less from his pulpit forbade his people to read the book, and, having collected all the copies that could be found in his diocese, had them burnt in the court-yard of his episcopal palace.

We must be careful not to blame Bossuet too much for the part he took in this dispute. To one who does not feel the force of its doctrines, or who is not willing to take them on the authority of another, Quietism seems to contradict many of the received dogmas of the Catholic Church. Bossuet, who, although he was a man of excellent religious character, had not reached the exalted state of mind in which Fénelon lived, would naturally, from his position as the acknowledged Defender of Catholicism, oppose every innovation of which he could not clearly see the advantage. And we must not be astonished at the readiness with which Fénelon submitted to a decision which he knew to be unjust. Love was the basis of his religion, and he had always declared, that to use force in matters of religious opinion was to act contrary to the laws of the mind, as well as to the claims of morals. Though others might adopt violent measures, he would not lend even a show of justice to their course by forcible resistance.

Fénelon died in 1715, at the age of sixty-five, leaving be hind him the memory of a character which has been the admiration of all creeds and parties. In the first fury of the French Revolution, when men seemed to be governed only by their own bad passions, they ravaged the tombs of the illustrious dead, and scattered to the winds of heaven the ashes of the great and good of former times. But they respected and wept over the dust of Fénelon. In the list of the world's reformers, among those who have fought for perfect civil and religious liberty, he deserves a high and honorable place.

The great commotion produced by the small and comparatively feeble band of the Quietists certainly shows that they touched the sore spot in society. All religious feeling in France was fast being undermined. Something was

needed to give a vital spirit to the inert mass. This same condition of religious affairs in England had called forth the Puritans, whose stern energy, by hastening the inevitable catastrophe, had mitigated its violence. In France the indefatigable exertions of Bossuet repressed the rising reformation. Thus, amelioration forcibly prevented, matters went on from bad to worse, till finally society and government, having lost their most reliable support, the religious and moral sentiment of the community, were obliterated for a time amidst the excesses of the Revolution.

During all this controversy, Madame Guyon had not been wanting to her duty. Confined first for eight months, and afterwards for four years, in the Bastille, she encouraged her friends by her patient and firm example while in prison, and by her letters and counsels while at liberty. From the time of her liberation in 1702 until her death, her life offers little that is remarkable. Her character still remained the same, but severe trials and unusual sufferings had effectually broken her constitution, so that she was unable to engage in those active works of benevolence which had formerly engaged her attention. Still her mind retained its original vigor, and many persons of high rank came even from England and Germany to be near her, and to profit by her instructions. She died at Blois in 1717. Not much is to be added to what has already been said of her character. Her writings indicate in some places the superficiality of her early education; a misfortune which she shared with other distinguished women of her time. But these very faults show her great intellectual power, without which she would hardly have been able to attract to such an extent the attention of those about her. What seems to have been most remarkable were her wonderful powers of conversation. In whatever company she found herself, such was her quickness of perception and natural flow of language, such her depth and originality of thought, that she could not fail at once to take a high position. Her imagination was fully equal to her other powers, but was always held under com

plete control. And so beautiful was her moral character, that we hardly know which to admire most, her mind or her heart, her intellectual powers or her native goodness. But the peculiar tenets she embraced had doubtless much influence in harmonizing and softening the various traits of her natural disposition. If Quietism had done nothing more, it is enough that it has formed, as examples for the world, two such characters as those of Fénelon and Madame Guyon.

E.

THE HOLY PLACES.

THIS article is not designed for those readers of the "Harvard" who are already well "posted" on the Holy Shrines. They are affectionately invited to skip it, and to pass on to the following.

Again, if there are any who have an innate horror of all facts, they are recommended to ignore this essay, and to avail themselves of the opportunity for absconding which I will shortly furnish them by coming to a full stop after the word am. Where are the Holy Places? What are they? — are questions that many persons have asked within the last two years without obtaining any satisfactory answer. The desire of displaying all the knowledge I possess on the subject, and of benefiting by said display some of the human family, are the only apologies I can offer for presuming to reply to these questions, no! not the only apologies; there is another, a wish to be able to pass through the College grounds among my fellow-students, without being waylaid and harassed by one of the editorial corps of this Magazine for a "paper." I silenced this disturber of my customary peace of mind for some time by many valid arguments, but now logic is powerless, and here I am.

Revenons à nos questions. The Holy Places, which for

us have no interest except in so far as they are connected with the present European war, are sites which the Greek and Latin Churches, separately or together, have selected as objects of religious pilgrimage in Palestine or the Holy Land. Twelve of these places I shall enumerate as the most important, though some of them, rendered famous only by the traditions of the Church, are comparatively unknown to all who do not worship at them, while others, which we regard with the greatest reverence, are neglected by the larger portion of the devotees. These are as follows: :

1. Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem (common to all sects). 2. Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth (Latin). 3. Church of Jacob's Well at Shechem (destroyed). 4. Church at Cana (Greek). 5. Church of St. Peter at Tiberias (Latin). 6. Church of the Presentation at Jerusalem (Mussulman). 7. Church of the Flagellation (Latin). 8. Grotto (not the garden) of Gethsemane (Latin). 9. Tomb of the Virgin (common). 10. Church of the Ascension (Mussulman). 11. Church of the Apostles (Mussulman). 12. Church of the Holy Sepulchre (common). This dispute of the Holy Places, which has lately been brought to the notice of the world by the comparatively recent demand of the French, that exclusive possession of the eight most remarkable localities in the Holy Land should be given to the Latin Christians, is nothing new; it is but the renewal of the "world's debate," the rupture of that "mournful and solitary silence," which, after the fall of Acre in 1291, "prevailed along the shore of Palestine." The history of this dispute is the history of the rise and progress of the Greek Church. It commenced with the quarrel of a few Greek and Latin monks for the key of the Convent of Bethlehem, and has never altogether ceased; for although the angry words of the Catholic and Greek pilgrims do not reach our ears, still none the less now, as of old, does the Greek jostle the Latin, and the Latin the Mussulman, by the Tomb of the Virgin, or at the birthplace of her Son. But it has not always been thus. The time was when the

Jews had exclusive control over the Holy Places, at least over the sites of the present temples, and each one regarded all the shrines as peculiarly his, and kindly welcomed to them every brother pilgrim. But this control was of short duration, for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Emperor Titus in 70 A. D. deprived the Jews of all authority, razed their temples to the ground, and dispersed their nation to all parts of the globe, and half a century later, Hadrian erected a statue or temple in honor of Venus upon the site now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to pollute the spot in which the early Christians of his day believed the body of their Lord to have been laid. However this may be, and whatever buildings the Jews and Pagans may have erected upon these hallowed localities, it is certain that the Holy Places have passed from the power of the Jew to the Gentile, and thence to that of the Christian, and that all the buildings and ruins now existing have been the work of Christians and Mohammedans since the third century of the present era. Probably the most ancient of them all is the nave of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, which was built by Helena, the mother of Constantine, towards the close of the third century. Many of the other churches also are of great antiquity, since they were erected in the time of Constantine; still, the subsequent repairs have almost completely changed the form and structure of the buildings from those which were reared by this Emperor. Admitting then, as we must, that the Holy Places once belonged to all Christians, Latin as well as Greek, we are naturally led to ask, what has ever given to the one or the other sect the right of exclusive control, and what gives them this right now. We have said that the history of this dispute of the Holy Places is the history of the rise and progress of the Greek Church, because, before the rise of this Church, all Christians worshipped together at these shrines in harmony; because, with the exception of the struggles with the Saracens and Turks, the only quarrel for dominion there has been between Greek and Latin; and VOL. II.

NO I.

4