Appeals against Human Injustice.

before the judgment-seat of God. It is a remarkable and authentic fact," continues Mr. Motley, "that the clergyman thus sum moned went home pensively from the place of execution, sickened immediately, and died upon the appointed day" (1575). George I. had been divorced from his -wife, Sophia Dorothea, of Zelle, in 1694, and she remained in confinement for thirty-two years in the castle of Ahlen. She died on Nov. 13, 1726. Before her death, she wrote a letter to George, denying the charges that had been made against her, and sol emnly citing him to appear before God's throne and there answer for his conduct towards her. In June, 1727, the English King arrived in Germany on his way to Han over, as usual, when this letter was thrown in at the coach window, and fell on his lap. He tore it open, and was so alarmed — it is said — that he fell into a convulsion and died. He certainly was attacked with apo plexy on the road, and was carried a corpse from his coach (June 11, 1727). We will conclude with a story that seems to be thoroughly authenticated. In the church of Barlt, in Dithmarschen, were two pastors. The one, Wattenbach, was headpreacher, and a man of very broad views. Along with him, in 1691, was a deacon named Hcesch, a severely Orthodox Lu theran. It seemed to the latter that the teach ing of his superior sapped the foundations of Christianity, and he preached vehemently against his Iatitudinarian opinions. The parishioners sympathized with the headpreacher; and as Hcesch could not stir them up into zeal for orthodoxy, he laid a formal complaint against Wattenbach before the provost Hahn of Meldorf, who at once took the matter up; and a charge of heretical teaching was brought against Wattenbach in 1695, before the consistory at Rendsburg. The synod admonished both parties to peace. In 1699 Wattenbach was again summoned before the consistory, and was questioned as to his belief. He then admitted that he had indeed entertained rationalistic views, but

181

declared that he had entirely abandoned them. The synod thereupon again dis missed the charge, and again exhorted to fraternal charity. In vain Hcesch and the provost Hahn, finding that the ecclesiastical authorities would not condemn and deprive Wattenbach, appealed to the King of Den mark and Duke of Holstein-Gluckstailt; and a government commission deposed Wat tenbach. This was made a grievance of by the ecclesiastical authorities, who, on the appeal of the accused, took the matter up, with the royal consent. Wattenbach was again acquitted, and Hcesch himself nar rowly escaped suspension. A royal decree, dated Oct. 26, 1700, confirmed the decision of the consistory. But this did not produce peace. The affair assumed another aspect, and Wattenbach was again accused before a royal court, not now of heresy, but of some thing connected with the quarrel, the particu lars of which are not recorded. Judgment was given on April 1, 1703, and sentence of expulsion from his cure was pronounced against Wattenbach at Gliickstadt. When the pastor heard this, he asked if there were any appeal possible. He was told that there was none. Then he solemnly said : "I, John Caspar Wattenbach, refer my cause to Heaven. I cite the provost Hahn to appear this day twelve weeks, the Chancellor who has given judgment to appear this day four teen weeks, and my prosecutor, the fiscal officer, at the same time, and all my wit nesses who can testify to my innocence to attend within a year and a day before the Divine tribunal." A death-like stillness fell on the court. It was broken at last by the Chancellor, who rebuked the accused, and condemned what he had done as a profane act, as he regarded it. Wattenbach replied that the sentence of the court destroyed his repute, cast him and his family into utter poverty, and deprived him and his of their home. Having no other redress, he was forced to make this appeal. He then thanked the judge for his well-meant rebuke, and withdrew. He returned to Barlt to clear his