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









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   │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.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




                            CHURCH HISTORY.

                                   BY
                            PROFESSOR KURTZ.


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


                      IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. III.


                           _SECOND EDITION._


                                London:
                         HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

                              MDCCCXCIII.




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




                               CONTENTS.




                            THIRD DIVISION.
                              (Continued.)


                            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.




                            THIRD DIVISION.
                              (Continued.)




                            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.




                              FOOTNOTES.


  [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:

    § 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 536.
      - ‘Stoddard’ replaced with ‘Stoddart’
        (Translated by Miss Stoddart,)





End of Project Gutenberg's Church History, Volume 3 (of 3), by J. H. Kurtz