’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 21’
          (Gil, Juan, § 139, 21.)
      Sentence starting: Grabow,...
        - Name not found--Invalid reference.
          (Grabow, § 210, 10.)
      Sentence starting: Gundioch,...
        - Name not found--Invalid reference.
          (Gundioch, § 75, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Hebrews, Gospel of the,...
        - ‘§ 31, 16’ replaced with ‘§ 32, 4’
          (Hebrews, Gospel of the, § 32, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Huguenots,...
        - ‘166, 5’ replaced with ‘165, 5’
          (Huguenots, § 139, 14, ff.; 153, 4; 165, 5.)
      Sentence starting: _In commendam_,...
        - ‘§ 86, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 85, 5’
          (_In commendam_, § 85, 5; 110, 15.)
      Sentence starting: Innocent IV.,...
        - ‘72, 6’ replaced with ‘73, 6’
          (Innocent IV., § 96, 20; 73, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Irene,...
        - ‘§ 66, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 66, 3’
          (Irene, § 66, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Italy,...
        - ‘189, 7’ replaced with ‘187, 7’
          (Italy, § 139, 22; 187, 7; 204.)
      Sentence starting: Jansenists,...
        - ‘§ 157, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 157, 5’
          (Jansenists, § 157, 5; 165, 6.)
      Sentence starting: John of the Cross,...
        - ‘§ 49, 6, 16.’ replaced with ‘§ 149, 6, 16.’
          (John of the Cross, § 149, 6, 16.)
      Sentence starting: Lambeth Articles,...
        - ‘§ 144, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 143, 5’
          (Lambeth Articles, § 143, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Lee, Bishop,...
        - ‘§ 211, 74’ replaced with ‘§ 211, 14’
          (Lee, Bishop, § 211, 14.)
      Sentence starting: Leyser,...
        - ‘§ 155, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 141, 14; 142, 6’
          (Leyser, § 141, 14; 142, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Liptinä, Synod of,...
        - ‘§ 75, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 78, 5’
          (Liptinä, Synod of, § 78, 5; 86, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Loyson,...
        - ‘§ 189, 8’ replaced with ‘§ 187, 8’
          (Loyson, § 187, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Maistre,...
        - ‘§ 187, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 188, 1’
          (Maistre, § 188, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Marcionites,...
        - ‘64, 5’ replaced with ‘64, 3’
          (Marcionites, § 27, 12; 54, 1; 64, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Martyrs, Acts of,...
        - ‘§ 32, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 32, 8’
          (Martyrs, Acts of, § 32, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Montalembert,...
        - ‘§ 189, 9; 190, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 188, 1; 189, 1’
          (Montalembert, § 188, 1; 189, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Mouls,...
        - ‘§ 190, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 190, 3’
          (Mouls, § 190, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Nägelsbach,...
        - ‘§ 173, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 174, 4’
          (Nägelsbach, § 174, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Nectarius,...
        - ‘§ 61, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 61, 1’
          (Nectarius, § 61, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Norwegians,...
        - ‘201, 13’ replaced with ‘201, 3’
          (Norwegians, § 93, 4; 139, 2; 201, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Noyes,...
        - ‘§ 208, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 211, 6’
          (Noyes, § 211, 6.)
      Sentence starting: O’Connell,...
        - ‘§ 199, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 202, 9’
          (O’Connell, § 202, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Οἰκόνομοι,...
        - ‘§ 45, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 45, 3’
          (Οἰκόνομοι, § 45, 3.)
      Sentence starting: Orange,...
        - ‘§ 53, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 53, 5’
          (Orange, Synod of, § 53, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Oratory, Fathers of the,...
        - ‘§ 155, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 7’
          (Oratory, Fathers of the, § 156, 7.)
      Sentence starting: Paul V.,...
        - ‘§ 155, 1, 2, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 156, 1, 2, 4’
          (Paul V., § 154, 1, 2, 4; 149, 13.)
      Sentence starting: Pellico, Silvio,...
        - ‘§ 173, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 174, 7’
        - ‘Pellico-Silvio’ replaced with ‘Pellico, Silvio’
          (Pellico, Silvio, § 174, 7.)
      Sentence starting: Perfectus,...
        - ‘§ 21, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 81, 1’
          (Perfectus, § 81, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Phœbe,...
        - ‘§ 18, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 17, 4’
          (Phœbe, § 17, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Pilate, Acts of,...
        - ‘§ 14, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 13, 2’
          (Pilate, Acts of, § 13, 2; 31, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Poetry, Christian,...
        - ‘173, 6’ replaced with ‘174, 6’
          (Poetry, Christian, § 48, 5, 6; 105, 4; 174, 6.)
      Sentence starting: _Postilla_,...
        - ‘116, 6’ replaced with ‘108, 6’
          (_Postilla_, § 103, 9; 108, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Prochorus,...
        - ‘§ 31, 18’ replaced with ‘§ 32, 6’
          (Prochorus, § 32, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Prosper Aquit.,...
        - ‘53, 8’ replaced with ‘53, 5’
          (Prosper Aquit., § 47, 20; 48, 6; 53, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse,...
        - ‘Raimund of Toulouse, § 109, 4.’ replaced with
            ‘Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse, § 109, 1.’
          (Raymond IV., Count of Toulouse, § 109, 1.)
      Sentence starting: _Recursus ab abusu_,...
        - ‘194, 9’--Invalid reference.
          (_abusu_, § 185, 4; 192, 4; 194, 9; 197, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Revenues of the Church,...
        - ‘45, 6’--Invalid reference.
          (Revenues of the Church, § 45, 6; 86, 1.)
      Sentence starting: Rudolph II.,...
        - ‘§ 129, 19’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 19’
          (Rudolph II., § 139, 19; 137, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Russia,...
        - ‘219, 3, 4’ replaced with ‘210, 3, 4’
          (163, 8; 166; 206; 210, 3, 4; 212, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Sergius I. of Rome,...
        - ‘63, 3’ replaced with ‘63, 2’
          (Sergius I. of Rome, § 46, 11; 63, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Severa,...
        - ‘§ 23, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 22, 4’
          (Severa, § 22, 4; 26.)
      Sentence starting: Stephanas,...
        - ‘§ 18, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 17, 4’
          (Stephanas, § 17, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Switzerland,...
        - ‘189, 7’ replaced with ‘169, 2’
          (§ 78, 1; 130; 138; 162, 6; 169, 2;)
      Sentence starting: Sylvester, Bern.,...
        - ‘§ 102, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 102, 9’
          (Sylvester, Bern., § 102, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Sympherosa,...
        - ‘§ 32, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 32, 8’
          (Sympherosa, § 32, 8.)
      Sentence starting: Thorwaldsen,...
        - ‘§ 173, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 174, 9’
          (Thorwaldsen, § 174, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Turrecremata [Torquemada], John,...
        - ‘112, 14’ replaced with ‘112, 4’
          (John, § 110, 15; 112, 4.)
      Sentence starting: Turretin, J. A.,...
        - ‘§ 164, 1, 6.’ replaced with ‘§ 169, 2, 6.’
          (Turretin, J. A., § 169, 2, 6.)
      Sentence starting: Union, Lutheran Reformed,...
        - ‘§ 155, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 154, 4’
          (Reformed, § 154, 4; 167, 4; 169, 1, 2.)
      Sentence starting: Vienna, Peace of,...
        - ‘§ 139, 40’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 20’
          (Vienna, Peace of, § 139, 20.)
      Sentence starting: Vinet,...
        - ‘§ 129, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 199, 5’
          (Vinet, § 199, 5.)
      Sentence starting: Voltaire,...
        - ‘§ 105, 5, 14, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 165, 5, 14, 15’
          (Voltaire, § 165, 5, 14, 15.)
      Sentence starting: Wechabites,...
        - ‘§ 65, 4’ replaced with ‘§ 65, 1’
          (Wechabites, § 65, 1.)
      Sentence starting: William of Conches,...
        - ‘§ 102, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 102, 9’
          (William of Conches, § 102, 9.)
      Sentence starting: William of Thierry,...
        - ‘§ 102, 2, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 102, 2, 9’
          (William of Thierry, § 102, 2, 9.)
      Sentence starting: William I. of Orange,...
        - ‘§ 129, 12’ replaced with ‘§ 139, 12’
          (William I. of Orange, § 139, 12.)
      Sentence starting: Wittenberg, Sketch of Reform,...
        - ‘§ 135, 13’ replaced with ‘§ 135, 9’
          (Wittenberg, Sketch of Reform, § 135, 9.)
      Sentence starting: Zwickau, Prophets of,...
        - ‘§ 121, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 124, 1’
          (Zwickau, Prophets of, § 124, 1.)

    Footnote 82.
        - ‘Assumtio’ replaced with ‘Assumptio’
          (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.)

    Footnote 251.
        - ‘Hadden’ replaced with ‘Haddan’
          (Haddan and Stubbs)

    Footnote 536.
      - ‘Stoddard’ replaced with ‘Stoddart’
        (Translated by Miss Stoddart,)





End of Project Gutenberg's Church History (Volumes 1-3), by J. H. Kurtz