people are incapable of Belf-guidance, and that to give them the reins in civil affairs would imperil the stability of ecclesiastical control. To this reasoning it is often re- plied by advocates ofihe Koinan Catholic system that Protestantism opens a door to boundless tyranny by halv- ing the temporal power without any check from the ec- clesiastical. The siate, it is said, proves omnipotent : the civil magistrate is delivered from the wholesome dread
of ecclesiastical censure, and is left free to exercise all kiml-o! tyranny, without the powerful restraint to which he wa- subject under the mediffiVlll system. He may
even violate the rights of conscience \> i 1 1 1 impunity. The
State, it is sometimes -aid. when lelea-ed from its subor- dinate relation to the Church, i- a godless institution. It becomes, like the pagan states of nutiqnity, i '■-
the rovince of rclig a- in secular affair-, ami all irre-
■I"'<
i-l b
•d that
been guilty ol tyranny ; I hat. in many instances, they cannot be , leared of the' charge of
unwarrantably interfering with the rights ■•! c
and of nttcmptillg t<> govern the belief ami regulate the
forms of worship of their subjects in a manner destruc- tive of true liberty. The question is, whether these in- stant ■ - of iniegoverumeiit are the proper fruit ofthe Prot- estant spirit, or something at variance with it. and the- e-
fore an evil of a temporary ami exceptional character The imputation that the siate, a- constituted under Prot- estantism, is heathen depends on the false assumption that the ( hurch mid the priesthood, as established in the Roman Catholic sysl ire Identical, or bo nearl) Identi- cal that ore cann : sul Bis) without the other. I' i- as- sumed that when the supervision and control which the R i author-
ken off, nothing is left but an linchl i-tiau or an-
PROTESTANTS
693
PROTESTANTS
tichristian institution. The fact that a layman can be as good a Christian as a priest is overlooked. The Christiau laitv who make up a commonwealth, and the Christian magistrates who are set over them, are quite as able to discern and quite as likely to respect personal rights, and to net for the common weal, as if they were subject to an organized priesthood. Since the Reformation a layman has been the head of the English Church and State, and civil magistrates in England have borne a part in ecclesi- astical government. Without entering into the question of the righteousness or expediency of establishments, or broaching any of the controverted topics connected with tliis subject, we simply assert here that the civil govern- ment of England is not to be branded as unchristian or antichristian on account of this arrangement. As far as the administration of public affairs in that country has been characterized by justice and by a regard for the well- being of all orders of people, the government has been Christian — as truly Christian, to say the least, as if the su- premacy had been" virtually lodged with the pope, or with an aristocracy of priests.
"History verities the proposition that Protestantism is favorable to civil and religious freedom. The long and successful struggle for independence in the Netherlands, the conflict which established English liberty against the despotic influence of the house of Stuart, the growth and establishment of the Republic of the United' States, are events so intimately connected with Protestantism, and so dependent upon it, that we may point to them as mon- uments of the true spirit and tendency of the Reformed religion. That religious persecution has darkened the annals of the Protestant faith, and that the earliest lead- ers in the Reformation failed to recognise distinctly the principle of liberty of conscience, must be admitted. But Protestantism, as is claimed at the present day both by its friends and foes, was illogical, inconsistent with its own genius and principles, whenever it attempted to coerce conscience by punishing religious dissent with the sword and the fagot. Protestants illustrate the real character and tendency of their system by deploring whatever acts of religious persecution the predecessors who bore their name were guilty of, and by the open and sincere advo- cacy of religious liberty. Liberty of thought and freedom of speech and of the press, however restricted they may have been by Protestants in times past, it is the tendency of Protestantism to uphold."
See Schenkel, Das Wesen des Protestan/ismus ('2d ed. Schaffh. 1862); Frank, Gesck. der prot. Theol. (Leips. 1862-65, 2 vols.) ; Wylie, Hist, of Prof. ( Lond. 1874 sq.) ; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. iv. 131 sq. ; Hase, Ch. Hist. p. 437 sq.; Hagenbach, [list. ofDoctr. (see Index). (J. H. W.)
Protestants is a collective name for all genuine believers in evangelical Christianity— those who protest against the errors and renounce the communion of the Romish Church. It was originally applicable to the followers of Luther, but is now generally applied to all Christians not embraced in the Roman Catholic, Greek, or Oriental churches. See Reformation.
At first those who, in consequence of the religious in- novations of Luther and his consorts in Germany and Switzerland, stepped out of the Catholic community were designated by no general name; they were called Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, etc., etc. They re- ceived their collective name only in 1529 at the second Diet of Spires. The first Diet of Spires had been held in 1526. There it had been resolved, " Let even- state of the empire conduct its affairs in such a way as it thinks justifiable before God and the emperor." It was an edict of tolerance, with reservation of the imperial rights. The Roman Catholic party had been compelled to make concessions by the ambiguous attitude of the house of Wittelsbach. As soon, however, as the Bava- rian dukes embraced more unequivocally the Catholic cause, and had made a close alliance with the ecclesias- tical princes, the emperor Charles V, in order to satisfy the Romanists, resolved upon more energetic measures against the innovators. In the spring of 1527, the Ro- manists had already formed a secret league at Breslau, yet until the emperor was successful in Italy no overt measures could be thought of. After he had gained a complete victory in Italy, the policy of repression was boldly avowed, and in March, 1529, the second Diet of Spires was convoked for this purpose by the emperor. Ostensibly it was called to secure aid from the German princes against the Turks, and to devise the most effect- ual means by which to allay the religious disputes. Its real object, however, appeared when Ferdinand, arch-