ing from the decisions of those symbols of creeds which were once deemed infallible rules of faith and practice, and of declaring their dissent in the manner they judge most expedient. Mosheim attributes this change in their sentiments to the maxim which they generally adopted, that Christians are accountable to God alone for their religious opinions,' and that no individual could be justly punished by the magistrate for his erroneous notions, while he conducted himself like a virtuous subject, and made no attempts to disturb the peace of civil society."

It is, accordingly, to the Lutheran branch of the Christian Church that I would look for the first movement towards the reception of New Church truths. That Rationalism has largely sprung from this phase of religious belief in Germany cannot be denied. Still every work of vastation, such as that implied in the ascendency of reason over traditional faith, prepares the way for the true edification of the mind in genuine truths. The Germans, too, are conspicuous among the Continental nations of Europe for their thorough-going earnestness, and for their respect for that which they consider right. The recent legislative measures passed against the noisy minority of Socialists sufficiently prove that for the general welfare of his country the orderly and peace-loving citizen of the Empire consents to the adoption of a policy which he knows can never affect himself or his own family injuriously, because he stands in no danger of contravening the law. He is willing, that is to say, to occupy a position which Englishmen would consider derogatory to all ideas of liberty and justice, by an act which, if applied with harshness, might lead thousands to regard themselves as numbered among the outlaws of their country. He does not resent the power of interference placed in the hands of the State. He has, as it were, lived in a glass house all his life, and he cannot reasonably object to an official visit to his club. He adheres to the principle of right and justice, or that which he considers such. And, as Edward Lytton Bulwer clearly establishes in one of his essays on "England and the English," "a people who respect what they consider good sooner or later discover in what good really consists. Indifference to moral character is a vice: a misunderstanding of its true components is but an error. The agitation of Thought is the beginning of Truth." It may be said that the latter maxim finds but little acceptance in the German State, since Prince Bismarck has resorted to such stringent measures for the suppression of Socialism. But here I would revert to the sentence already quoted from Mosheim, in which he gives us the general opinion held by the German Church, that "no individual can be justly punished by the

magistrate for his erroneous notions, if he conduct himself like a virtuous subject, and make no attempts to disturb the peace of civil society." The repressive steps sanctioned by the German Parliament are directed not against free thought or free speech, so long as these do not tend to the subversion of social order as understood by the consensus of national opinion, but against sedition and rebellion, which, in every community, retard that "agitation of thought" which is "the beginning of truth." The process indicated by Edward Lytton Bulwer has gone on unimpeded in the Lutheran Church. The obstacles to a more spiritual Christianity are being gradually removed, and although the work may be slow, the minds of the people are being prepared for the change. We should never forget that "public opinion at any time," as Archibald Alison says, "is nothing but the reecho of the thoughts of a few great men half a century before it takes that time for ideas to flow down from the elevated to the inferior level. The great men never adopt, they only originate. Their chief efforts are in general made in opposition to the prevailing opinions by which they are surrounded, but they determine that by which they are succeeded." The present state of religious opinion in Germany presents many hopeful features. In Paris, to which I must confine my chief remarks, the members of the French Lutheran Church have done much good work in the past, although, of course, during the FrancoGerman war the congregations were broken up-for by the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany this Church lost its Theological College of Strasburg and saw its Consistories reduced from forty-four to six, and its pastors from two hundred and seventy-eight to sixty-two-but notwithstanding this serious blow to its organization the future is not without promise.

The history of the Lutheran Church in France differs widely from that of the Reformed Church, its adherents having been comparatively exempt from the deadly persecution that marked the early struggles of the sister body. This is due to the fact that the small community of worshippers who, in 1626, met under the presidency of one Jonas Hambri, Professor of Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabian languages at the Paris University, were mostly Germans and Swedes, among whom occur the names of Charles Gustavus (Count Palatine), who succeeded Christina to the throne of Sweden, Oxenstiern, and John Christopher Bismark. The Professor, and those who followed him, after his thirty years' ministry, preached at the Embassy, and here, through more than one Reign of Terror, they escaped molestation. In 1806 a decree of the Emperor gave them a church attached to the Consistorial Church of Strasburg. This, however, was not sufficient for their

requirements, and in 1808, by another decree, they obtained a Consistorial Church of their own, with two pastors. They occupied the old church and cloister of the Billettes, where they opened a free school in 1812, and this was the only Protestant institution of the kind in the city for several years. Three years after its foundation it contained one hundred scholars of both sexes, one-half that number being children of Lutheran parents. Rapid progress was subsequently made, and in 1850 the denomination had six places of worship in Paris, with six pastors and eight schools. Just prior to the disastrous war in 1870 there were twelve pastors, fourteen churches or chapels, and forty-eight schools in the city. At the present time, I believe, there are twelve churches, twenty pastors and curates, and about forty schools. The charities of this Church, the relief of the poor, and the visits paid to hospitals and prisons, are on the same basis as those of the French Reformed Church already described.

One of the most useful Lutheran societies of Paris is one known as the "Comité de Patronage des Apprentis et des Jeunes Ouvriers, et Maison Ouvrière." This association was established in 1847, and has now annually under its protection from seventy to eighty young apprentices or workmen. The aim of its founders was "to exert a moral and Christian influence over youths belonging to the Church, and by its efforts to assist in making them honest workmen, good citizens, and above all faithful Christians." The association secures suitable employment for the children placed under its care, according to the state of their health and their natural aptitude for the work, supervising the terms of the apprentice's contract, and afterwards assigning to him a patron—a member of the association—who watches his interests and gives him timely advice or encouragement, as circumstances permit. These apprentices, who meet on Sunday for moral and religious instruction, are formed into a society of their own, and the solidarity of feeling thus established follows them in after years. The Maison Ouvrière, a sort of workman's home, is another link in the same friendly chain, and is a potent means of keeping many young men out of the snares which would necessarily beset them if they lived in comfortless lodgings, and passed their evenings, out of sheer weariness, at different places of amusement, in search of something like recreation or a mere change-often for the worse rather than the better.

Such institutions as these, and others specially devoted to the industrial training of their inmates-preparing them for different branches of trade-exist in connection with various religious denominations in Paris. Of course the government of each one of them is of the paternal kind. And as the mere mention of paternal

government is sufficient with many in this country to raise a perfect storm of derision, as though all government is not more or less based on the principle so roundly abused, there is some danger lest our insular pride or prejudice should blind us to the examples so worthily set us by our neighbours. As Mr. E. J. Watherston pointed out at the Cheltenham Social Science Congress, the French during the past sixteen years have accomplished great things in training women for employments of a superior kind, and finding work for them when so trained, whilst in the United Kingdom, with a much larger surplus female population, daughters who ought to be taught to work are, through the lack of some central organization, such as that of the Patronage Societies of France, allowed to grow up idle and incompetent. Let us look at the facts. One of the principal societies referred to is presided over by the Archbishop of Paris. Another is under the care of the Jews. By means of these agencies, and those connected with other denominations, 62,000 women were added, between 1860 and 1872, to those employed in Paris industries alone. Since then, it is believed, the movement has made even more rapid strides. Schools for typography, silk-weaving, drawing and modelling, metal-working, watch and clock making, have been founded, the result being that these arts are admirably taught, both theoretically and practically, after a preliminary general education. The payment by fees for pupils is strictly enforced, experience having proved, as Mr. Watherston says, that the root of all honest work is that it must be remunerative. He adds that "there should be union of the managers of training schools with all manufacturers or others wishing to employ female labour, and that the union must aim both to give employment and to advise as to the directions in which it may be sought, and into which it may be extended." The system here recommended is, in fact, based on the principles so wisely laid down (as the result has proved) for the management of the Orphanages established in the early part of the century by the different religious bodies of Paris, and which of late years have served as models for a wider application of industrial training to women, in order to fit them for occupations formerly monopolized by men. H. W. R.

(To be continued.)

SCRAPS OF CHURCH HISTORY.

NO. VIII. MONTANISM.

MONTANISM Originated in the latter half of the second century (many writers fixing the date at A.D. 157, others, including Eusebius, at

A.D. 171) with the teaching of Montanus, a native of Ardabar, in Mysia, on the borders of Phrygia. Montanus was a convert to Christianity, and laid claim to the possession of prophetic and extraordinary inspirational powers, being, he alleged, the Paraclete promised by Christ to reveal to the Church a higher degree of truth than had been vouchsafed to the apostles and their contemporaries. His chief helpers were two Phrygian ladies, known as the Phrygian Prophets, and amongst his followers were Sabellius and Tertullian.

Some writers class Montanus as a heresiarch, while others, including Dr. Pinnock and the writer of the Hulsean Prize Essay for 1877, incline to the opinion that he taught nothing opposed to the creeds of the Church, but chiefly taught the necessity of great changes in matters of external order and church discipline.

The Montanists affected great austerity of life. They refused to associate in church fellowship, or to admit to the communion those who had been guilty of any crime or had contracted second marriages. They also enforced the duty of frequent rigid fasts, and held it to be unlawful to hide themselves or to fly in times of persecution.

But the chief feature of Montanism lay in the claim to superior religious knowledge. The Montanists regarded themselves as the only real Christians, the sole members of "The Church." They regarded themselves as spiritually-minded (pneumatici), and regarded all opponents as carnally-minded (psychici). For some time they were content to mingle with other Christians, not being anxious to separate themselves from the general body of the professed disciples of Christ. It was not until Praxeas, who in common with the great majority of the Church in Asia Minor denied the reality of the prophetic gifts claimed by the Montanists, urged the Bishop of Rome to deny them the privilege of communion, that the Montanists began to form themselves into a separate sect, and laid themselves open to be regarded as schismatics. From this time, though their numbers were large, their power began to decline, and the one sect became many. Many of the prevalent heresies were incorporated with Montanistic views, and the Montanists were declared excommunicated by several councils and bishops.

Möhler classes Swedenborg among the modern Montanists, and Mr. De Soyres, the writer of the Hulsean Prize Essay to which we have alluded, repeats the charge. Swedenborg certainly claims to be the medium through whom the Lord brings to the world a renovated system of religious truth. But in one respect the two teachers are the very opposite of each other. Montanus had no new message except the one to favour his own elevation, whereas Swedenborg sank the