made as would be found necessary (Erlangen Ed. 55, 223); also when he sought the Elector’s aid for the reform party at Naumburg at the election of a new bishop (17, 113).  In both instances he speaks of the Elector as a “Notbischof,” that is, an emergency bishop.  But his remarks must be carefully studied to get his exact meaning.  For he declares that the Elector as a magistrate is under no obligation to attend to these matters.  They are not state business.  But he is asked as a Christian to place himself at the head of a laudable and necessary movement, and to place his influence and ability at the disposition of the Master, just as a Christian laborer, craftsman, merchant, musician, painter, poet, author, consecrate their abilities to the Lord.  This means that the “emergency bishop” has not the right to issue commands in the Church, but he has the privilege and duty to serve.  The people needed a leader, and who was better qualified for that than their trusted prince?  Besides, the churches had to be protected in their secular and civil interests in those days.  The young Protestant faith would have been mercilessly extirpated by Rome, which was gathering the secular powers around her to fight her battles with material weapons against Protestants.  The Protestant princes would have betrayed a trust which citizens rightly repose in their government, if they had not taken steps to afford the Protestant churches in their domains every legal protection.  The protection of citizens in the exercise of their religious liberty is within the sphere of the civil magistrates.  The citizens can appeal to the government for such protection, and when the government in the interest of religious liberty represses elements that are hostile, it is not intolerant, but just.  If a religion, like that of the bomb-throwing anarchists and the vice-breeding Mormons, is forbidden to practise its faith in the land, that is not intolerance, but common equity.

One of the most pathetic spectacles which the student of medieval history has to contemplate is the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Christians.  “Few were the monarchs of Christendom,” says Prof.  Worman, “who rose above the barbarism of the Middle Ages.  By considerable pecuniary sacrifices only could the sons of Israel enjoy tolerance.  In Italy their lot had always been most severe.  Now and then a Roman pontiff would afford them his protection, but, as a rule, they have received only intolerance in that country.  Down even to the time of the deposition of Pius IX from the temporal power (1810) it has been the barbarous custom, on the last Saturday before the Carnival, to compel the Jews to proceed en masse to the capitol, and ask permission of the pontiff to reside in the city another year.  At the foot of the hill the petition was refused them, but, after much entreaty, they were granted the favor when they had reached the summit, and as their residence the Ghetto was assigned them.”