'hearts shall be manifested.' They were the last words which he spoke.

As soon as their great adversary was removed, the rigid Lutherans began to insult his memory with the most opprobrious terms they could devise. In this attack upon the dead lion, Abraham Calovius distinguished himself, as he did in all the attempts to prevent union during half a century. Undeterred however by the outcry against Syncretism, the Landgrave of Hesse determined on another pacific conference to be held at Cassel, between Lutherans and Reformed only. On the side of the former, Peter Musæus, who had imbibed the sentiments of Calixtus, and John Heinrich, of Rintelen, were managers; on that of the latter, two Professors of Marburg, Curtius and Heinse. The Lutherans here evinced far more moderation than they had done at Thorn; and though no satisfactory result was attained, the disputants parted on good terms. In the first article, which respected the Lord's Supper, it is curious to observe how both parties endeavoured after an agreement to differ. They acquiesced in the assertion that the spiritual eating of our Lord's Flesh and Blood, which is the act of true faith, is necessary to salvation, and that without it the participation of that Sacrament can be of no avail; that the usual fraction of the Host was a useful and pious rite; that its shape was an indifferent matter. The point of difference was, that theologians of Rintelen affirmed, and those of Marburg denied, that the wicked as well as the good were really and truly partakers of our Lord's Body: they had, however, the complaisance to assure each other that this was an immaterial point. The other articles on which they could not agree, predestination, universal grace, the Passion of Christ suffered for all, final perseverance, and the like, were, according to their agreement, to be banished from the pulpit, and only to be treated in the schools with the greatest moderation and gentleness.

When the results of the conference became known, there was a general outcry throughout Lutheran Germany, against the doctors of Rintelen. They were accused of the grossest duplicity, of Syncretism in a degree as yet unknown, of being more Calixtine than Calixtus himself, of betraying the Lutheran faith for a mess of Calvinist pottage, and so forth. Musæus, in particular, was the especial object of attack; Hülsemann, indeed, could no longer assail him, as he had departed this life in the early part of the same year; but Strauch, Waller, and Calovius, as indefatigable for discord as ever Calixtus had been

peace, kept up the controversy. The University of Helmstädt remained true to its pacific principles; that of Jena

seconded it; nor was there wanting a like spirit among some of the divines at Königsberg. The Electors of Brandenburg, Frederic William, and Frederic, did what they could to allay the bitterness; but the controversy raged without diminution till the death of Calovius, in 1686, and the new disputes about the Pietists gradually extinguished it.

It is no part of our design to enter into the forced union between Protestants and Reformed, which has given rise to the so-called Evangelical Church of Prussia; nor to the cruel persecution which the rigid Lutherans suffered for refusing to enter into what they considered an unholy alliance. The history, however, would not be uninstructive, and would amply prove that, under the present House of Brandenburg, and in educated and enlightened Prussia,' Protestantism is just as intolerant, and would now be, if it dared, and may perhaps some day become, as sanguinary as ever.

It may seem strange that, in these attempts after a general union, the Eastern Church was left out of consideration; and this more particularly at Thorn, when some of the subjects and so many of the neighbours of the prince by whom that colloquy was appointed belonged to the Eastern faith. But it must be remembered that, in the latter half of the sixteenth century, the Lutherans and Calvinists had each made a desperate effort to obtain some recognition of their claims by Constantinople; and that the letter of Jeremiah, then Ecumenical Patriarch, had put a barrier in their way which no ingenuity could overleap. Further; only seven years before the Conference of Thorn, Cyril Lucar had been put to death for his Calvinistic leanings; while, in 1638, the Councils of Constantinople and Jassy had condemned his memory, and anathematised his teaching. The orthodox confession of Peter Mogila had not only been received throughout Russia, but had made a considerable sensation through all Europe.

It is certain, however, that the Lutherans did, notwithstanding all these repulses, look with longing eyes towards the East. A favourite subject of their academical theses was the supposed agreement of the Orientals with themselves, and discrepancy with Rome. A large collection of such pamphlets is now lying before us. Here, for example, is a Dissertatio inauguralis de Liturgiis Orientalibus in Doctrina de Sancta Eucharistia antiquæ ceritati evangelicæ contra novos Pontificiorum et Reformatorum errores suffragantibus: publice defensa a Johanne Andrea Gleichio.' Here again: Sacrificium Missa Pontificium Liturgiis Orientalibus ignotum esse publice demonstrat Gottlieb Ernestus Marti;' and here once more an Exercitatio Historico-Theologica de Ecclesia

Grecanica hodierna, Allatio opposita ab Elia Veielio.' But whatever such attempts meant, or whether they meant anything at all, they were manifestly useless after the Council of Bethlehem had, in 1673, anathematised the doctrines of Lutheranism and Calvinism.

From this brief account of the attempts, in the seventeenth century, to bring about a reconciliation between the various communities of professing Christians, two things may, perhaps, chiefly be learnt. The one is that, at the commencement of the Reformation, and for many years after, the most bigoted Protestant felt, equally with the staunchest Roman Catholic, that such a state of schism could not continue without sin. The three parties had each of course its own view as to the means by which a pacification was to be effected. But among none of them did there prevail the view now generally adopted by Protestant theologians, that such a state of things is not unpleasing to God, and may be beneficial to Christianity. This appears very strikingly if one contrasts the efforts of Dury, or Calixtus, or Grotius, or, in earlier times, Cassander, with those of such a body as the Evangelical Alliance in our own days. The latter actually seems to regard division in non-essentials as a component part of the general scheme of Christianity; which non-essentials embrace about nine-tenths of the dogmas which all sects, from the time of the Reformation downwards, have considered it necessary to believe or to reject.

But the more important consideration is this;-the utter impossibility of carrying out, and the utter folly of forming, any plan of reconciliation which begins with unity, and ends with truth; which, again to refer to Bishop Andrewes's words, sets Pax in terris before Gloria in excelsis. Whether such attempts were made, as at first, by endeavouring to hit on a form of words which might mean two opposite things, in fact, to approach Almighty God with a string of devotional puns,-or whether they were to be promoted by persuading all sects that, except what they already held in common, nothing at all was worth holding in common, both miserably and egregiously failed. Every one can now see how vain was the attempt of the early pacificators to unite those who disputed about the Holy Eucharist, by persuading them to receive our Lord's words, each in their own meaning. You,' they said to the Roman Catholics, may take This is My Body, in its natural 'signification. You,' to the Lutheran, may explain it to mean, My Body is present with this Bread, by way of consub'stantiation. You,' to the Zuinglian, may interpret it, This 'is not My Body in any sense whatever. You,' to the Carol

6

stadtian, may teach that our Lord, raising the bread in His hands, said, Take, eat; and then, pointing to Himself, added, This is My Body. Interpret the words, all of you, in your own ways; only join in receiving them as words; and in this manner we shall obtain the union which we all desire.'

And yet, this is the kind of pacification which men now-a-days seem anxious to bring about. That it failed under the Tenisons, and Burnets, and Patricks of 1689, is, we trust, a sufficient omen of its fortunes in our own day, when it is recommended by their successors, equal in station but inferior in every other character.

50

ART. II.-1. Of the Plurality of Worlds: An Essay. London: J. W. Parker.

2. More Worlds than One. By SIR DAVID BREWSTER. London: John Murray.

3. A Week's Conversation on the Plurality of Worlds. By M. FONTENELLE. London Printed for E. Curl, in the

:

Strand. 1728. [2d Edit.]

4. Conjectures concerning the Worlds in the Planets.

Written in Latin by Christianus Huygens. London: Printed for Timothy Childe, at the White Hart. 1698.

5. A Discovery of a New World, or a Discourse that 'tis probable there may be another Habitable World in the Moon. By JOHN WILKINS, Bishop of Chester. London: Printed for John Gillibrand, at the Golden Ball. 1684. [4th Edit.]

THIS is Ulysses! and indeed, also, it is surprisingly like him!' So, if we remember right, is the hero of the epic recognised. With scarce less certainty, and not less of amused and pleasant marvel, do we penetrate the thin disguise (it has a wonderfully Coan texture, even if it conceal no graceful form) under which the author of the Plurality of Worlds' affects to veil himself. There is something inexpressibly strange in the idiosyncrasies which unmistakeably mark an author. Perhaps it ought not to seem marvellous that a man should preserve his personal identity; but it is curious to observe how, with some men (and particularly with great men,) character-a xaрakтýp-is stamped on all they do, or say, or think, or write. So is it pre-eminently with our essayist. Whether he writes Of Induction,' or Of the Plurality of Worlds,' he is ever non impar sibi- as like as my fingers is to my fingers; though, with Protean versatility of genius, and inexhaustible resources of information, nihil ferè est quod non tetigit. Would that we could add, nihil quod tetigit, non ornarit! Ever solid, he is not less seldom cumbrous. Ever weighty, he is rarely original or profound. When he condescends to the playful, we are more reminded of that grotesque fancy of the imagination, an elephant in love, or of the clumsy evolutions of a bear dancing in accompaniment to Pop goes the weasel, than of that singularly sweet and facile pleasantry' which we have admired in a string of writers, from Theophrastus down to Dickens.

Really the disguise assumed by the anonymous writer of this